Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we take a look at what's going on at Columbia and other college campuses, where so called peaceful protests over Israel's actions in Gaza are creating quite a stir. And in part two of our discussion, we'll weigh in on whether the slotted salary for Caitlin Clark, who's a former Iowa Hawkeye star and recent number one draft pick in the WNBA draft, whether her salary is unfair compared to men's sports or considering how much increased money and exposure she's bringing to the WNBA already.
Hello. Welcome to the call it like I see it podcast. I'm James Keys, and riding shotgun with me today is a man who's always ready to drop a few precious gems on the show, Tunde yoga and Lana Tunde. Are you ready to share with us some things that some would consider to be a girl's best friend?
[00:01:03] Speaker B: Of course, man, I just trying to figure out if there's a way to describe gems as unprecious.
Some of my stuff might fall under that category, but we'll let the audience decide.
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. For sure. Now, we're recording this on April 23, 2024. And, tunde, while there have been some level of demonstrations and protests going on around the country since essentially Hamas attacked Israel and then Israel declared war on Hamas and began attacking in Gaza, things have really picked up over the past week, particularly at, you know, we've seen, at some college campuses at Columbia, we've seen demonstrations and encampments spring up on campus, and we've seen, you know, like these get forcibly cleared by the police. And what the protesters seem to be thinking or seem to be seeking is the divestment of the school from Israel. But there have been other elements in these protests and at least reportedly involved as well.
So things don't seem to be slowing down. In fact, they seem to be picking up at this point. So just in general, what do you think is going on with these protests and the strong pushback that we're seeing also from what, whether it be the universities or the universities conjunction with law enforcement?
[00:02:20] Speaker B: Very good questions. I mean, what are we seeing? Let's cut to that chase. I mean, I think we're seeing the same thing everyone else is seeing. Protests on certain college campuses. They seem to be concentrated in the northeast, in certain enclaves, and primarily Ivy League. I know that the big ones that have taken attention in this recent period is Columbia University.
Now we've seen it spilling over to Yale, MIT, and certain other schools, Tufts University, you know, so kind of that northeast corridor. And so, you know, I'd say in that sense, this is good old american protest stuff. But I know that part of our conversation today is what makes this one a little bit different, or not this one. But this series of protests feel a bit different than things we've seen, both recent and older, kind of, well, it's.
[00:03:13] Speaker A: Anticlimactic a little bit. But this, to me is just what open societies look like. People see different, people will see the same occurrence, and different things about it will take on an increase or added significance and feel they'll feel very strongly about it. And so in terms of what I think is happening, I think there are two things that are happening. If you're looking at the protest side, there is a good faith side which may be minimized. You know, like that side we may not hear about as much like the people that are out there trying to peacefully protest, that are trying to make a point in terms of the, what, you know, you can say the atrocities happening in Gaza and to the palestinian people, there are people that are doing that. And then there may be people who opportunistically are trying to latch onto that and take advantage and pushing other agendas, whether it be anti semitic, whether it be, you know, whatever, just chaos.
So with both of those going on, the, anyone who then sees the protests is able to say, okay, well, if I like what's, if I like the cause that they're standing behind, then I'm going to focus on the good faith part. If I don't like the cause that they're supporting, then I'll focus on the people, the, which, again, appear to be a smaller number of people that are, that are creating chaos or that are acting up. It reminds me of in the same way that in the summer of 2020, there were these mass protests, demonstrations regarding, you know, following the George Floyd tragedy. And depending on what you watched and depending on where you came down on the issue, your focus on the protests was either on the thousands of people that were peacefully demonstrating in the street or the tens of people that might have been breaking some law, you know. And so to me, that's really what I see here, is that this is just the messiness of public demonstration. When you have a public demonstration and you say, hey, we're going to protest this, anybody who wants to come out can come out. You can't then take, you know, say, okay, well, what exactly are you gonna do, sir? Okay, well, you can come in. Oh, you're gonna do that, sir? You can't come in. You know, so, so to me, there's a and there's an inherent, when you have actions by the people, there's an inherent messiness to it. And we're seeing that messiness and how that's getting interpreted a lot of times by people who aren't in it. I'm not there, you know, and then, so, but in most of the country, we're seeing this. We're not there. We're interpreting it based on the lens of what we think of the actual content of the protest. And so that's why you'll see people who aren't there come down very strongly on one side or the other, which, you know, again, is notable to me because it's like, well, to come down so strongly on something that you're only getting second and third hand accounts on, you know, means you came into that with something.
