Collective Bargaining

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Basket

      The WNBA’s $20 Million Debate Over Charter Flights

      by

      Secret charter flights cost the Liberty a big fine, but players say they deserve them — and need them to be healthy. The league says they’re too expensive for now.The W.N.B.A. said charter flights were too expensive. The players said they did not have to be. The W.N.B.A. commissioner said she wanted them more than anyone. The players said that when they asked for them just two years ago, it felt like the answer was “a hard no.”Now, charter flights for players seem to be closer to a maybe. But that movement has come at a cost — a $500,000 fine for the Liberty, and a bruising of the league’s public image as fans, players and those attuned to drama question whether the W.N.B.A. is doing right by its players.And the cost for the flights? W.N.B.A. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said the league had estimated that it would cost more than $20 million for all 12 teams to fly by charter instead of commercial airlines for a full season, not accounting for the recent surge in fuel costs and variables such as routes. She has maintained that the league does not have enough revenue to cover the costs. Teams typically play more than 30 games, with half on the road.The players’ union said that it did not have a cost estimate, but that a change in travel accommodations was long overdue.“The league is young, but it’s old enough,” said Terri Jackson, the union’s executive director. “We can figure this out.”An article in Sports Illustrated on Tuesday revealed that the W.N.B.A. had fined the Liberty $500,000 in the fall for secretly using charter flights to travel to some games during the 2021 season. The collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union allows for premium economy seats, such as Comfort Plus from Delta, but charter flights are not allowed and their provision is considered an unfair competitive advantage. The league confirmed to The New York Times that the Liberty had been fined $500,000 for “multiple violations of league rules,” including taking eight charter flights toward the end of the regular season, sending players on a trip to Napa, Calif., and making unspecified “public comments about items that are collectively bargained.”The Liberty declined to comment. In October, Joe Tsai, who owns the Liberty with his wife, Clara Wu Tsai, tweeted about charter flights as an issue of “equity for women athletes.”The Liberty, owned by Joe Tsai, were fined $500,000 for eight charter flights and a trip to Napa, Calif., during the 2021 season.Corey Sipkin/Associated PressEngelbert said that she wanted players to have charter flights, but that until that was possible, the collective bargaining agreement had to be enforced and the fine “had to be big enough” to serve as a deterrent. She said Sports Illustrated’s report that the league had suggested a $1 million fine was “inaccurate,” but a spokesman for the magazine said it stood behind its reporting.The sentiment on social media this week has been largely against the league, including from players who are not on the Liberty.“We deserve nice things,” guard Lexie Brown, who won a championship with the Chicago Sky last season, posted on Twitter on Wednesday. A week earlier, Brown tweeted “the wnba” in response to a question about what was holding the league back.“What a joke,” Liberty guard Sabrina Ionescu posted on Twitter with three crying-laughing emojis, in response to a tweet about the Sports Illustrated article.Josh Hart, who plays for the Portland Trail Blazers of the N.B.A., tweeted “This is trash and @WNBA yall got to get better.”Part of the blowback came in response to the assertion by Sports Illustrated that in September, team owners did not support an “unofficial proposal” from the Liberty to make charter flights the default. According to the article, “the Liberty said they’d found a way to get it comped for everyone in the league for three years,” but some owners were worried the players would get used to the flights and want them permanently.But the league was quoted in the article as saying that the Liberty did not make a proposal for the owners to consider, and, in an interview with The Times, Engelbert said a formal proposal “never happened.” She added that if such a proposal were to come, “it would be supported.”“This is a good thing that we have ownership groups that really care, that are investing and are having really good debates,” she said.Whether or not the team owners want charters, the players do. And, in a twist from even five or 10 years ago, they appear to have broad public support as female athletes speak up for themselves and women’s sports get more media attention. For some, the push for charters is about offering accommodations befitting professional athletes — “nice things,” as Brown said. But Jackson said it was mainly about players’ health and safety.“Their bodies are their craft,” Jackson said. They need time to rest, leg room because they are tall and access to nutritious meals to perform at a high level, she said. All of that is compromised by spending hours in airports traveling commercially, sitting in cramped seats and not having proper snacks, she said.It was worse just a few years ago, before the 2020 collective bargaining agreement went into effect with an allotment for upgraded seats. Liz Cambage, a four-time All-Star who is listed at 6-foot-8, tweeted last month that she had paid “out of my own pocket” to upgrade her seats. And yet, even now, players can find themselves stuck in coach.Jackson said teams and the league had blamed overwhelmed staff members struggling to arrange travel and airlines that won’t allow large groups to book upgraded or exit row seats. Bringing the complaints to the league has helped — “Some teams got it together,” Jackson said — but she said the next step would be to file a grievance. The union did not do so last season, but upgraded travel will be a “point of emphasis” this coming season, she said. The league said it was “made aware” of complaints last season and will be auditing teams this season “to assure full compliance.”How soon players can upgrade to charter flights — without teams incurring fines — is unclear because of the players’ and league’s conflicting views on how to pay for them, and when. Engelbert said the $20 million-plus price tag for full-season charters makes it unlikely that a sponsor will pick up the tab, though the league is open to that and the Liberty and other teams are exploring options.“I don’t want to do things that jeopardize the financial health of the league,” she said, adding, “We are trying to build revenue and financial models that support better things for the players in the long term, but this is not something that we can afford today.”Engelbert would not disclose the W.N.B.A.’s revenue or if any teams were profitable, but she said the league was valued at $475 million and at more than $1 billion with the 12 teams included. Last month, the league announced that it had raised $75 million from a group of investors, including Condoleezza Rice and Joe and Clara Wu Tsai. The league had been owned in a 50-50 split with the N.B.A., which founded the W.N.B.A. in 1996. Now the ownership split is 42.1 percent each for the W.N.B.A. and N.B.A. and 15.8 percent for the new investors, who do not have voting rights, as first reported by Sports Illustrated and confirmed by The Times.W.N.B.A. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said she hoped the league would be able to have full-season charters eventually, but that was “not something that we can afford today.”Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesIn an interview with The Times last month, Engelbert said that the new money would not be used for charter flights but for marketing and upgrading the league’s digital products, such as its website and streaming service. The marketing efforts could generate additional revenue that might then enable the league to pay for flights in the future, she said.Jackson said even small changes to the flight rules now could have a big impact. When the union was negotiating travel accommodations for its contract, it didn’t start by asking for full-season charters, she said.“We didn’t go into negotiations to break the bank,” she said. “We care too much about this league. But we want to be supported. The players want to be supported and valued, not taken advantage of.”In addition to having sponsors cover some, if not all, of the cost of charters, Jackson said the union was open to discussing using charters for back-to-back games and the postseason — which Engelbert has permitted under special circumstances — and setting a maximum number of flights that teams could use per season and letting them decide when and whether to use them.“There are ways to do this,” Jackson said. “This is not an all-or-nothing.” More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Soccer

