I get confused about all the fuss over Caitlin Clark’s income in the WNBA. Why is this such a touchy topic for folks? Am I ethically obligated to contribute to the WNBA with no respect to my level of interest in this product?
I get the men vs women income disparity arguments in general. If Caitlin were competing with male candidates for, say, a job writing software, and if all candidates were equally qualified with equal talents and potential, then equal compensation is an easy — and correct - argument. Even so, YOU won’t be deciding this unless YOU are the person hiring this candidate.
In the WNBA, YOU already decide players income by patronizing the sport. So go buy tickets. Watch the games on TV. Order a WNBA jersey and wear it in public. If you want WNBA players to earn the same as NBA players, YOU need to pay up and make that sport equally profitable.
If WNBA does not satisfy a player’s earning ambitions, then the player might be working for the wrong employer, might be in the wrong occupation. Or maybe they are not doing enough to increase sales and profits.
I’ve no dog in this fight, I take little interest in WNBA or NBA. But I spend (waste) money on the NFL and the WNFL would get my attention for sure. Truth is, I watch what I like. I dine where I prefer, and I drive a car of my choosing. I have no idea if purchasing Dorito’s equally enriches men and women, the reason I keep purchasing these is that they are so freaking delicious!
If Caitlin produces a product that I take interest in, I’ll consider a free market purchase, regardless of gender, race, or any other factor. In the meantime, I’ll join your fight for income equality, I just won’t endorse any misconceptions that a person selling 100 bags of potatoes is ethically entitled to the same income as a person selling 1,000 bags of potatoes.