[00:05:41] Speaker B: Yeah, well, I think, look, that's, this topic is one of many where we can say people are coming in with second and third hand information, more so than in the past because of all the ability to disrupt information online and with our kind of regular media, cable news, all that stuff. So I would say that's been our experience for probably the last decade in our culture, in our society, where people are coming to these conversations and arguments, whether they be about elections or other things, with all this other information that confirms pre existing biases. I think what makes this one even more probably painful for all of us to experience and messy is that this topic specifically, I mean, more than any other, I'm 46 years old and in my life, the Israel palestinian conflict has been the messiest conflict ongoing since I was born. I was born in 1978, and they had a war in 73 with the arab neighbors. Israel did. This has been going on then. You had the stuff in the early eighties with the PLO and the factions that were put into Lebanon, which led to the bombing of our barracks in Beirut when we had the marines stationed there because we were trying to be some sort of peacekeeper in the region. And that's where, again, President Reagan did probably what was the right thing at the time. He said up, we're out of here. Like, we're not going to be in the middle of this mess in 1983. And then what happened is they kept going. And by the early nineties, you had that meetings between President Clinton and Arafat, and I can't remember, I'm sorry, at the top of my head, the prime minister of Israel at the time. But that was happening when I was a teenager in high school. Then you go, you know, post 911, you had the things in zero six, the election of Hamas, and then you had the intifada in 2014. I mean, this issue has been front and center on the world stage for decades. So I feel like when you have what we just said about people coming to conversations with second and third, you know, hand stuff and their own confirmation bias being stroked, plus, on top of the fact that it's the probably the most sensitive geopolitical topic for generations, I think you're going to have. This is like a real Rorschach test for many of us in society that are looking at it. And I think you make a great point. Many of us look at it and just see things that we already want to see depending on how we feel.
[00:08:03] Speaker A: About the overall, about the overall point this made. Because the thing that's new about this, though, is that this is a new generation, you know, necessarily, you know, the college students, again, that are the primary participants because again, once you open up a protest, you know, and there have been reports that this is not all just the college students there anymore, you know, like there's other people that want to be a part of this and, you know, again, some of that can be good faith and another that could be chaos and or people taking advantage of the COVID to because they have other agendas, even agendas that are counterproductive, you know, but this is college students. These are young people in the United States today. And they are looking at this in a way that I would consider to be not necessarily the country line of the United States over the past half a century or whatever. And so that, I think, creates another kind of pressure point here is that the young people aren't now, granted, they don't come in with all of the kind of background, some of the stuff that you just ran through, but also they are reacting to what we see on the ground right now.
We talked about this when we had talked about the initial conflict, just in terms of anyone can look at this, and rightfully, anyone, meaning a Palestinian or an Israeli, can look at this and say, yeah, we were wronged. Like there are, there have been enough things that have happened either recently or historically that where, you know, like any side can justifiably say that we've been wronged. And so therefore, you know, again, now therefore we can, that's where the, you know, things, things can become. I guess it's more of a test of character and, you know, just what you believe, you know, that the type of principles that you have, but because of that, it's one of these situations where you don't have one consensus, quote unquote right answer that feels relatively attainable and we just have to get the will to get there. There are answers that aren't going to satisfy much of anyone and which is kind of the tendency with compromise a lot of times, but because everyone can reach back into recent and distant past and say, well, but we were wrong. Why should we have to compromise? There's no easy kind of direction to take this. And so when you have that situation and when you have passions on either side, then positions harden, you know, and it's hard to bridge the gap. And so because of all that, what we're seeing is right now is that being manifested where we have younger, a younger generation in this country that's looking at this and saying, well, hey, we think the Palestinians are getting the short end of the stick here and that is causing conflict, I think, amongst, you know, just the mainstream, you know, the mainstream of the United States, you know. And so now they're looking at these conflicts. They're saying, are these protests? And saying, oh, well, hold up. You know, like you're taking the quote unquote wrong side. And so therefore, viewing the protests in a negative light, like I said before, because they'll focus on the negative things that are happening because they want to view what's happening in a negative light.
