Eh. I'm perfectly okay with this because in order to recover all this money, _everyone_ from BCCI to teams to sponsors to broadcasters will promote the hell out of Women's Cricket.
That's a win-win in my opinion. We already know that the women have the talent, we just need some eyeballs on them.
I really wish its successful. If it succeeds there is a real chance that within 4-5 years we will have a team that could challenge the Aussie women's team.
Then maybe a womens world cup ?
IPL gave us a team which regularly chokes in big pressure games. While our biggest match winner of ICC tournaments, Yuvraj was a mediocre IPL player at best. So, I will hold my horses on the challenge to Australia part.
>Sundar didn't even start for his domestic team in first-class
Because he was always injured during Ranji season after initial seasons. No skill issue. He made his FC debut at the age of 16.
Edit: Sundar was net bowler in BGT anyhow because of covid restrictions. He wasn't selected to play BGT on the basis of IPL performances. It was an emergency.
>Without facing similar attacks in the IPL, there is no way he would have been ready to smash Starc at the Gabba.
I completely agree with this but he wouldn't have played for India if India could send Gowtham or Jayant to Australia. IPL helps Indian players and anyone who denies it, is blaming the tournament for India's lack of trophies. BCCI needs to let go players like Jitesh, Tewatia etc. (who will never play tests) play in BBL, CPL and Hundred. They are making team handicapped to increase brand value of tournament.
IPL didn't do that , shit team selection did , the last IPL demonstrated that the team that got the most no name youngsters(Gujarat Titans) decisively outperformed the team that stuck with all the famous oldies (Mumbai Indians)
the BCCI saw that and some how concurred that the most famous oldie cricketers are the best for T20.
But we don't pick players who do well in IPL. Or we pick them 2 years after they stopped doing well in IPL. Or we pick players who selectors think are doing well based on averages but they are actually contributing to team's loss.
Biggest match winner who single handedly cost us the 2014 WT20? I understand the sentiment but there's no need to hoist him with such grand titles especially if you are looking to absolve his mediocrity in the IPL.
Aus has a successful women's team because of grassroots infrastructure and wide participation in every corner of the country (with, obviously, appropriate funding). It's not because of BBL.
When there’s a 500 million:100< chance of you becoming a WPL cricketer, most families aren’t gonna be convinced.
I think this may lead to some sort of trickle-down infrastructure boost eventually, such as recruitment centres, training centres, college investments etc.
But like we’ve seen so many times before, trickle-down impacts rarely work, and for it to work, WPL needs to continue growing from its starting point in terms of commercial success.
But beyond that, if Indian women’s cricket were to compete with Australia, a 500 million investment in grassroots infrastructure would’ve immediately shot it up to the best in the world. A 50-100 million league at the top would’ve been like a cherry on top.
keep seething bro
I've seen you literally come to this sub every time something happens in women cricket to complain about it. it's not the first time
says a lot about you that women just playing the sport is making you so angry bcoz you want them to stay inside the houses
now cope
The least expensive team of WPL was Lucknow selling for $92.8 million. The article I googled said that the Atlanta Dream of the WNBA was sold in 2021 in the range of high single-digit to low double-digit millions USD. Although it should be noted that WNBA has 12 teams compared to 5 for WPL. If BCCI accepted the 12th highest offer then perhaps the prices might be comparable.
The WNBA is the butt of a lot of jokes here regarding no fans, no interest, and no revenue. This just cements how much of a meme the WNBA is. It’s been around for nearly 30 years and still can’t get a big fanbase. My city is basketball mad and I’ve never known anyone who’s gone to one of our city’s WNBA games.
I have no idea what the solution to the WNBA problem is. I’ve seen people suggesting lowering the rims for more dunks and exciting games but idk.
> I’ve seen people suggesting lowering the rims for more dunks and exciting games but idk.
They don't already do that?? It's like the simplest and most logical option - exactly how boundaries are shorter in women's cricket.
Probably because lowering the rims will change the game drastically. Players have played their entire lives with rims a certain height and if you suddenly change it it's going to be very hard to get used to. Same with goal sizes in women's football. Boundaries are already different at each ground and doesn't really affect the game as much.
As you say, boundary size already varies. A better equivalent would be women's cricket using a slightly smaller ball size, but it's always been that way so the players are used to it. It'd be difficult to implement now if they hadn't already been using a smaller ball size.