      The USWNT vs. U.S. Soccer: an Equal Pay Timeline

      by

      A six-year legal fight that saw victories on the field and losses in federal court ended with a multimillion-dollar settlement. Here’s how the sides got here.A settlement announced on Tuesday abruptly ended a six-year legal fight between dozens of members of the United States women’s national team and U.S. Soccer, an often bitter and contentious dispute that had placed some of the world’s most popular and high-profile athletes at the forefront of the fight for equal pay for women.What was the fight about? That was complicated from the start. A simple slogan — equal pay — faded into shades of gray upon deeper review of different contracts, different schedules and different values placed on women’s soccer by the sport’s global leadership and its U.S. federation.The timeline of the fight, which started with a wage discrimination complaint filed by five top players in March 2016, is much more easily explained. That single filing set off years of twists and turns, court arguments and public statements, hard feelings, hard-won victories and at least one humbling defeat for the athletes.Here’s a review of how we got from the initial complaint to this settlement, told through reporting by The New York Times.March 2016: The shot across the bow.Hope Solo at the Rio Olympics in 2016. An original complainant but long retired from the team, she continues to wage her own separate equal pay fight against U.S. Soccer.Eugenio Savio/Associated PressThe equal pay fight began with five star players and a claim of wage discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. agency that enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination.“The numbers speak for themselves,” said goalkeeper Hope Solo, one of the players who signed the complaint. Solo said the men’s players “get paid more to just show up than we get paid to win major championships.”Solo was joined in the complaint by the co-captains Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn, forward Alex Morgan and midfielder Megan Rapinoe. As The Times noted that day:In their complaint, the five players cited recent U.S. Soccer financial reports as proof that they have become the federation’s main economic engine even as, they said, they often earned only half as much — or less — than their male counterparts.At the same time, the players said, they exceeded revenue projections by as much as $16 million in 2015, when their World Cup triumph set television viewership records and a nine-game victory tour in packed stadiums produced record gate receipts and attendance figures.Wounded by the accusation they were treating the women’s players unfairly, U.S. Soccer — which had for years been a global leader in advancing women’s soccer — pushed back forcefully by citing figures that it said showed the men’s national team produced revenue and attendance about double that of the women’s team, and television ratings that were “a multiple” of what the women attracted. The federation accused the players and their lawyers of cherry-picking figures from an extraordinarily successful year for the women — they had won the World Cup in 2015 — and a U.S. Soccer spokesman called their math “inaccurate, misleading or both.”Offended by the suggestion that their games, and their successes, were worth less to the federation than those of the men’s team, the women and their teammates dug in for a fight.Few knew then how long it would last.Early 2017: An education and a new contract.Becky Sauerbrunn in a match against France in 2017.Robin Alam/Icon Sportswire, via Getty ImagesWithin a year, the players had taken control of their collective fate, firing their union chief and reorganizing their players’ association in ways that gave them a more active role in the issues affecting them.“It was always the plan,” Sauerbrunn, the team captain, said at the time, “to have a players’ association that listens to all the voices of its members and then can take that, and elevate that, and try to make that a reality.”Receiving a high-speed education in topics like labor law and public relations, the players voted one another onto negotiating teams and subcommittees and — between camps and full-time jobs as professional athletes — threw themselves into the task of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with U.S. Soccer.Uniting disparate teammates through text messages, overnight emails and anonymous player surveys, they determined priorities for a new contract and then made their cases personally in negotiating sessions with the federation and its lawyers.Within a few months, they had a deal.The agreement includes a sizable increase in base pay for the players — more than 30 percent, initially — and improved match bonuses that could double some of their incomes, to $200,000 to $300,000 in any given year, and even more in a year that includes a World Cup or Olympic campaign.The agreement largely sidestepped the broader equal pay fight that the women had made the cornerstone of their cause. The players were able to not only take pride in gains on salaries and bonuses, but also in having won control over some licensing and marketing rights that the union saw as an opening to test the team’s value on the open market.March 2019: Same fight, new forum.Labor peace did little to move the sides closer to an equal pay agreement, so in March 2019 the players withdrew their E.E.O.C. complaint and significantly raised the stakes by suing U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination.In their filing and a statement released by the team, the 28 players described “institutionalized gender discrimination” that they say has existed for years.The discrimination, the athletes said, affects not only their paychecks but also where they play and how often, how they train, the medical treatment and coaching they receive, and even how they travel to matches.The suit brought the fight to a new forum but also presented new hurdles. The players now not only had to prove that their team and the men’s national team did the same work, they also had to overcome questions about the differences in their pay structures and their negotiated collective bargaining agreements. And the C.B.A. they fought so hard to win suddenly left them without one bit of leverage: The players were forbidden by its terms to strike at least until it expired at the end of 2021.July 2019: Stadium chants and parade taunts.Fans cheered at a parade for the U.S. women’s team as they celebrated their World Cup victory in 2019.Damon Winter/The New York TimesIn the summer of 2019, a fight that had played out in public statements, social media hashtags and white T-shirts for more than three years moved to its biggest stage to date: the Women’s World Cup in France.By then, the U.S. national team’s stars were fighting not only their federation and others opposed to their equal pay claims, but also a sitting U.S. president, critics of their victory margins and those who didn’t appreciate their goal celebrations. When it lifted the trophy, though, all the team had was friends.The chant was faint at first, bubbling up from the northern stands inside the Stade de Lyon. Gradually it grew louder. Soon it was deafening.