Caitlin Clark will always be underpaid

TWO NUMBERS ring out when talking about Caitlin Clark. The first is 3,951. That is the number of points she scored in four years playing for the University of Iowa, more than any woman—or man—in the history of top-level college basketball. And then there is 76,535, which is the sum in dollars she will earn in her first year as a professional player in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA). Ms Clark’s salary is meagre for a leading player in a big sport. But then, despite being a transformational player who has already lifted the profile of her sport onto a higher plane, she is unlikely ever to be paid her worth.

Ms Clark is primarily lauded for her shooting from distance. Like Steph Curry in the (men’s) NBA, she takes shots that would drive coaches to distraction when attempted by normal players. But she tends to make them. She broke the women’s scoring record with a basket from ten feet (three metres) behind the three-point line. Because she can score from so many parts of the court, her very presence unsettles opposing defences. She is a superb passer, too. Her college coach, Lisa Bluder, noted that Ms Clark’s development was marked by an increasing willingness to set up her teammates for shots. Her average number of assists per match rose in every year of her college career.

Ms Clark’s wizardry raised the prominence of the tournaments in which she played. In 2024, for the first time, the final of the women’s college-basketball competition, in which Ms Clark and her teammates were beaten by South Carolina, attracted a bigger television audience (18.9m) than the men’s final (14.8m).

It will take a while, though, for Ms Clark’s arrival in the WNBA to change its economics. The WNBA’s rules and broadcasting deal were set before it contained a star of her ilk. Teams must operate under a salary cap that limits the league’s total outlay on player wages to around 10% of its revenue. For the NBA, the equivalent figure is 50%. And the revenue in the men’s game is much higher, too. The WNBA is thought to generate around $200m a year, just 2% of what the NBA pulls in. These factors help to explain why Ms Clark’s salary will be similar to that of a New York public-school teacher, whereas the first pick in last year’s NBA draft, Victor Wembanyama, takes home almost $14m.

The WNBA will change during Ms Clark’s career. Its broadcasting deal with ESPN, believed to be worth $60m a year, runs until the end of the 2025 season. The league’s commissioner, Cathy Engelbert, says she is aiming for “at least double” that next time. At present, the NBA and the WNBA negotiate a joint broadcast contract in which the latter is very much the add-on. But it has suggested that it could go out on its own if it thinks it can get better terms. Ms Engelbert’s projections are not unreasonable. Late last year the National Women’s Soccer League, home to the majority of America’s national side, signed a deal with four broadcasters worth $240m over four years—40 times more a year than its previous agreement.

A bigger deal will particularly benefit players who do not earn as much as Ms Clark from endorsements. They will also be helped by a new collective-bargaining agreement between the WNBA and the women’s players’ association, which should increase the players’ share of the league’s revenue. The NBA’s terms are more generous towards players because their union has spent decades fighting their corner. A combination of more TV money and Ms Clark’s presence will give the Women’s National Basketball Players Association more clout. The current agreement contains an opt-out clause that can be exercised at the end of next season.

Although the money will arrive, it will take several broadcast cycles for the WNBA to reach maturity. The big paydays for leading female basketball players, then, will come in the decades ahead, when Ms Clark’s playing days will be over. And so she must rely on sponsorship and image rights to make her fortune (she signed an eight-year, $28m shoe deal with Nike in April). In this regard she has something in common with Megan Rapinoe, an American soccer player. Forbes estimates that in the final year of her playing career, Ms Rapinoe’s on-field earnings were around $700,000, or approximately 10% of her income. Her successors for club and country will earn much more, but only because Ms Rapinoe’s fame raised the commercial potential of her sport. Ms Clark is doing the same for women’s basketball. Subsequent generations will owe her a debt.  ■