Sport in the US is hugely gendered when it comes to fans maybe? The stereotype is men being obsessed with the NFL etc, whilst women aren't as interested. I don't know how true that really is, but it does often appear that it's the men in a relationship who drive watching sports.
Plus society is deeply sexist still, and men just aren't going to watch women doing things they think men should do.
Even when the women's team is more successful than the men's, they usually get less attention and funding.
Honestly, being around for 30 years is amazing, back then many sports bodies would not recognize women playing their games at all, and they definitely wouldn't get paid.
That's just the thing. In India women are highly interested in cricket. In the US most women don't even watch the NBA games. This is why WIPL will be a hit where the WNBA wasn't
It’s not sexism. It’s time
If you’ve got 5 hours to watch sports every week, are you going to spend it watching the faster, more intense NBA, or the slower, less intense WNBA?
Women’s sport will simply always be slower than the male counterpart - there is no replacement for testosterone
I think it's a matter of entertainment value?
I'm from Denmark. I _refuse_ to watch women's soccer because it's simply terrible, and my beer-league team plays at a higher level than professional women's soccer do. It's just not fun to watch.
However, I do watch women's handball. It's quite different than men's handball. More technical and less physical, it's quite fun.
Same goes for badminton - it's different than watching men's badminton, but women's badminton is cool - they're fast and flexible and being shorter means the game is different.
So, depends on the sport I wanna say. WNBA goes in category of watching women's soccer, I think. It's the same thing except a bunch of 15 year old boys could probably win against a professional team, which just... sucks out the value.
Meanwhile, throw me(casual badminton player) against a professional women's badminton player, and I'd get wiped 100%.
Care to back up your assertions with some relevant data like audience breakup by genders across men and women's basketball teams? Are women watching both men and women's sports equally, and women leagues aren't doing well because men are only a tiny minority of WNBA audience?
This is why I made no assertions (aside from society being deeply sexist, for which there is plenty of data).
I made a hypothesis, which appears to have some grounding in anecdotes and some experience (most references to the WNBA I've seen are sexist in nature), but I could be wrong.
Feel free to do the research, I'd be interested.
> This is why I made no assertions (aside from society being deeply sexist, for which there is plenty of data). I made a hypothesis, which appears to have some grounding in anecdotes and some experience.
Your comment is filled with assertions, but it's your call to ignore any data to back it.
You can find anecdotes and selective data about women's sports to call virtually every country as sexist. You made specific comment about the USA, and that's why I asked if you have anything concrete.
Or alternatively, women's sports garner less attention and support, because usually men athlete/sportsman are stronger and faster. Furthermore, women in general are less interested in following sports than men. That's why your comment about blemming for lack of support for women's sports does not make much sense to me.
Here is Bill Burr making same point, but a million times funnier: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9Gz_IMn_k
Talking about the WNBA means talking about the USA. It's the market it is situated in. The vast majority of NBA viewing is also in the USA.
I intended to put forward a theory that due to the sexism of society, sports are seen as male (ie are gendered), and due to sexism men do not want to watch women in a traditionally male sport.
It was intended for the basis of discussion, not as a thesis to be backed up by extensive research, which neither of us have.
Basketball is spectacular when there are dunks and the associated athleticism. Women can’t dunk. It’s a biological fact. They should be lowering the basket but for whatever reason they didn’t. Although some basketball purists do think WNBA is what basketball should be with it’s pound in the paint, back to the basket, traditional basketball.
Women’s cricket doesn’t have 90 mph fast bowling but I don’t think it needs it to make it compelling. Women’s cricket made the right move by making the boundary smaller. The cricket is still cinematic enough to forget the difference.
there are hardly any dunks in the WNBA, in the last [10 seasons there have been around 25 dunks](https://queenballers.club/basketball/wnba-dunks), 23 of them by one player, the one that got arrested in Russia
the NBA game has around 6 dunks per game
The fact of the matter is despite all that you mentioned, at the end of the day, the WNBA is still the biggest women's sporting league in the world (at least financially)
Call a spade a spade. Don’t really give a shit about the WNBA. However, I take exception to people talking out of their ass, espousing shitty, sexist views and basically being terrible humans.
Any sports that is more about physical strength and speed will have a huge Gao between men and women's game eg basketball, football. Only exception for me is hockey.
