Just took a shower. As the water was cascading down, I was thinking more about the WNBA.
I truly hate Ben’s point about the WNBA being more profitable than the NBA, and want to elaborate on the intellectual dishonesty behind it.
I attended Mahopac High School. Our student newspaper was called The Chieftain. Just as the NBA subsidizes much of the WNBA, the high school subsidized much of our newspaper. They paid for the space, the printing, etc. We supplied little things, and sold ads for profit. Hence, even though each issue might have technically cost, oh, $300 to print, we turned a profit.
By that logic, The Chieftain is “more profitable” than The New York Times, which has enormous overhead and probably hasn’t turned a real profit for years.
That’s how, under Ben York’s explanation, the WNBA is more profitable than the NBA.
PS: The truth is, I’m guessing—and I certainly can be wrong—that Ben has never asked a WNBA official how the league is more profitable. Which is sort of inexcusable, if you’re covering the league and simply taking it at its word. For example, Tyler Kepner, the Times’ great baseball writer, would never simply accept a “fact” from Brian Cashman sans confirmation.