Will The WNBA Benefit From The "Caitlin Clark Effect?"

 

May 22, 2024

This year's NCAA women's March Madness tournament was the Caitlin Clark coronation story.  She rose to fame last year in the same tournament when her skills took the University of Iowa Hawkeyes to the final, where they lost to Louisiana State University (LSU).  That game had a seminal sporting event's trappings: two good teams, stars, and memorable moments. A notable one showed LSU star Angel Reese waiving her hand mockingly in front of Iowa's Caitlin Clark's face during Hawkeye's loss.  The spotlight shined bright on her this past college basketball season.  Can she elevate the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA), which has never captured the nation's interest in its history, to new heights? 

__________________________________

The lasting effect of last year's title game was that Caitlin Clark would have much more media pressure around her during her final college season in 2024.  As such, the hype train for her was through the roof, and she delivered by scoring baskets from long range that got the attention of ESPN's Sportscenter regularly.  Her popularity was greater than many men's college basketball players, and the ratings for this year's women's championship were higher than the men's title game.  

The hype train left the station last year and has been cruising since at a frenetic pace.  Once the women's tournament started this year, it was "all Caitlin, all the time."  Her performances throughout the tournament brought many people to her games and increased viewership on television.  She and the Hawkeye women returned to the title game again in 2024, but this time they lost to a very talented University of South Carolina Gamecocks team, led by former college and WNBA legend Dawn Staley.

Analysts at ESPN and other sports media were heralding a new era in women's basketball, and specifically, the WNBA.  Since its inception, the league has not been very popular, drawing sparse crowds and even lesser interest when the games were televised on ESPN and ABC.  Despite having great players over the years, none had been able to capture the nation's interest amongst basketball fans, including those of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Casual sports fans were an even harder group to show interest in, and some in the media stated the WNBA existed solely on the benevolence and financial support from the NBA.  To a large extent, that was true.  However, over the past few years, many corporations have provided much-needed sponsorship money, which has helped generate revenue for the women's league. I do feel that support was generally due to corporate alignment and financial benevolence with social justice movements after the death of George Floyd, and the WNBA benefited from that largesse. However it came to be, that financial help has seen the league increase its revenue, which is a good thing.

Ms. Clark's arrival on the scene the past two years has brought in sports fans to watch women's basketball, something that was a welcome sign for fans of the game.  College basketball, even for the women, had healthy crowds and good fan support, although college sports attendances in smaller towns without professional teams generally were good for all university-affiliated teams. 

For many years the players of the WNBA played in below-capacity arenas (including the cavernous homes of the NBA franchises).  Some teams had to finally move their games to smaller capacity arenas to give their teams some semblance of a 'home court advantage.' 

The intense media coverage of Ms. Clark's college games over the past two years, including those of the NCAA tournament, saw television audiences increase by the millions when the Iowa Hawkeye games were shown.  This year, the NCAA women's final drew over 18.9 million viewers, more than 500,000 more than the men's final.  That had never happened before and gave hope to those whose fervent support of the ladies could be sustained for the long term.  Additionally, the recent WNBA draft had over 2 million viewers, which was also a record. One could ask, is this the "Caitlin Cark effect", or does the WNBA have genuine momentum?

While fans of the women's game promote the idea that once people have "seen" their performances, attendance and viewership would go up, I feel otherwise.  Men and women are built differently; men have more muscle mass, in addition to a higher center of gravity that allows them to jump higher (dunking comes to mind), while proponents of the ladies' game said the WBA plays the game the way it is supposed to, with an emphasis on fundamentals (passing and ball movement).

Overall, the NBA is still more popular (at least over the last 40 years) and even though social justice causes have turned off some fans in the past few years, the product tends to be better than the WNBA overall. Major networks are still willing to spend considerable money to carry NBA games. Despite this, Caitlin Clark could change the league's fortunes for the better.  Already, due to pressure from media circles after Ms. Clark was seen wandering through an airport with minimal security, the WNBA has decided to use charter flights for the remainder of the FY24 season.  Despite WNBA players in the past advocating for these flights, the league avoided mandating them because of their cost, and many teams in the league have owners for whom those costs would be prohibitive for their balance sheets.  I believe the WNBA Commissioner, Cathey Englebert, changed course because she felt with the new scrutiny, and companies wanting to be associated with Ms. Clark and the league,  the potential revenue increase, along with a better media rights deal within the next year or so, the cost of chartering would be recouped.

Time will tell if Caitlin Clark can put the WNBA on her back and take it to new and profitable heights. The lack of interest and popularity was never really about sexism and misogyny as feminists and women's sports advocates claim. If you run a business, and you want the general public to care about your product, you have to give people a reason to care.  That is the job of the players and the league, not the average fan.  There has to be an interest or focus on a player (or several for that matter) for fans to spend their hard-earned money going to games or devoting time to watching their product on television. That is where the WNBA fails.  I assume the WNBA league office believes since it is a women's professional basketball league, it should generate the same revenue, interest, and fan support as the NBA, simply because they do the same thing.  That is absolute nonsense, and is extremely arrogant, with a large dose of entitlement to boot.

The WNBA product requires a lot of improvement, and should not be compared with the NBA, ever. They are totally different games for a reason (as mentioned above) and fans of the women's league must focus on different marketing strategies.  With Clark, the league was gifted a once-in-a-lifetime talent, who consistently delivered in competitive collegiate environments.  Fans of the WNBA will hope she can do the same in a professional environment, but the burden cannot solely be on her, which would be unfair.  The league needs to find and promote colorful personalities, healthy conflict, and dramatic rivalries, much as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson's 'Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers' battles did for the birth of the modern NBA in the 1980s. This momentum in turn led to its evolution and zenith with Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls in the 1990s. Will Caitlin Clark be the WNBA's Jordan? No, but she doesn't need to be.  What she must do, is usher a modern birth of the league, a catalyst that helps the league sustain progress to one day have a healthy business where the players get paid their market value, and fans continue to show up and spend their money.  

If she can do that, that is a great legacy to leave to future players in the WNBA.