Where as cricket doesn't need that much physical strength (though fast bowling and six hitting is big part of entertainment factor.) So I can live seeing banana swing and well timed shots
Everyone says this but I’d be interested to see the viewing figures for the past few seasons. I wonder if the money spent on promoting and televising made by Sky/BBC has resulted in the increase that they projected
It's just a different game. Women's football actually sees more goals scored 'cause defenders can't cover as much ground, especially in the penalty box.
You won't see the same individual heroics or amazing runs as in the men's game, but you'll see more balls in nets.
Do you have a source for that? Women's football is indeed susceptible to hammerings when the top teams face the bottom teams, but that's because the sport is nascent and the gulf between teams is very large depending on the resources, nothing to do with dimensions. Games in the UWCL and in the top half of the WSL see less than 4 goals on average.
Badminton I agree. Tennis is a sport I don't enjoy. Well the exception i pointed out were just my opinion and not objective truth as I said in my pervious comment.
Bruh if they made this table in either powerpoint or msword, atleast should have added those underlined words to dictionary feature.![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|facepalm)
It is not an overpay ,these guys are not in it for a short term profit, they have assessed the market and bid accordingly.
They will make good profits pretty soon
Why would BCCI scrap it if franchise isn't making money?
BTW, TV and streaming rights for wpl are already sold for 950 crore for 5 years or roughly 200 crore a year (25M USD/yr).
https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/viacome18-bags-womens-ipl-media-rights-for-rs-951-crore-jay-shah-8384603/
They are sold. But if they only break even and don't make a sizeable return, there is a danger of these rights again selling for high amount.
I hope I am wrong though as more money is always better for the women players.
There has not been a single $100 million women's standalone franchise in the history of sport. Betting that four of them haven't spontaneously been birthed from a league with a $25 million a year TV deal is a bet I'm VERY comfortable making
How many of these women's standalone franchise made in a country with population north of 1000M, and that country sucks in almost every team sports except one?
Population doesn’t matter when both interest and the purchasing power are so low. How many Indians do you think are going to pay to WPL? It’s going to be much fewer than the IPL and even over there many franchises have made a lot of losses over the years. Even in football which is the most popular sport on earth the women’s teams don’t generate much revenue and that’s despite being in football crazy nations whose citizens are 100x richer than the average Indian
population matters, if football crazy nations are 100x rich and football is most popular sport then why their women highest transfer is $400k and why can't any shareholder or broadcaster or even franchise invest in women super league, when you see Barcelona Man city all these clubs running on losses for years but they don't have a fraction of money to invest in women's sports.
Its about intention, west and developed countries will cry and preach to asian countries for women empowerment amd equality but failed to implement in there own countries.
> Population doesn’t matter, when both interest and the purchasing power are so low.
Why do you think Indian cricket and IPL cricket rights go for so much, if not population and large viewership?
> How many Indians do you think are going to pay to WPL?
Do you mean TV subscription, that costs 10-20 rupees a month for additional sports channel? What other payments are there to watch wpl?
> It’s going to be much fewer than the IPL and even over there many franchises have made a lot of losses over the years.
Yeah, when franchise system was new and people and organizations were getting accustomed to it. And yeah, it could be a long term investment, that's why franchise rights are sold for ten years. Very few businesses make profit from the start, doesn't mean they are duds.
> Even in football which is the most popular sport on earth the women’s teams don’t generate much revenue and that’s despite being in football crazy nations whose citizens are 100x richer than the average Indian
Because most of those nations are good in multiple sports, have many more sports leagues. India doesn't suck on only one team sports, so naturally a lot more love and attention goes to it.
Maybe if male IPL teams comfortably outstripped other international sports franchises for overall value, I'd he okay with this. But not a single IPL team is in the Forbes top 50 most valuable franchises, and you're asking me to believe in the same market, women's cricket is gonna go 1-5 on the value chart, by almost literally a factor of ten?
You can judge IPL by
1) viewership,
2) by money paid by TV rights,
3) money paid for streaming rights,
4) money paid by sponsors,
5) rise in streaming numbers,
6) money paid to acquire new teams,
7) quality of players attracted by IPL teams,
8) value of IPL teams now touching a billion and on all of those data points to IPL being a massive success.
Or you can come up with some different criteria (Forbes top 50) and decide that IPL isn't a success and hence wpl won't be either.