“Equal pay!” it went, over and over, until thousands were joining in, filling the stadium with noise. “Equal pay! Equal pay!”A few days later, fans repeated the chant as the U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro feted the team after its victory parade in New York.February 2020: The price of peace? $67 million.Among the voluminous filings before the women’s case was heard in federal court last year were two notable ones seeking to end it outright.In separate requests for summary judgment — the process in which each side claims its case is so strong that the judge should rule in its favor — U.S. Soccer and the players showed just how far apart the players and the federation remained not only in what they considered a fair outcome, but also in their basic concepts of what constituted equal pay, despite years of litigation, depositions and public relations campaigns.U.S. Soccer asked for a simple declaration that the players’ claims were without merit; simultaneously, the players finally put a price tag on what they considered a fair outcome:The federation sought to avoid a looming gender discrimination trial by asking the judge to dismiss the players’ claim. The women’s players also asked for a pretrial decision, but on far different terms: They are seeking almost $67 million — and potentially millions more — in back pay and damages.March 2020: The fight gets ugly.While Rapinoe had offered an olive branch at the victory parade, hinting at the idea of a settlement on points on which the two sides agreed, that hope was gone months later.The spark was a court filing in which U.S. Soccer, through its lawyers, argued that “indisputable science” proved that the players on its World Cup-winning women’s national team were inferior to men.Carlos Cordeiro resigned after U.S. Soccer argued through its lawyers that women’s players were inferior to their men’s counterparts.Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press“I know that we’re in a contentious fight,” Rapinoe said, “but that crossed a line completely.”U.S. Soccer fired its lawyers, but the damage was done. After unsuccessfully trying to manage the fallout, Cordeiro resigned. Talks of a settlement that might have headed off the march to federal court fell apart.April 2020: A crushing defeat for the players.The ruling in the lawsuit, when it came, was devastating for the players. The judge, R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, granted the federation’s motion for summary judgment. But he went further: He declared that the women’s core argument — that they had been paid less than players on the men’s national team — was factually wrong.In his ruling, the judge dismissed the players’ arguments that they were systematically underpaid by U.S. Soccer in comparison with the men’s national team. In fact, Klausner wrote, U.S. Soccer had substantiated its argument that the women’s team had actually earned more “on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis” than the men’s team during the years at issue in the lawsuit.The brutal irony, of course, was that in going to court against U.S. Soccer while they were at the peak of their powers, the women’s team had also picked the absolute worst time to line up a few years of their salaries against a few years of the men’s pay.Since February 2015, the agreed-upon start of the class-action period in the case, the women’s team had won two World Cup titles (and millions in bonus payments for those triumphs) and other major salary gains by negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. During the same period, the men’s team had plumbed new lows, with its failures serving to cripple the women’s case.By failing to qualify for the only men’s World Cup played during the class window, the men became ineligible for millions of dollars in performance bonuses of their own. Those payments would have swelled their paydays from U.S. Soccer far beyond what the women could ever have earned.A chance to salvage something from defeat?It was, a day later, hard to overstate the weight of the court decision. Judge Klausner had not only ruled against the players’ arguments; in effect, he had said they could never win. Yet even though U.S. Soccer’s victory in court was complete, and the players immediately announced their intention to appeal, the federation signaled just as quickly that it was still happy to discuss a way out.“We look forward to working with the women’s national team to chart a positive path forward to grow the game both here at home and around the world,” it said in the briefest of statements after the ruling.Cindy Parlow Cone, who replaced Cordeiro as president of U.S. Soccer, signaled a willingness to continue negotiations with the players.Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated PressThe federation’s words seemed carefully chosen. The seemingly endless battles with its most popular players have unquestionably damaged — and continue to damage — U.S. Soccer’s reputation. The dispute has even brought it into conflict with its own sponsors.But much has changed since the equal pay war began: U.S. Soccer has a new president, the former women’s player Cindy Cone, and a new chief executive, and neither of them could reasonably be tied to past missteps and injustices.For them, and for U.S. Soccer, rebuilding a functional relationship with the women’s team — the federation’s most valuable asset and a critical moneymaker in troubled economic times — should be a top priority. If that means eating some crow and cutting a check to signal an eagerness to move forward, it might even work.November 2021: A small victory, and a new start.In November of last year, U.S. Soccer and the players reached an agreement that resolved claims about unequal working conditions. The deal, a rare moment of détente in the yearslong fight, formalized an effort the federation had already begun to remove differences in areas like staffing, travel, hotel accommodations and venue choices related to men’s and women’s national team matches. But it was a necessary step for the players before they could appeal their larger defeat in federal court.For the players and their lawyers, the agreement brings opportunity: In settling their issues related to working conditions, the women’s stars cleared the way to appealing a judge’s decision in May that had rejected most of their equal pay claims. For the federation, removing one of the last unresolved items in the team’s wage-discrimination lawsuit allowed its new leadership team to rid itself of one more point of contention in a dispute they would prefer to see end, and to signal that U.S. Soccer is open to more accommodations.U.S. Soccer’s president, Cindy Parlow Cone, hailed the agreement, saying it signaled the federation’s efforts “to find a new way forward” with the women’s team and, hopefully, a way out of the rest of the litigation.“This settlement is good news for everyone,” Cone said, “and I believe will serve as a springboard for continued progress.”Tuesday: The fight ends at last.Tuesday’s settlement between the women’s players and U.S. Soccer includes $24 million in compensation for the athletes — largely back pay for dozens of players who were included once the plaintiffs were granted class-action status, and several million dollars in seed money for a fund that will be available to players for post-career plans and initiatives to grow the women’s game.It also includes a pledge from U.S. Soccer to equalize pay, appearance fees and match bonuses for the women’s and men’s national teams for all games, including the World Cup, in the teams’ next collective bargaining agreements.That last bit is the stage for the next fight: Both the men’s and women’s teams are playing under expired — and separate — agreements. Negotiations on new ones are ongoing. It’s not clear when a deal will be struck. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Basket