[00:10:56] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's, I mean, there's so many cross currents culturally. I mean, you make a great point about the young generation today because, again, if you're 20 years old right now, a lot of this is new to you. And so, and so, you know, kind of coming into the world and growing up and now seeing all this stuff happening right now, it, you know, you may have a lack of context of, like I said, the fact that my whole life and I'm in my mid forties has this has been going on. I think the other big thing is.
[00:11:27] Speaker A: Even if you understand that academically, what you've grown and lived in is whether Gaza is the question of whether Gaza is an open air prison and settlers in Israel, you know, going into the West bank and like, you've, you've lived in a time where the Palestinian, like, what's happened to the Palestinians from a negative standpoint stands out above what's happened to the Israelis. You know, like, but ten years, then you might say, oh, well, but, you know, you have more context. You see where, again, you bring more into the, into the fray where you might, again, you might understand that academically, but what you actually are reacting to, I think, is more of what you've lived and experienced and what you're seeing in social media feeds or whatever. So I do want to hear moving, though.
[00:12:11] Speaker B: No, but let me just answer that. Cause that's a very good point. So think about anyone in college today. Hamas won their election, the last democratically held election in the palestinian territories in 2006, which would be 18 years ago, the age of a college freshman today. So to your point there, what a young person sees about the relation between Israel and Palestinians is different than someone like me, who was alive to see what happened before 2006 and the kind of differences. Right. So it's just I can appreciate a bit more nuance where to your point, someone younger doesn't have that nuance. The second thing I'll just end here, and I know we want to move is, and I want to keep talking about this is really the influences of images online. I think that's changed a lot of how people react to different conflicts, because I think if we had seen some of this stuff when we were at the height of the Iraq war in 2003, 2004, maybe how we were hurting civilians, maybe we would have had a different response here. So I think a lot of this plays into itself, a lot of these different factors.
[00:13:21] Speaker A: Well, yeah, just perspective. You know, like, one's perspective oftentimes will go a long way to determine how they perceive something and how they react to it. And so it's not to say that a person who has a perspective that is longer here is inherently more right, because you're ultimately making value judgments on what's more important or whose harm should be prioritized. We should prioritize, rectifying or whatever. And that, again, is, that's going down a road that is not necessarily, but the road. That road will, from a productive standpoint, end in compromise. But compromise, that hasn't been really the name of the game so far in the last 80 years in this part of the world. So there is one piece that I want, and I kind of generally rubbed over this in terms of the, there's good faith protesting, you know, which we can see, because if everybody, if all the protesters were behaving as if. As the reports of the worst protesters, then it wouldn't be occurring as if it did, it would be utter chaos, and. And it wouldn't be any type of thing that was.
That didn't need to get broken up immediately, so to speak. But we have heard reports of aggressive behavior amongst. In the protests, intimidation, violence. Again, these have been scattered, but towards jewish people, jewish people in America. Again, these aren't jewish representatives of the israeli state, but just either fellow students or professors or whatever, just people who, quote unquote, happen to be jewish and are in America but aren't, again, aren't generals in the IDF or something like that. So what do you think now? Do you think that's something where the media might be overblowing these reports or that people may be saying, oh, I feel this way, but it may be something that's kind of, again, overblown? Or do you think that this is something that we need to look very closely at? And just your overall reaction to that piece of this?
[00:15:15] Speaker B: I mean, I wouldn't say it appears to be overblown. Obviously, that's serious stuff that should be looked at. But I think it's been well documented just through seeing signs in certain protesters about the negative stuff they feel about jewish people.