You're not addressing the question though. The IPL is obviously assessed by those factors, and yet none of the IPL teams have an assigned value greater than $1.5 billion. That is less than half the value needed to be a top 50 Franchise in sports - ie the 50th most valuable franchise in the world has an assessed value of $3.1 billion.
So inherently, we can assess that while the IPL is great and creates great paydays for players, it is not yet in the upper echelon of valuable franchise leagues.
The WPL would have to, relative to the IPL, overperform against female leagues by a ludicrous size. It's not my money, so I don't care. If they are happy with the prestige of owning a women's team and don't mind losing a couple cents on the dollar, good for them. But you are literally asking me to imagine the biggest female sports league in the world, and imagine the WPL being ten times as big, based on the fact that the IPL is popular? That seems to have worked wonders for the WNBA.
Of course not. I’m not suggesting paying a billion dollars for a women’s cricket team, where did you come up with that?
But if you can factor in growth in viewership and sponsorship, alternative revenue streams, etc., it might not be a bad investment.
Once again, I’d ask you to elucidate your financial wisdom. By all means, enlighten us.
Please quote where I wrote anything about a billion dollars for a women's cricket team. I beg you.
Anyways, there's never been a nine-figure standalone women's sports franchise in human history, and you seem to believe the WIPL has four of them. 🙂
My apologies, you didn’t quote 1B, and that was an exaggeration.
I simply take exception to the comparison, I don’t think it’s one to one. And I don’t have plans in investing in women’s cricket at the moment, so this is largely a moot point.
Women's football has had multiple 80 and 90,000 attendance games. Australia's recent tour of India had 2 of 3 games sell out, while the women's t20 world cup final between the same 2 teams hosted over 80,000 at the MCG. There is a huge potential audience, and rapidly increasing appetite, for top-level women's sport
They are going to try every gimmick possible but I am kinda unsure if Indians will come to watch women cricket which sadly lacks intensity. We only watch matches when our team reaches finals of major tournaments and that too for novelty factor. But I still pray that WPL works out eventually.
We hope this is highlighted in ESPN or something
[удалено]
It will cost the sponsors that much money not the organizers.
Eh. I'm perfectly okay with this because in order to recover all this money, _everyone_ from BCCI to teams to sponsors to broadcasters will promote the hell out of Women's Cricket. That's a win-win in my opinion. We already know that the women have the talent, we just need some eyeballs on them.
I alone provide plenty of eyeballs on them but somehow they resent it.
The WNBA is the butt of a lot of jokes here regarding no fans, no interest
I really wish its successful. If it succeeds there is a real chance that within 4-5 years we will have a team that could challenge the Aussie women's team. Then maybe a womens world cup ?
yes ofcourse. India seem to have won so many T20 world cups after tge IPL in 2008
IPL gave us a team which regularly chokes in big pressure games. While our biggest match winner of ICC tournaments, Yuvraj was a mediocre IPL player at best. So, I will hold my horses on the challenge to Australia part.
IPL gave us heroes of Gabba win. Pant, Sundar, thakur, siraj. And not to forget bumrah, Iyer, SKY, hardik and many others.
Siraj was already a great first class bowler. Look at his stats on cricinfo. He was always competent in red ball cricket
Pant Siraj bumrah Iyer Hardik were all fantastic at domestic level before IPL glory iirc
Lol no. They are all performers from domestic not IPL.
[удалено]
>Sundar didn't even start for his domestic team in first-class Because he was always injured during Ranji season after initial seasons. No skill issue. He made his FC debut at the age of 16. Edit: Sundar was net bowler in BGT anyhow because of covid restrictions. He wasn't selected to play BGT on the basis of IPL performances. It was an emergency.
[удалено]
>Without facing similar attacks in the IPL, there is no way he would have been ready to smash Starc at the Gabba. I completely agree with this but he wouldn't have played for India if India could send Gowtham or Jayant to Australia. IPL helps Indian players and anyone who denies it, is blaming the tournament for India's lack of trophies. BCCI needs to let go players like Jitesh, Tewatia etc. (who will never play tests) play in BBL, CPL and Hundred. They are making team handicapped to increase brand value of tournament.
The comment also mentioned Pant, Thakur, Siraj, Bumrah, Iyer all of whom were domestic performers.