      As W.N.B.A. Players Call for Expansion, League Says Not Now

      by

      Many players and fans want bigger rosters and more teams, but the W.N.B.A. said it can’t “expand for expansion’s sake” without the money to support it.On Oct. 17, Lexie Brown became a W.N.B.A champion. She and the Chicago Sky defeated the Phoenix Mercury to win the first title in franchise history. Yet, four months prior, Brown was sitting at home wondering if she would ever find her way back into the league.Brown expected to play for the Minnesota Lynx during the 2021 season, but the Lynx waived her on April 17. Days later, she arrived in Chicago for training camp.“You have to deal with things like that,” Brown said. “Keep your mental, stay professional, stay ready for your number to be called.”The Sky cut Brown at the close of training camp in May, signed her again, cut her again, then signed her for the remainder of the season on June 14.“It’s been a very hard last few months for me personally,” Brown said in June, “but I think that Chicago is where I wanted to be. And even though it took a lot of nonsense for me to end up on Chicago, I’m really happy to be here.”The hassle can pay off — Brown did win a championship, after all — but it can take its toll.Each season, players are caught in a revolving door of contracts for 144 W.N.B.A. roster spots. Many people inside and outside the league believe now is the time to expand team rosters or teams in the league, or both. With only 12 teams and 12 roster spots on each team, the W.N.B.A. is harder to get in, and stay in, than the N.B.A., especially with most players’ contracts not being guaranteed. The relatively low salaries also push players to make tough choices about when and where to play.The W.N.B.A. is seen as the gold standard for women’s sports leagues because of the level of competition and many of the benefits players have gained through collective bargaining. But Nneka Ogwumike, the president of the players’ union, is among those striving for more.“I like where the league is now as far as people garnering attention around it,” said Ogwumike, a 10-year veteran forward for the Los Angeles Sparks. “I don’t like where it is with rosters, number of rosters, number of teams. And it’s not to say that, you know, it’s anyone’s fault. It’s just, like, we want to see growth.”‘We need more teams’Nneka Ogwumike, the president of the players’ union, helped secure higher salaries and other benefits during contract negotiations but also wants to see the W.N.B.A. add teams.Ashley Landis/Associated PressOgwumike led the players’ union as it reached a landmark collective bargaining agreement that took effect in the 2020 season and will last through 2027. The agreement introduced a team salary cap of $1.3 million, an increase of 30 percent. Many saw it as a step in the right direction regarding pay equity. But it also illuminated another concern.“The $300,000 increase in the salary cap was not significant,” said Cheryl Reeve, the head coach and general manager of the Minnesota Lynx. “It was highly lauded that we were doing better for the players. And, yeah, for the supermax players, there’s separation now.”The minimum player salary for 2020 increased by about $15,000, to $57,000, and the supermax for veterans rose by about $100,000, to $215,000. The figures increase each year.Teams that are looking to carry experienced players to make a deep playoff run now must play what Reeve called “salary cap gymnastics.”“I’m doing far more general managing during a season than you want to do, and that was brought on, in our case, by injuries,” Reeve said.The Lynx signed Layshia Clarendon to a contract for the remainder of the 2021 season on July 2 after three hardship contracts. The game of catch-and-release was necessary for Minnesota to remain within its team cap as the Lynx dealt with injuries and other player absences.Clarendon started the season with the Liberty, and had tweeted on the season’s eve, “My heart breaks for players getting cut (yes, it’s part of the business) but particularly since there are ZERO developmental opportunities.”Seven days later, after playing three minutes total in one game for the Liberty, Clarendon became such a player after being waived by the Liberty.That opened the door for the Lynx. To alleviate the burden caused by player injuries, the W.N.B.A. can grant hardship contracts for teams with fewer than 10 active players. Each replacement for an injured player requires a new, prorated contract from the salary cap. Teams often must choose between cutting injured players to free roster spots or keeping them and competing with fewer active players.Terri Jackson, the executive director of the players’ union, said the union had “made our position known” about adding injured reserve spots and expanding rosters during the last round of contract negotiations, but could not agree on terms.Ogwumike said the players wanted to create a more “robust league.”“I think the ideas are there,” she said, adding, “but, most certainly, we need more teams.”‘Not enough for me to survive on’Diana Taurasi sat out the 2015 W.N.B.A. season to rest after playing for a Russian team, UMMC Ekaterinburg, which paid her $1.5 million.James Hill for The New York TimesTo that end, some within the W.N.B.A believe a developmental league is a logical evolution.The N.B.A.’s G League is a proving ground for unsigned players and also a way for developing players signed to N.B.A. teams to get playing time. Each N.B.A. team can have up to two players on two-way contracts who split time between both leagues. Teams can also call up other G League players on short-term contracts as needed if they have the roster space.Jacki Gemelos, a Liberty assistant coach and former W.N.B.A. journeywoman, said “an extra two roster spots would be huge.”