WNBA Players Are Delusional With “Pay Us What You Owe Us” Shirts | AARON TORRES & JASON MARTIN
Opinion: “Pay Us What You Owe Us”? WNBA Players Miss the Mark With Tone-Deaf Protest
The WNBA All-Star Game should have been a celebration—a chance to showcase the league’s growing talent and connect with the fans. Instead, much of the spotlight turned to the players’ pre-game protest: every All-Star donning a shirt reading “Pay Us What You Owe Us,” aiming to draw attention to ongoing collective bargaining and salary negotiations.
On the surface, the message makes sense. WNBA players, like all professional athletes, are entitled to fight for better pay and improved working conditions through their union’s negotiations with league management. But for many in the wider sports world, the protest generated more confusion and eye rolls than solidarity or support. The backlash, as voiced by sports commentators Aaron Torres and Jason Martin, was sharp and unapologetic.
“You Have to Read the Room”
As Jason Martin pointed out, many Americans are simply indifferent to professional women’s basketball. “If the WNBA ceased to exist tonight, the marketplace would not shift one iota,” he said. “It wouldn’t even notice.” Each year, the league operates at a loss—kept afloat largely by NBA subsidies and the generosity of Commissioner Adam Silver.
That’s the reality WNBA players face, whether they like it or not: star-driven women’s college basketball consistently outdraws the WNBA in ratings, relevance, and public excitement. Martin argues that, aside from a few “diehards,” the general public just isn’t invested, and for the vast majority of sports fans, the All-Star game lost all intrigue the moment superstar Caitlin Clark was sidelined.
A Protest Few Understand or Support
For Torres and Martin, the t-shirts smacked of entitlement more than injustice. The assertion was simple: you can’t demand “what you are owed” from a league that, by the numbers, owes you nothing because it itself makes no money.
“If we actually paid you what we owe you, we would just shut down the league,” they argue. “You’re worth what the marketplace is willing to pay you… and majority speaking, the answer is no.” The salaries in men’s professional sports are sky-high because millions watch, buy tickets, and wear merchandise. The WNBA, for all its athleticism, has yet to build that mass audience or financial base.
Their criticism is not rooted in sexism, but economics. They claim celebrity in sports comes from drawing paying customers—and for now, only Caitlin Clark moves the needle in the ratings, ticket sales, or video game marketing. “I don’t care if Angel Reese has better stats. This isn’t about stats. It’s about who’s going to sell the game.”
Public Relations Blunder
The duo’s final take is perhaps most damning: “Wear those shirts to the (union) meetings… The public doesn’t know or care.” For many viewers, the protest only reinforced the growing reputation of the league as “delusional,” its stars “living in a dream world” and disconnected from the basic economics of sport.
In a recent “Jeopardy!” episode, contestants fumbled a women’s basketball question—the only name that came up was Caitlin Clark—proving, in Torres and Martin’s view, just how little mindshare the WNBA commands outside its own fan base.
Optimism and Reality
No one on their show argued against the WNBA’s existence or the players’ right to bargain. Both acknowledged the league’s athletes are working hard and seeking fair compensation. The problem, they say, is that public labor protests only resonate when the public cares—and most are unaware, uninterested, or outright exasperated with repeated calls for more money from a league that’s still fighting for cultural—and financial—relevance.
.
.
.
Play video:
