>

I sincerely doubt the revenue cares for the genitals of where the money came from.
They don't earn as much because they're not as attractive for sponsors, whom the money the sponsors are after comes from is not irrelevant.
/u/Sicily_Long (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'm about to say something very controversial.   The types of sports women and men have been drawn to over the years are very different.  I consider gymnastics, figure skating, ballet, and anything with horses to be very enjoyable athletic pursuits to watch.  Disney on Ice brings in over a billion dollars per year in ticket sales and probably spurs purchases of Frozen fanwear.  I bet Simone Biles influences more purchases than her endorsement money reflects, but if I want to buy a Simone Biles shirt, I gotta go to etsy.  Women's tennis and golf are doing okay.  But overall women's sports have not been fully developed or corporately exploited.  Instead, there is an effort to take traditional men's sports and insert women.  Unfortunately, I think many audiences would rather watch men excelling at men's sports.  I think soccer may eventually be an exception due to universal appeal. >

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ScurvyDervish changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

At least in the case of the WNBA, men actually support and watch the WNBA more than women. The WBNA could be more successful if more men watched the WNBA, even if there wasn't a change in women's viewership and support. The flaw in this is the belief that there is some obligation by men to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some patriarchal compensation, or by women to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some feminist sisterhood.
Neither men or women have any obligation to watch a sporting division that they do not enjoy, regardless of the gender of the players and any gender politics surrounding it. The WNBA is a business, and it and its players are the ones with both the opportunity and obligation to grow their marketshare. WNBA players will be paid more when they earn more. It's literally in their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Instead they've chosen to argue that they only want pay structure equity while comparing their 60 million in annual revenue and -10 million in uncovered expenditures (which is subsidized by the NBA) to the NBA's +6 billion in revenue, while ignoring that they only pull minor league numbers and yet are paid 3-4x minor league salaries.
It isn't up to women to support female sports. It's up to sports fans to watch the sports that they enjoy, and female sporting leagues and competitors to provide performances which attract viewers. >

The WNBA is an investment. It raises the global profile and development of the sport. Women who play basketball will more likely watch basketball. That $10 million returns far more revenue for the NBA. By having a professional women's league it supports millions of women to try basketball at a young age and make future fans.
Lastly.. in our lifetimes there will be a transcendental basketball talent in the WNBA that will take it to new heights. >

So it makes sense as an investment for the NBA. It doesn't mean women players should have pay parity though does it? >

To partially address the topic, there is frequently a misunderstanding caused by the difference in pay structure specifically chosen by female athletes vs those chosen by male athletes.
Men frequently utilize a high risk-high reward pay-for-play model - They only received compensation if they get called up. If they are injured, too bad -- they miss out. 
Women frequently opt for more financial security; a system that included guaranteed (but lower) salaries for a subset of players, as well as game bonuses. If a player was under contract - they would still receive the guaranteed salary even if they didn't get called in for whatever reason. >

1) you’re considering only one sports whereas other sports like women’s tennis are just as popular as their male counterparts
2) women’s sports aren’t as popular because in general the potential around the world for a woman to become an athlete essentially doesn’t exist outside of the industrialized world at all, women are treated as second class citizens in a healthy portion of the world where they’re not allowed to drive or attend school let alone wear appropriate athletic clothing accordingly, that limits markets
3) specifically for the wnba the athletes don’t have an opportunity to market themselves and create a brand like their male counterparts because in the off season they’re playing overseas in order to get more money, most athletes are on a livable wage in the wnba but it’s not luxurious by any means
4) women’s sports are very popular specifically around the Olympics, women’s gymnastics, women’s volleyball, women’s beach volleyball among several others but Olympics sports in general don’t get the recognition other professional sports do outside of the Olympics that goes for men and women
5) there also is the whole motherhood thing, male athletes make enough and their bodies do not go through massive changes during child birth to allow male athletes to dominate and be successful we’ll into their 40s, this isn’t the case for their female counterparts yes serena was able to come back to tennis after the birth of her child but she was nowhere near as dominant, you can see it in other sports too where it’s just really really really hard to get your body back to the point of being one of the best in the world after a 9 month layoff
In sum, no there isn’t one reason female athletes aren’t paid the same and a lot of it has to do with market share but as illustrated above there’s a tonnnnnnnn of other reasons too including longevity >

One other point is that all of the "men's" leagues are actually co-ed just no women are good enough to make the teams. People aren't watching men's basketball when they watch the NBA. They are watching the best basketball when they watch the NBA. >

Former woman athlete here and I can say that women are not supporting sports, indeed. Men championships are more expensive and that's okay. Let's try to make ourselves better instead of wanting others to get worse. >

Men and women spend the same money. It’s not that women aren’t supporting women’s sports. It’s that nobody, regardless of gender, are supporting women’s sports. The inverse is also true; Men’s sports aren’t just supported by men, they’re supported more by all genders than the women’s sports. >

Men and women don't spend the same money. Women spend a LOT more money than men. >

You make it sound like women just go around throwing cash at stupid shit when the article clearly states women are being exploited for their money. 
I don't think this is the argument you want to make here. >

That article says women pay 9 for shampoo and men pay 6. Why don’t women just buy gender neutral or male shampoo, it’s exactly the same but in a white or blue packet >

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the same, ingredients matter. I can't even use most of women's shampoo on my hair and I definitely won't use men's shampoo which isn't meant for long, dry and wavy hair. I don't want my hair to break. >

Well then sounds like you’re getting a specific product - you’ve got to expect it to be more expensive than the standard product >

Yes and most people who have long hair need some specific product, when you have short hair you could basically use even soap to wash it. Majority of people who have long hair are women so our products are more expensive. So no, we aren't paying for flowery sent and nice looking bottle. >

Wait. I have a sports car. It needs premium fuel because I like high performance engines and so I have one.
Would it be fair for me to say that premium fuel is unfairly expensive because mostly men like performance engines and will be forced to purchase it, so it's essentially sexist?
You have special body features that you like because they are feminine and they require special care and you are saying that the upscale products required to care for those features are more expensive because of sexism?
This is seriously the argument you're making? >

What the hell are you talking about? You're now confusing me with some other person, I never said a single word about sexism. Where did you get that?
I answered to a comment claiming that men's and women's products are the same and women should just switch to men's products. I correct them that those aren't the same, I'm not paying more for a pink bottle and flowery sent, I'm paying more for quality. >

You need to read the parent comment and sub comment you’re replying to.