“I would have been that 13th, 14th roster spot player that maybe is not necessarily good enough to make that 12 but a good culture piece,” Gemelos said, adding that the spots could be for “a specialty player, like a knockout shooter or, a really, really tall big player if you need it for certain games or even just for injury purposes.”In her brief W.N.B.A. career, Gemelos played 35 games for three franchises. For players who don’t catch on in the W.N.B.A. or who hardly see the court, there have long been few avenues to get more playing time without going overseas. A new domestic league, Athletes Unlimited, which will begin its five-week season this month, is now an option. But for most players, international leagues are their best opportunity to play, and to get paid.Even most of the highest-paid W.N.B.A. players go abroad to compete for European clubs and national teams during the off-season, and sometimes instead of playing in the W.N.B.A.Minnesota’s Napheesa Collier is one of many players who play for international teams during the W.N.B.A.’s offseason to make additional money. She played in France last year.David Joles/Star Tribune, via Associated Press“If I’m not making that much in the league, if it’s not enough for me to survive on during the year, I’m going overseas and having the summer off,” Lynx forward Napheesa Collier said on the “Tea With A & Phee” podcast she hosts with Las Vegas Aces forward A’ja Wilson.As a result, many overseas players arrive late for W.N.B.A. training camp, leave at midseason or miss the season entirely, especially in Olympic years. In the 2021 season alone, 55 players arrived late to W.N.B.A. training camp, and about a dozen players missed their home opener, according to The Hartford Courant. In the future, this will cost players 1 percent of their salary for each day they are late and full camp pay for those missing all of camp. The league wants players to stay in the United States, to minimize disruptions to the W.N.B.A. season and to reduce injury risk, but for some that is a difficult decision.A top-tier player can earn $500,000 to $1.5 million for playing overseas. Diana Taurasi sat out the 2015 season after winning a championship with the Phoenix Mercury in 2014. “The year-round nature of women’s basketball takes its toll, and the financial opportunity with my team in Russia would have been irresponsible to turn down,” Taurasi wrote in a letter to fans.Taurasi’s Russian team, UMMC Ekaterinburg, paid her W.N.B.A. salary, $107,000, according to ESPN, plus her $1.5 million overseas salary to sit out the six-month 2015 W.N.B.A. season.In 2021, Taurasi led the Mercury to the W.N.B.A finals despite an injured ankle, for a max salary of $221,450.‘Don’t expand just for expansion’s sake’Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said that the league would expand “down the road” but that it didn’t make business sense right now.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressReeve, the Lynx coach and general manager, said she preferred franchise expansion over roster expansion, especially since the answer, either way, is more money.“We need a greater commitment as a whole from the N.B.A. and the N.B.A. owners,” she said. “We need a greater commitment financially. We need greater investment. This league has been far too long about, you know, the revenues and expenses matching, don’t lose one dollar. And that’s not how you grow a league.”When asked for a response to Reeve’s comment, W.N.B.A. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said: “I disagree with that. I have a track record of building businesses and growing businesses, and that’s what we’re doing here.”Engelbert said she was proud that the W.N.B.A. is the longest-standing women’s domestic professional league (among team sports) and of the financial commitment of the N.B.A., including having the W.N.B.A. as part of the brand identity.“Quite frankly, I don’t think that we could be around if the N.B.A. hadn’t been so supportive over the years,” Engelbert said.The N.B.A. owns 50 percent of the W.N.B.A., and five N.B.A. owners — of Phoenix, Brooklyn, Indiana, Minnesota and Washington — also own a W.N.B.A. team outright. Engelbert declined to comment on the operating budget for the W.N.B.A.When asked about providing more support, an N.B.A. spokesman, Mike Bass, said in an email: “The N.B.A. has provided enormous financial support to sustain the operation of the W.N.B.A. for the past 25 years, and our commitment has never wavered. We’ve seen exciting growth for the league under Cathy’s direction and are confident in the ability of league, team, and player leadership to continue that growth.”Engelbert said she also knows there are “inequities in the system” regarding viewership for women’s sports leagues.“All signs and symbols point to league growth, but we’re not even close to having the economic model the players deserve,” Engelbert said.Since becoming commissioner in July 2019, Engelbert has focused on economics and the experiences of players and fans. She has brought on more investors, such as Amazon as the sponsor of an in-season tournament with a prize pool of $500,000 for the two finalists. While that has increased player compensation opportunities, as has a provision for marketing deals, it does not address the underlying concerns about limited roster spots and better pay for players overall.Engelbert said expanding the league is “part of a transitional plan,” but not now.“If you want to broaden your exposure, probably need to be more than 12 cities in a country with 330 million people,” Engelbert said. “We’re going to absolutely expand down the road, but we don’t just expand for expansion’s sake until we get the economic model further along.”Ogwumike hopes more financial commitments from sponsors will lead to the players getting what they want — bigger rosters and higher salaries — to keep the most prominent players in the W.N.B.A.“These last two drafts have shown there’s a league sitting at home, and so we have to do something about that,” Ogwumike said, referring to the number of talented players who are not drafted. “I think that it’s really just the onus is on ownership, investment, people wanting to pump more into women’s sports. We have players that are ready to be a part of this league.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Basket

      McCollum on Simmons Trade Rumors, Vaccines and Blazers Firing

      by

      Portland guard CJ McCollum is facing challenges both personal and professional in his first year as president of the players’ union. “It’s the life I chose,” he said.Portland Trail Blazers guard CJ McCollum has been interested in the business machinations of the N.B.A. since early in his career. He was a team representative and vice president in the players’ union, the National Basketball Players Association, before he was elected to succeed Chris Paul as its president this year.The job pays nothing. It adds phone calls and video conferences to his already busy schedule with his day job. His wife is due to deliver their first child any day now. He has a fledgling wine business.Why would McCollum want to take this on?“I’m ready for the next step, the next evolution of myself,” he said in a recent phone interview. “And that’s being more mature, having more responsibility, but also figuring out ways to help more people. Figuring out ways to provide leadership, counsel, guidance.”Since he started, more challenges have faced him and the Trail Blazers. McCollum, who is in his ninth season playing in Portland, has been the subject of trade rumors. As the team struggled on the court in recent weeks, its then president and general manager, Neil Olshey, was fired for improper workplace conduct. And McCollum is now sidelined as he recovers from a partially collapsed lung.On top of that, the union is navigating the coronavirus pandemic, with McCollum — who has said he doesn’t allow unvaccinated people into his home — and the league encouraging vaccines. The players do not have a vaccine mandate, but McCollum said, “We were at 98, we might even be around 99 percent vaccinated right now, which is a big deal.”He’s sought advice from Paul, other veteran players and lawyers and executives who work for the union. He’s learning to advocate for players while building relationships with teams and the league office. The next collective bargaining agreement will be negotiated during his term, and he’d like to help players with financial literacy.He recently spoke with The New York Times about being the players’ union president during a pandemic, how he handles trade rumors and his relationship with Olshey.This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.Have you had to explain to others why the extra coronavirus testing is a good thing? [The league and union agreed to require additional testing, even for vaccinated players, after Thanksgiving, which has coincided with an uptick in positive tests.]I think when we explain to people the importance of knowing — there’s a lot of things that go under the radar in terms of being positive, but being asymptomatic. So I think testing around the holidays when people are flying or traveling, families are coming in from out of town, you’re gathering, you’re more exposed. It just makes sense and the only bad thing that can come from it is finding out that you are positive. But the good news is you’re finding out early and you can save and not expose some of your friends and family.As training camps opened, there was a lot of attention on the small number of unvaccinated players. Did that annoy you?Yeah, it did. I feel like we were targeted. Obviously, people look up to us. We play a sport for a living. It’s entertainment. People looked at us as the bar. In reality, we are kind of the bar: We got 98 percent of our league volunteered to be vaccinated, whereas the public was 55 percent or 60 percent at that point. No one was talking about corporate America going through the same problem, no one was talking about how there were health care workers going through the same issues. It was us in the spotlight, and I thought it was unfair because we were doing such a great job of educating our players.There was a lot of conversation about vaccine hesitancy in the Black community as being a problem for the N.B.A. How did you view that?There was hesitancy, but I think there’s hesitancy from everyone. We wanted to know more, we wanted more data. Understanding historically Blacks and African Americans have been taken advantage of, especially in similar circumstances and situations. Historically, we’ve been used almost as guinea pigs at times for experimental medicine. There was caution, there was pause, but for good reason.I think as we’ve continued to educate ourselves and ask the right questions from experts, we’ve learned that there was a shift.As union president, you have to think about the welfare of other players, but some of their situations impact you too. I’m thinking about Ben Simmons, who hasn’t played this year and how your name gets mentioned in trade rumors with him. How do you process your dual role in that?The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 5The Omicron variant. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Basket

      What the Ben Simmons Standoff Means for the Sixers and the N.B.A.