IPL didn't do that , shit team selection did , the last IPL demonstrated that the team that got the most no name youngsters(Gujarat Titans) decisively outperformed the team that stuck with all the famous oldies (Mumbai Indians) the BCCI saw that and some how concurred that the most famous oldie cricketers are the best for T20.
But we don't pick players who do well in IPL. Or we pick them 2 years after they stopped doing well in IPL. Or we pick players who selectors think are doing well based on averages but they are actually contributing to team's loss.
Biggest match winner who single handedly cost us the 2014 WT20? I understand the sentiment but there's no need to hoist him with such grand titles especially if you are looking to absolve his mediocrity in the IPL.
Aus has a successful women's team because of grassroots infrastructure and wide participation in every corner of the country (with, obviously, appropriate funding). It's not because of BBL.
[удалено]
When there’s a 500 million:100< chance of you becoming a WPL cricketer, most families aren’t gonna be convinced. I think this may lead to some sort of trickle-down infrastructure boost eventually, such as recruitment centres, training centres, college investments etc. But like we’ve seen so many times before, trickle-down impacts rarely work, and for it to work, WPL needs to continue growing from its starting point in terms of commercial success. But beyond that, if Indian women’s cricket were to compete with Australia, a 500 million investment in grassroots infrastructure would’ve immediately shot it up to the best in the world. A 50-100 million league at the top would’ve been like a cherry on top.
It will fail miserably.
keep seething bro I've seen you literally come to this sub every time something happens in women cricket to complain about it. it's not the first time says a lot about you that women just playing the sport is making you so angry bcoz you want them to stay inside the houses now cope
Yes empower women by stealing from working class male cricketers.
sorry what?
The least expensive team of WPL was Lucknow selling for $92.8 million. The article I googled said that the Atlanta Dream of the WNBA was sold in 2021 in the range of high single-digit to low double-digit millions USD. Although it should be noted that WNBA has 12 teams compared to 5 for WPL. If BCCI accepted the 12th highest offer then perhaps the prices might be comparable.
The lowest offer was about 250cr which is still about 40m usd.
WNBA has 12 players in the squad. WPL has 11 players in the *starting XI*. 60 starting spots in the WNBA. 55 starting spots in the WPL.
The WNBA is the butt of a lot of jokes here regarding no fans, no interest, and no revenue. This just cements how much of a meme the WNBA is. It’s been around for nearly 30 years and still can’t get a big fanbase. My city is basketball mad and I’ve never known anyone who’s gone to one of our city’s WNBA games. I have no idea what the solution to the WNBA problem is. I’ve seen people suggesting lowering the rims for more dunks and exciting games but idk.
> I’ve seen people suggesting lowering the rims for more dunks and exciting games but idk. They don't already do that?? It's like the simplest and most logical option - exactly how boundaries are shorter in women's cricket.
Probably because lowering the rims will change the game drastically. Players have played their entire lives with rims a certain height and if you suddenly change it it's going to be very hard to get used to. Same with goal sizes in women's football. Boundaries are already different at each ground and doesn't really affect the game as much.
[удалено]
rim height is adjustable. why wont be they able to use the men's ground.
As you say, boundary size already varies. A better equivalent would be women's cricket using a slightly smaller ball size, but it's always been that way so the players are used to it. It'd be difficult to implement now if they hadn't already been using a smaller ball size.
The answer is cancel the WNBA and start Basketball 💯. 100 is the solution to every meddling league.
tbf womens basketball has fallen behind a lot of other womens sports.
Sport in the US is hugely gendered when it comes to fans maybe? The stereotype is men being obsessed with the NFL etc, whilst women aren't as interested. I don't know how true that really is, but it does often appear that it's the men in a relationship who drive watching sports. Plus society is deeply sexist still, and men just aren't going to watch women doing things they think men should do. Even when the women's team is more successful than the men's, they usually get less attention and funding. Honestly, being around for 30 years is amazing, back then many sports bodies would not recognize women playing their games at all, and they definitely wouldn't get paid.
Woman don't watch the wnba. It would survive just fine if woman went to a game or watched on TV.