Or like you're saying, equating all Jews with the israeli government's decisions on how it behaves. And I think that, you know, I was thinking about even in preparing for today, I mean, a lot of people forget that a lot of, you know, hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of Israelis who were jewish last year protested in 2023, their own government and changes that were being proposed to their legal system via the Supreme Court and all that in Israel. So, you know, like we talk about with a lot of things when it comes to this culture and stuff like that, like, you know, Jews are not a monolith, just like blacks aren't, just like whites aren't, just like other groups of humans aren't. And, you know, there's enough jewish people in the world in and outside of Israel that, you know, there's a fraction within the jewish community as to do how to respond to something like October 7 now, you know, so I think this is where it starts to get very messy and it becomes this kind of Roshak test, again, where I think your point is well made a few minutes ago when you said there's people out there that genuinely are bleeding heart types that do feel that the palestinian people have had a tough time and they need help. And there's, you know, longstanding nonprofits that have dealt with that and all that.
And that could be something akin to other.
[00:16:56] Speaker A: I don't think people up that think that as bleeding heart types. There are people that can, people can come to that conclusion without being a bleeding heart type.
[00:17:03] Speaker B: I don't mean that pejoratively. I'm just saying you can be a bleeding hard person and care about the environment, about other groups.
[00:17:10] Speaker A: My point is that you could be a law and order person and come to that same conclusion. Like, I don't know that the type of person you are.
[00:17:16] Speaker B: Well, let's not get caught up on that. It was just an example to say that there's, I mean it more as a, there's a genuine way that people will see other human beings that don't have a, and aren't having a good go at life right now or in any context. And I think there's, we can all acknowledge that the palestinian people have had a very difficult time for a long time. Right. In general. So there's that. But I think that it is obvious and blatantly obvious that there's a lot of actors coming in who are just riding this bandwagon, in my opinion, of antisemitism. And they're using this conflict as an excuse to just brandish their pre existing feeling of the fact that they don't like Jews. And so I think it's, it makes the whole thing much messier because it's hard to determine who's out there really just trying to say, we got to do the humanitarian stuff and all that, and who's out there saying, this is my chance to light up jews and to behave in a negative way towards people I already don't like. And I think that's what we're seeing now is that aggressive part of the bigotry part has definitely infiltrated, I think.
[00:18:24] Speaker A: The way you put it, from an opportunistic standpoint.
[00:18:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: You know, it's kind of like this presents a, you know, the getting is good, so to speak. If for a person who may harbor anti semitic views because they can blend in with, with groups that are, that are saying, hey, the Palestinians aren't being treated fairly, and use that as a kind of an end to then go towards just anti semitism in general. Not saying, let's get to, because saying the Palestinians aren't being treated fairly doesn't inherently say that something bad needs to happen to jewish people. It's saying, hey, let's treat every, let's come up with a solution that treats everybody more fairly. But from the anti semitic, semitic standpoint, it's like, okay, well, let's stop being unfair to the Palestinians and let's be unfair to the jewish people. And it's like, whoa, that wasn't necessarily the person who, as you artfully put it, the bleeding heart type or others. You know, someone who is just interested in fairness or law and order wouldn't go from, let's stop treating one person unfairly to let's start treating someone else unfairly. It's like, hey, let's try to find something again where everybody can, can get a relatively fair go of it. I think this reminds me, actually, I think this is a tendency in humans that we all have to fight against. And when you have good leadership, leadership does well, or at least when you have leadership that is behaving in a way that is productive, they will guide you away from this. I think of post 911 in the United States, where there was sentiment, there were people who were already kind of anti islamic, and that was the getting was good then to be anti Islam and to say, hey, let's be about. Let's be about, you know, like, not being fair to Muslims, to people, you know, the islamic faith. And, you know, but it was saying, hey, what happened here was not Islam. You know, did not attack the US on 911. And then George Bush. There were a lot of things I disagreed with on George Bush, but that was something I thought was very strong leadership. He was like, hey, no, we're not at war with Islam. Islam. Now, this is specific actors who did something heinous, and we're after them, but they are not, they don't represent the whole faith. We're not gonna condemn a whole faith because of what these people did. And I think in this case, it's a mistake and it's really messed up to try to put and say, okay, well, I don't like what the israeli state might be doing and say, okay, well, therefore, then there's a. I have a problem with a jewish person, you know, a jewish person in the United States or a jewish person anywhere, because, again, that's, they have no mortgage, a single jewish person has no control over or that doesn't have overall control over whether what the israeli government does. If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at Netanyahu, so to speak, but not some student walking across the yard. So that confusion only makes the issue, makes it harder for us to find compromise, to find common ground, to try to move things forward, because it's like. But again, this is a natural inclination that I think some people have beyond just the kind of the guys jumping off the top rope that came in with the anti semitism already. I think that it's something that people who might start out in a good place, they have to be careful to not fall into that because it seems to be kind of a natural tendency for people to do. And I mean, the post 911 stuff is just one example but we see there's countless examples over time in this where, you know, a actor does something, and then you have to actively work against saying, well, anybody who looks like that or anybody who follows the same God as that or anybody who, you know, whatever, like, in that same context, is, you know, is a avatar to me of what I don't like that this other person did.