      by

      Simmons is the latest N.B.A. star to ask for a trade then try to force his way off a team, but Philadelphia is holding firm so far.Over the summer, Philadelphia 76ers guard Ben Simmons requested a trade, initiating a standoff that has dragged into the regular season.The organization fined Simmons repeatedly for missing practices, meetings and preseason games, according to ESPN. Simmons did not report to the team until near the end of the preseason and was suspended for the regular-season opener for conduct detrimental to the team. Simmons likely will not play for the 76ers again for a long while, if ever. Philadelphia hosts the Nets on Friday.In response to a report from The Athletic on Friday that Simmons had said he was mentally unprepared to play, 76ers forward Tobias Harris wrote in a tweet: “And we’ll respect his privacy and space during this time. When he’s ready, we will embrace our brother with love and handle our business on the court. That’s it, that’s all.”Here’s how the situation evolved, where it stands and what it could mean for the N.B.A.Here’s what you need to know:Why is Simmons so unhappy in Philadelphia?What is Daryl Morey’s trade history?How does Simmons fit into the larger theme of player empowerment in the N.B.A.?Could N.B.A. Commissioner Adam Silver intervene at some point?What does the absence of Simmons mean for the rest of the Eastern Conference?What are the larger implications of Simmons’s actions?Why is Simmons so unhappy in Philadelphia?Technically, we don’t know. Simmons hasn’t said anything publicly. Much of this has played out through anonymous reports in the media. There have been some signals from Simmons’s Instagram page, such as when he liked a post detailing how much the Sixers could fine him for missing games and practices.The tension between Simmons and the Sixers has been festering for years, despite Simmons’s signing an extension in 2019. Now in his sixth season, he hasn’t really changed much as a player (he missed his first season with a foot injury). He is one of the most versatile playmakers in the N.B.A. and an excellent defender, but he has not developed a jump shot, which has made him a liability on the offensive end in multiple playoff runs. He’s also a career 59.7 percent free-throw shooter, which means teams often foul him on purpose at the end of games.In December 2019, Brett Brown, the former 76ers coach, publicly begged Simmons to take more 3s. One month later, Brown told reporters that he had “failed” in his mission.Even though Doc Rivers replaced Brown before last season, there hasn’t been much difference. Rivers was Simmons’s steadfast defender last year, but after the Atlanta Hawks eliminated the Sixers in the Eastern Conference semifinals, Rivers told reporters that he didn’t know whether Simmons could be a point guard for a championship team. It’s highly unusual to see a coach publicly criticize his own player minutes after a tough playoff loss.On Thursday, Daryl Morey, the team’s president of basketball operations, said on a local Philadelphia radio station: “Doc Rivers defended Ben Simmons more than any human on Earth, maybe ever. If someone wants to interpret one comment out of 10,000, I don’t think that’s very fair to the organization or Doc Rivers.”He added, “To me, it’s all some sort of like, you know, pretext to do something larger by his agent.”What is Daryl Morey’s trade history?Morey recognizes the value of an All-Star, even if that player’s game is limited. He has never been shy about wheeling and dealing, typically swings big and often ends up on the right side of trades.Morey made an eye-popping 70-plus trades during his 13 seasons as general manager of the Houston Rockets and has already made several deals since joining Philadelphia in 2020. His most noteworthy deal helped shape the modern N.B.A.: Morey plucked James Harden from his reserve role with the Oklahoma City Thunder in 2012 for Jeremy Lamb, Kevin Martin and draft picks. In Houston, Harden became the focal point of an offensive scheme that centered 3-pointers and high-percentage shots like layups and dunks.Two of Morey’s most memorable other deals involved Chris Paul. Morey landed Paul in Houston in 2017 for a package that sent several players, including Patrick Beverley, Montrezl Harrell and Lou Williams to the Clippers. In 2019, Morey acquired Russell Westbrook for Paul and a package of draft picks.How does Simmons fit into the larger theme of player empowerment in the N.B.A.?In recent years, some