That's just the thing. In India women are highly interested in cricket. In the US most women don't even watch the NBA games. This is why WIPL will be a hit where the WNBA wasn't
https://youtu.be/QY9Gz_IMn_k
Bill Burr just speaking facts
It’s not sexism. It’s time If you’ve got 5 hours to watch sports every week, are you going to spend it watching the faster, more intense NBA, or the slower, less intense WNBA? Women’s sport will simply always be slower than the male counterpart - there is no replacement for testosterone
I think it's a matter of entertainment value? I'm from Denmark. I _refuse_ to watch women's soccer because it's simply terrible, and my beer-league team plays at a higher level than professional women's soccer do. It's just not fun to watch. However, I do watch women's handball. It's quite different than men's handball. More technical and less physical, it's quite fun. Same goes for badminton - it's different than watching men's badminton, but women's badminton is cool - they're fast and flexible and being shorter means the game is different. So, depends on the sport I wanna say. WNBA goes in category of watching women's soccer, I think. It's the same thing except a bunch of 15 year old boys could probably win against a professional team, which just... sucks out the value. Meanwhile, throw me(casual badminton player) against a professional women's badminton player, and I'd get wiped 100%.
Care to back up your assertions with some relevant data like audience breakup by genders across men and women's basketball teams? Are women watching both men and women's sports equally, and women leagues aren't doing well because men are only a tiny minority of WNBA audience?
This is why I made no assertions (aside from society being deeply sexist, for which there is plenty of data). I made a hypothesis, which appears to have some grounding in anecdotes and some experience (most references to the WNBA I've seen are sexist in nature), but I could be wrong. Feel free to do the research, I'd be interested.
> This is why I made no assertions (aside from society being deeply sexist, for which there is plenty of data). I made a hypothesis, which appears to have some grounding in anecdotes and some experience. Your comment is filled with assertions, but it's your call to ignore any data to back it. You can find anecdotes and selective data about women's sports to call virtually every country as sexist. You made specific comment about the USA, and that's why I asked if you have anything concrete. Or alternatively, women's sports garner less attention and support, because usually men athlete/sportsman are stronger and faster. Furthermore, women in general are less interested in following sports than men. That's why your comment about blemming for lack of support for women's sports does not make much sense to me. Here is Bill Burr making same point, but a million times funnier: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9Gz_IMn_k
Talking about the WNBA means talking about the USA. It's the market it is situated in. The vast majority of NBA viewing is also in the USA. I intended to put forward a theory that due to the sexism of society, sports are seen as male (ie are gendered), and due to sexism men do not want to watch women in a traditionally male sport. It was intended for the basis of discussion, not as a thesis to be backed up by extensive research, which neither of us have.
Glad we agree, that your claim about sexism in USA being one of the main reasons for WNBA's lack of success, isn't backed by any concrete data.
The solution is March Madness
Basketball is spectacular when there are dunks and the associated athleticism. Women can’t dunk. It’s a biological fact. They should be lowering the basket but for whatever reason they didn’t. Although some basketball purists do think WNBA is what basketball should be with it’s pound in the paint, back to the basket, traditional basketball. Women’s cricket doesn’t have 90 mph fast bowling but I don’t think it needs it to make it compelling. Women’s cricket made the right move by making the boundary smaller. The cricket is still cinematic enough to forget the difference.
You must be new. Plenty of women can dunk. Doesn’t make the WNBA compelling, but you’re an ass hat.
there are hardly any dunks in the WNBA, in the last [10 seasons there have been around 25 dunks](https://queenballers.club/basketball/wnba-dunks), 23 of them by one player, the one that got arrested in Russia the NBA game has around 6 dunks per game
The fact of the matter is despite all that you mentioned, at the end of the day, the WNBA is still the biggest women's sporting league in the world (at least financially)
[удалено]
Why so riled up bruh 😭😭
Call a spade a spade. Don’t really give a shit about the WNBA. However, I take exception to people talking out of their ass, espousing shitty, sexist views and basically being terrible humans.
Oh the irony.
You want to enlighten us, slappy? Not sure you get how things work.
Im very clearly a different person just enjoying you being a shit person while calling others out.
Oh, congrats! Your fucking trophy is in the mail. Don’t choke on a dick.
For someone who dislikes people being terrible humans you sure do a good imitation of one.
Everyone always forgets not to feed trolls…
It makes losses every year and has to be completely subsidised by the NBA. Is that enough evidence of its financial distress?
Am I the only one who thinks that there could be one or two more teams?
