David, you are arguing with a phantom strawman. I don't even like or watch the WNBA—I just hate bad math and unverified forum talking points.
We don't even disagree on the economic state of pool, and I am not the one who brought it up. You only tried to pivot the conversation back to pool because you realized your WNBA claims were completely dead. I simply wouldn't let you get away with your lies.
The Deflection Is Over:
Trying to hide behind the phrase "you just like the WNBA" is a weak attempt to dismiss hard financial data as emotional fandom. You got completely cornered on the facts, you tried to run away back to pool, and now you are making up fake motivations for why I corrected you.
Changing the subject won't hide the scoreboard. Just take the L and move on.
That
Bad math?
Sports is a business. The only reason anyone pays athletes is that they get some return on their investment. The bigger the return, the larger the payday for the participants. That's how business works.
Pool doesn't provide much return. Compared to other major sports leagues, neither does the WNBA, Though admittedly, the league has finally climbed into the black, at least for the time being.
That's not a strawman, it's simple fact.
It's worth noting that the purses in golf grew exponentially when Tiger Woods arrived on the scene. His enormous popularity drove viewership and advertising revenues which directly impacted prize money. The WNBA is in a similar situation right now. It'll be interesting to see if they take advantage of it or screw it up.
Pool? Not so much.