prominent players have leveraged their looming free agency to force trades to where they want to go. Anthony Davis, for example, got to the Los Angeles Lakers from the New Orleans Pelicans this way.What’s happening with Simmons, though, is unprecedented because of how much time is left on his contract. Simmons is not a free agent until after the 2024-25 season. Even when James Harden, then with the Houston Rockets, forced his way to the Nets, he had just two years left on his deal. In theory, Simmons shouldn’t have much leverage. The closest comparison is Paul George, who had just signed an extension in Oklahoma City before engineering a trade to team up in Los Angeles with Kawhi Leonard. The difference is that the Thunder quickly acquiesced to George’s request, while the Sixers have been unwilling to do so with Simmons.“Player empowerment” is also difficult to gauge in this situation because it’s not clear what Simmons’s value is. While he has made multiple All-Star teams and is one of the best defensive players in the N.B.A., his unwillingness to shoot and his shrinking in playoff games have hurt his trade value. At least so far, teams are unwilling to throw in the kitchen sink and more to obtain Simmons. So is it player empowerment if the player is currently not empowered?Could N.B.A. Commissioner Adam Silver intervene at some point?The league has rarely publicly intervened in standoffs between a player and a team, and it is uncertain what, if anything, Silver can do to move the situation along under the N.B.A.’s collective bargaining agreement.The N.B.A. stepped in when the New Orleans Pelicans attempted to bench Anthony Davis in 2019 following his agent’s public request for a trade. Davis and Simmons share the same agent in Rich Paul, but the two scenarios are otherwise vastly different. Paul made the trade request for Davis in early 2019 with Davis set to become a free agent in the summer of 2020. The N.B.A. fined Davis $50,000 for the public trade request. Simmons has four years and $147 million left on his contract.“It’s something you never like to see as a league,” Silver recently told ESPN of Philadelphia’s situation.What does the absence of Simmons mean for the rest of the Eastern Conference?We’ve spent a few seasons watching The Process come tantalizingly close to fruition.Remember, Simmons and the 76ers were only a cruel bounce away from qualifying for the Eastern Conference finals in 2019 when they were eliminated in the semifinals by Kawhi Leonard’s soft touch on a buzzer beater for the Toronto Raptors in Game 7.An engaged Simmons, the one who is a three-time All-Star, fantastic distributor and a disruptive force on defense, lifts Philadelphia to among the top of the Eastern Conference contenders.Philadelphia earned the Eastern Conference’s top seed last season with a record of 49-23, and Joel Embiid is talented enough to strike fear in any playoff opponent. But expect Philadelphia to regress without Simmons or some type of a return in a trade for him and for teams like the Nets, Milwaukee Bucks and Miami Heat to finish atop the Eastern Conference standings.What are the larger implications of Simmons’s actions?Daryl Morey and Doc Rivers have said publicly that they want Simmons back and playing, though Morey is still trying to trade Simmons but said he doesn’t want role players in return.If the Sixers are successful in getting Simmons back on the court, then the dispute becomes a moot point. However, it would signal that teams might be less willing to give in to trade demands going forward.But if Simmons still doesn’t return, both sides will enter treacherous terrain. For Simmons, he likely will lose significant money during his athletic prime to fines and unpaid salary. Morey has said that this saga could drag on for the rest of Simmons’s contract. This would mean that the Sixers would spend Joel Embiid’s prime with a gaping hole in their roster that would limit their ceiling.As for the league, if Simmons becomes the latest star player, after James Harden, Anthony Davis and Paul George, to engineer his own path independent of the organization’s wishes, it could affect the new collective bargaining agreement, which could come into effect in 2024. League owners might want harsher penalties for players who try to force their way off teams. (Conversely, there likely would be significant pushback from the players’ union on this. After all, teams trade players all the time despite signing them to play for their particular franchise.) More