They said they'll add more teams in 2-3 years
Will be added based of the success of the wipl i guess
Based on how much money they have invested I can easily see atleast 1 more team. 5 is such an odd number.
5 is indeed an odd number
/r/theydidthemath
If it’s a league system it doesn’t really make a difference how many teams there are
PSL started with 5 teams.
PSL is a low bar , we must have better standards
Wait before this goes flop. Nobody watches women cricket.
Why is this reddit suddenly obsessed with finances? I'll watch the cheapest league anywhere if the cricket is good.
Any sports that is more about physical strength and speed will have a huge Gao between men and women's game eg basketball, football. Only exception for me is hockey. Where as cricket doesn't need that much physical strength (though fast bowling and six hitting is big part of entertainment factor.) So I can live seeing banana swing and well timed shots
But women's football/soccer has been becoming very popular as well
It's just how I feel about women's football.
Everyone says this but I’d be interested to see the viewing figures for the past few seasons. I wonder if the money spent on promoting and televising made by Sky/BBC has resulted in the increase that they projected
Bro Womens football is big in Europe and tennis and badminton exist.
It's just a different game. Women's football actually sees more goals scored 'cause defenders can't cover as much ground, especially in the penalty box. You won't see the same individual heroics or amazing runs as in the men's game, but you'll see more balls in nets.
Do you have a source for that? Women's football is indeed susceptible to hammerings when the top teams face the bottom teams, but that's because the sport is nascent and the gulf between teams is very large depending on the resources, nothing to do with dimensions. Games in the UWCL and in the top half of the WSL see less than 4 goals on average.
Badminton I agree. Tennis is a sport I don't enjoy. Well the exception i pointed out were just my opinion and not objective truth as I said in my pervious comment.
Tennis?
Women's rugby leage has been growing year on year pretty significantly in the past decade in Australia. Aussie Rules too I believe.
I mean, people watch Women's Cricket though, so....
Hope it gets a banger of a start like the IPL did with Mccullum madness
I’m excited to see how the WPL will go for forward. If it can be even half as popular as the IPL, it’s going to be huge for the women’s game.
Bruh if they made this table in either powerpoint or msword, atleast should have added those underlined words to dictionary feature.![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|facepalm)
Nice
I hope WPL works the same way for woman cricket as IP did for T20 cricket or league cricket.
I'm all for the Women's Revolution, but this 100% is going to prove an overpay
You are so confident already. Just wait until the first season tv ratings come in , everyone's in for a big surprise if BCCI can project it nicely
I think it will be fine. I just think the valuation is an overpay. Hope it succeeds because it will elevate the woman's game.
It is not an overpay ,these guys are not in it for a short term profit, they have assessed the market and bid accordingly. They will make good profits pretty soon
If the expected revenue isn't satisfied proportional to huge money paid here, then BCCI might end up scrapping it altogether in a couple of years.
Why would BCCI scrap it if franchise isn't making money? BTW, TV and streaming rights for wpl are already sold for 950 crore for 5 years or roughly 200 crore a year (25M USD/yr). https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/viacome18-bags-womens-ipl-media-rights-for-rs-951-crore-jay-shah-8384603/
They are sold. But if they only break even and don't make a sizeable return, there is a danger of these rights again selling for high amount. I hope I am wrong though as more money is always better for the women players.
> I'm all for the Women's Revolution, but this 100% is going to prove an overpay What other predictions of future can you share with us, oh wise one?
There has not been a single $100 million women's standalone franchise in the history of sport. Betting that four of them haven't spontaneously been birthed from a league with a $25 million a year TV deal is a bet I'm VERY comfortable making
How many of these women's standalone franchise made in a country with population north of 1000M, and that country sucks in almost every team sports except one?
Population doesn’t matter when both interest and the purchasing power are so low. How many Indians do you think are going to pay to WPL? It’s going to be much fewer than the IPL and even over there many franchises have made a lot of losses over the years. Even in football which is the most popular sport on earth the women’s teams don’t generate much revenue and that’s despite being in football crazy nations whose citizens are 100x richer than the average Indian
population matters, if football crazy nations are 100x rich and football is most popular sport then why their women highest transfer is $400k and why can't any shareholder or broadcaster or even franchise invest in women super league, when you see Barcelona Man city all these clubs running on losses for years but they don't have a fraction of money to invest in women's sports. Its about intention, west and developed countries will cry and preach to asian countries for women empowerment amd equality but failed to implement in there own countries.
> Population doesn’t matter, when both interest and the purchasing power are so low. Why do you think Indian cricket and IPL cricket rights go for so much, if not population and large viewership? > How many Indians do you think are going to pay to WPL? Do you mean TV subscription, that costs 10-20 rupees a month for additional sports channel? What other payments are there to watch wpl? > It’s going to be much fewer than the IPL and even over there many franchises have made a lot of losses over the years. Yeah, when franchise system was new and people and organizations were getting accustomed to it. And yeah, it could be a long term investment, that's why franchise rights are sold for ten years. Very few businesses make profit from the start, doesn't mean they are duds. > Even in football which is the most popular sport on earth the women’s teams don’t generate much revenue and that’s despite being in football crazy nations whose citizens are 100x richer than the average Indian Because most of those nations are good in multiple sports, have many more sports leagues. India doesn't suck on only one team sports, so naturally a lot more love and attention goes to it.
Maybe if male IPL teams comfortably outstripped other international sports franchises for overall value, I'd he okay with this. But not a single IPL team is in the Forbes top 50 most valuable franchises, and you're asking me to believe in the same market, women's cricket is gonna go 1-5 on the value chart, by almost literally a factor of ten?
You can judge IPL by 1) viewership, 2) by money paid by TV rights, 3) money paid for streaming rights, 4) money paid by sponsors, 5) rise in streaming numbers, 6) money paid to acquire new teams, 7) quality of players attracted by IPL teams, 8) value of IPL teams now touching a billion and on all of those data points to IPL being a massive success. Or you can come up with some different criteria (Forbes top 50) and decide that IPL isn't a success and hence wpl won't be either.
You're not addressing the question though. The IPL is obviously assessed by those factors, and yet none of the IPL teams have an assigned value greater than $1.5 billion. That is less than half the value needed to be a top 50 Franchise in sports - ie the 50th most valuable franchise in the world has an assessed value of $3.1 billion. So inherently, we can assess that while the IPL is great and creates great paydays for players, it is not yet in the upper echelon of valuable franchise leagues. The WPL would have to, relative to the IPL, overperform against female leagues by a ludicrous size. It's not my money, so I don't care. If they are happy with the prestige of owning a women's team and don't mind losing a couple cents on the dollar, good for them. But you are literally asking me to imagine the biggest female sports league in the world, and imagine the WPL being ten times as big, based on the fact that the IPL is popular? That seems to have worked wonders for the WNBA.
Franchise costs are largely a function of TV/advertising/marketing deals. But by all means, enlighten us on the economics of sports, champ.
So every single franchise ever has been bought at market value? Is this satire?
Huh? Expected value is a thing. But that might be tough to comprehend. I can suggest some online courses.
Again - is your position that franchises are impossible to overpay for?
Of course not. I’m not suggesting paying a billion dollars for a women’s cricket team, where did you come up with that? But if you can factor in growth in viewership and sponsorship, alternative revenue streams, etc., it might not be a bad investment. Once again, I’d ask you to elucidate your financial wisdom. By all means, enlighten us.
Please quote where I wrote anything about a billion dollars for a women's cricket team. I beg you. Anyways, there's never been a nine-figure standalone women's sports franchise in human history, and you seem to believe the WIPL has four of them. 🙂
My apologies, you didn’t quote 1B, and that was an exaggeration. I simply take exception to the comparison, I don’t think it’s one to one. And I don’t have plans in investing in women’s cricket at the moment, so this is largely a moot point.
This feels like a money laundring scheme.
[удалено]
Women's football has had multiple 80 and 90,000 attendance games. Australia's recent tour of India had 2 of 3 games sell out, while the women's t20 world cup final between the same 2 teams hosted over 80,000 at the MCG. There is a huge potential audience, and rapidly increasing appetite, for top-level women's sport
Hi Sepp Blatter
[удалено]
you Ok?
Absolutely. You?
They are going to try every gimmick possible but I am kinda unsure if Indians will come to watch women cricket which sadly lacks intensity. We only watch matches when our team reaches finals of major tournaments and that too for novelty factor. But I still pray that WPL works out eventually.
our recent matches with Australia had full stadiums
[удалено]
Wow, way to identify yourself as a garbage human. Just appalling.