[00:21:52] Speaker B: Yeah, no, look, I'm laughing. Cause when you said, coming off the top ropes, I'm gonna date myself. I had a vision of Jimmy the superfly snooker just coming all over, like the iron sheik or something.
[00:22:02] Speaker A: But, see, but you go, Rey mysterio. You go, Rey mysterio, and you can bring in all the generations.
[00:22:08] Speaker B: I'm too old for that, too. Yeah, that's my kids.
That's my middle kid was Rey Mysterio and John Cena.
But no, so this is where, to me, you said a few good things that I want to kind of just latch on to. One is by blaming all jews for this. I mean, this is where you get deep with it. This is where anti semitism is one of the oldest conspiracy theories on the planet. And you and I may not believe this, but there are people out there that do believe that all Jews kind of control the world. And they kind of believe, you know, I don't know why, that every single jew somehow is like a hive mind connected, and that they're all in this evil cabal just, you know, and I think in today's world of conspiracy with QAnon and pizzagate and all that, these anti semitic type of tropes about world domination and banking and this whole thing about globalists, and George Soros gonna take over the world with his little bit of billions, when he got people out there like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, worth 50 times more than that guy. You know, it all lends itself to this idea that, you know, a lot of people are primed to already view anything that Jews do that might be considered negative, as, like, okay, let's just go off the cliff and assume that they're all bad. It's. It's like the propaganda in the early 20th century domestically in the United States against blacks, when it was just like, you know, that guy raped a white woman. Let's go hang him from a tree. And people did that. Like, it was just all these beliefs, you know, that blacks were these savages just, you know, crisscrossing the land, and you had to. You had to lock your door at night to save yourself from them. And so this is no different. So this is classic tribalism, stereotypes and all that. But you said something very important about leadership. I just wanted to hit up because as you were talking, you alluded to this a bit.
And it reminded me of something like the Unite the right rally that really shocked me in 2017, because think about it, you had a group of people that said they were coming to Charlottesville to defend what they said was history and this whole stuff somehow. Remember that Friday night, we had a group of hundreds of young men with tiki torches looking like crystal knot, talking about, Jews will not replace us.
And that's what I'm saying. How does it, how do you go from saying, hey, I'm just going to hold this rally to discuss taking down confederate statues.
Obviously, some actors got in there who said, hey, we got to now make this about Jews, too, which had nothing to do with statues and the Confederacy. Right. And so, and so that's why it's, it's interesting how these type of topics like anti semitism seemed to flow in through other kind of cultural memes. And then the other important thing, like you said about former President Bush, which I have a lot to criticize as well.
The first time in my life we had an american president that when that type of anti semitism took place out in the open, he stated there was fine people on both sides. He didn't make a very strong condemnation.
[00:25:22] Speaker A: Like, you're not talking about Bush right now then.
[00:25:24] Speaker B: No, no.
[00:25:25] Speaker A: Yeah. Okay.
[00:25:25] Speaker B: Well, you got to former president.
[00:25:28] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:25:30] Speaker B: Obviously it's 2017 is what I'm talking about.
[00:25:33] Speaker A: So my point is college student, you know, now would have been ten years old then or eleven years old. So it just makes that when you.
[00:25:39] Speaker B: Drop certain names, people stop listening to what you're saying. Focus only on the fact you said that name.
[00:25:46] Speaker A: It just evokes all the emotion that they have only certain names, though. There's only certain names.
[00:25:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I just. That's why I said I really want to focus on the events.
[00:25:55] Speaker A: There you go.
[00:25:56] Speaker B: No, but you got it right who I'm talking about.
So that was kind of my point of just saying. I just wanted to follow on that, that you're right. Leadership's important because that's the only time I've ever seen a leader of our country not condemned that type of behavior when it was blatantly out in the open and reminded me a lot of, like, Kristallnacht. You literally had kids carrying torches saying, jews will not replace us. I don't know how much more anti semitic you can get than that and saying blood and soil. So, you know, this is an issue we have on. And I just want to end here. A lot of people want to use this college stuff now to say, oh, this is an example of the left's anti Semitism. And I'm just saying antisemitism's like child pedophilia. It crosses all boundaries. Unfortunately.
[00:26:42] Speaker A: I was wondering where you're going with that.
[00:26:43] Speaker B: Yeah, no, that's why I use something negative like pedophilia is you can't say, oh, just this group does it or does it? Unfortunately, it's a virus that affects people, a minority of people in all groups. And anti Semitism is no different.
[00:26:57] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. That can pop up anywhere. And, yeah, to try to make antisemitism or several, like that's, that's a kind of a weakness that we have in our political discourse is that people almost seem to want to view everything from a polarized lens and say, okay, well, is this an issue of the left or an issue of the right or an issue of the center? And it's like, well, no, some issues actually don't lend themselves to that. It's like this kind of mentality or behavior can be, can show up anywhere, and you actually limit your own ability to understand what's going on or react to what's going on. If you view everything in a partisan lens. Naturally, though, partisans like you to view everything in a partisan lens because that allows you, them to behave as they want, and people will excuse it away because at least you're not the other side. And to that point, actually, one thing I'll mention here, which I think our condemnation of anti Semitism is clear. And if it's not, then, you know, like, definitely any type of anti Semitism that's coming in with this legitimate anti Semitism where people are trying to conflate or otherwise intimidate Jews, anything like that with what's happened in Israel, all that.
But I will note that oftentimes, or sometimes at least, I'll see legitimate criticism, people raising questions, again with the israeli government. And that's what like, again, the biggest difference here is it can't be about individual people who happen to be jewish, but it's like the israeli government and the israeli government sometimes will opportunistically try to say any criticism of the government itself and its actions is anti semitic, which isn't necessarily the case. And so that, to me, is something that everything can't be it. Like, there has to be a way where you can say, hey, I don't agree with what this government is doing. But again, it can never be just because you don't agree with some government is doing. You can't then take that out on people or a non government actor in the same way with, I don't agree with what al Qaeda does or with ISIS does. And so therefore, that doesn't mean that I look at anyone who happens to share the same religion as them, as what I don't like them too. Like, so that's what we have to be able to do to be able to break apart. Because people have tribal instincts. It's hard to do that. And then again, actors who want less accountability might try to fool people with that and say, oh, well, any criticism of me? You're just criticizing me not because of what I've done, but because of who I am. And that's just not always the case, what's happening here. And the other thing I just wanna mention for the point of this is.
[00:29:14] Speaker B: That they're coming after me. Cause they wanna come after you. That kind of stuff.
Sorry. Manipulation.
[00:29:22] Speaker A: Manipulation, yes.
The other piece about this, and this is where I think the protesters, they, like, you have to be careful also with everything, can't be in the same way. I just said Israel. You can't let them off their government. You can't let them off the hook by saying, oh, well, when they say, anybody criticizes me as anti semitic, that's not necessarily true.
The protesters have to be careful with the idea of, okay, we have sympathy for the palestinian cause. We think the Palestinians are getting a raw deal here. Let's try to help the Palestinians. They gotta be careful equating that to Hamas because Hamas is no, like, if you're for the palestinian cause, that doesn't mean you then need to support Hamas. Hamas is doing their own thing. And that's what their thing is, is not necessarily supporting other Palestinians either. And a lot of times, again, with this polarized way that people tend to want to view things, just say, okay, well, if I'm against what the state of Israel is doing, then I must have some level of support for Hamas. And no, that is not the case at all. Like, you can look at what the israeli government is doing is over, is overreach. You can look at Hamas, what Hamas is doing and saying that they provoked it. They're not in there trying to help the palestinian people. You can find error in both of those entities and look at it from a humanitarian standpoint and just say, I don't like what's happened to the people, you know, the people who got kidnapped, you know, it went and Hamas attacked and the people that got killed there or the things that have happened to the people in Gaza since then. And so I think to me, there needs to be an effort, and this would be through leadership, to resist the temptation to try to say, okay, well, I'm just on this side, and so I'm going to look the other way on whatever this side does that I may not think is the best thing to do with, or I'm just on the other side. And then so with the protesters, I think I would caution that, because I do see that. And we have seen situations where students are taking the side of Hamas, which is very different, in my view, from taking the side of Palestinians and saying, hey, that they shouldn't be, have to live in this war zone and tens of thousands have been killed and so forth. That's a very different thing to saying, hey, we stand with Hamas because Hamas is not a good guy in this situation. Yeah.
[00:31:27] Speaker B: I mean, and that's where you just have to take it for its face. Right. I'm sure there's some of those kids which are naive and don't really understand what Hamas is about and what kind of that style of way of being, let's call it, that the very authoritarian style of Islam produces in certain societies within the Middle East. I mean, it's another, just like these groups are supported by Iran, and Iran is, you know, well known for killing a young lady a year or two ago because she dared show a little bit of her hair behind her hijab to go against the authority. So a lot of these kids, and that's what makes this a little bit just dizzying to look at from the outside because a lot of these, in this case of this protest, unlike the Unite the right rally in 2017, a lot of these kids probably would consider themselves more progressive, more in solidarity with LGBTQ rights and racial rights and all this kind of stuff, which then carries signs supporting a group like Hamas, which is the antithesis of a lot of progressive ideas.
[00:32:31] Speaker A: Yeah, that's not what you think it is. That's not saying. That's not standing with the Palestinians necessarily. That's. Yeah, that's a different statement. Now, you know, if. If you. If you have read what Hamas is about and you want to make that statement, you're allowed to in this country. But that's not. That we will look at that much differently than the person who says, hey, we need to make sure that these Palestinians get support and that they're not subjected to living in a war zone. That's a very different statement. To express support for Hamas. And so I would implore people to make sure they know what they're doing. Hamas will tell you who they are. It's not a secret, you know, and so you can find that out. You can read about it and everything. So, you know, but I do. Just real quick, before we. I want to get us on to part two, but before we go, just a more technical question, your thoughts on the use of the college campus. You know, which Columbia is a private university, but, you know, some of these schools are private, some are public, but the use of the college campus as the site of the protest. Now, to their point, what they're officially protesting, so to speak, is the school's involvement with the israeli government or the israeli military and so forth. But do you have strong positions or strong thoughts one way or the other on the use of the actual school facility, you know, like the yard at the school or whatever, for the site of these protests?
[00:33:43] Speaker B: Not generally. I mean, I would say, obviously, like any protest anywhere, I would say if you just. Freedom of assembly is part of our First Amendment. As you said, it's a private campus, but, you know, taking that out of it, it's still the ability to assemble, you know, with respect, and not commit violence and all that, and not intimidate people and not be anti semitic or bigoted towards other people. I would say, yeah, I support protests that, you know, don't, don't, don't go negative. Obviously, a lot of these protests have gone negative, and that's where I think, you know, we said a lot of things in discussion today.
And, you know, looking back historically, because I look back, number one, a fun fact I learned in preparing for today that Columbia University was actually founded by King George II. That's how old it is. So I thought that was cool.
But, you know, I started reading about just the history of some of this stuff. So, like, the 1968 protests, they seemed to be a big mess. I mean, I didn't know until reading, preparing for today that, you know, a lot of the students were actually occupying various buildings and wouldn't leave. So it's different occupying a square.
[00:34:49] Speaker A: But we can. But we can assume, though, any, any successful protest, any protest that gets a certain level of kind of turnover is going to be a mess. Like, that's kind of, that's kind of.
[00:35:00] Speaker B: Let me explain that, because number one in this part of the discussion, it's important, is why I think we all should continue to look at history, because once you see that these things have happened before, it takes kind of the severity of what's going on. It kind of tampons it down a bit. Okay. This is just another moment, like you said, in the culture, in our history, where young people feel, like you said, in a democracy, the need to kind of unleash a bit. Now, we've already discussed where we criticize the way that some people are unleashing, that, you know, the anti semitism and all that's very negative and also the ability to get kind of swayed. And that's what I'm saying. Like, when I look at what I read about 1968, you got several things. 68. You only had three years since the 65 Civil Rights act. You're on the height of all that stuff. Robert F. Kennedy, MLk, the Vietnam War. So you had issues of really domestic cultural issues, like civil rights and feminism. But then, like we alluded to earlier, you had the Vietnam War, and that was the last time we had a draft in this country. Who does a draft affect? People college age? So I can appreciate that in that era, people in their late teens, early twenties, were really anxious about a lot of things because I wouldn't want to be drafted into war if I didn't agree with it either. So I kind of get all that. That's why I said this protest today seems to be. It's just different because these kids on these campuses aren't being threatened domestically by either culture stuff like in the sixties, or by being said, hey, we're going to send you to Southeast Asia for a war that you don't even understand. And so that's why, to me, this. This, I do see it as now a middle aged person looking at the outside and already having put two kids through college myself, I feel like if one of my kids was up there, I'd be fine on the phone saying, go to class. You know, like, what are you doing out there?
[00:36:50] Speaker A: And so what you're saying, though, is that it's based on the content. You want to say that probably protest is valid based on whether the content you find to be justifying it or not, because that's a very anti american way, directly.
[00:37:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I would be an old curmudgeon if I had one of my kids in that.
[00:37:08] Speaker A: But at least you're being honest, though. And I think that. No, no, I think this is the.
[00:37:13] Speaker B: Hill to die on for my kids. That's all I'm gonna say.
[00:37:16] Speaker A: Well, for your kids is.
[00:37:17] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:37:17] Speaker A: I mean, that goes beyond what, whether what they're doing is, you know, it should be legal or should be something we embrace. Because that's really why I look at it more than anything is like, I think it actually, it raises interesting concerns because when you're protesting in public spaces, then, you know, it's. Anybody comes, if it's a college, you know, like, I can understand a private college. I can understand the school being like, look, students, that's one thing. This is where you live. I think that the colleges would be going the wrong way to try to, and some colleges have been doing this. Harvard, for example, closed their yard. I think that's going the wrong direction, saying the students can't be here because this is where the students are now. I do think it probably is worthwhile for them to make efforts to prevent non students from coming in, because, again, the college environment is one. Like, it's not some. It's not an open environment, so to speak. You don't necessarily need 40 year olds in there who have different agendas and so forth. If the students want to protest and they are living on campus, or they are, they are on campus, this is their campus, then I think that's something that should be protected. But again, like, once, if they're, if they want to bring. If they want a general population protest, they got to take it somewhere where it's, it's a public space. And so that, to me, is really what, what I see here, because it's, there have been reports of people who aren't necessarily students that are coming into these, and that mix creates a, creates risk that I don't know, that the colleges should be forced to bear. You know, if it's just the students, then, yeah, maybe the colleges, you know, you guys can deal with that. You know, you get, these schools charge a lot of money, you know, like, so they can, they can deal with students, you know, organizing, protesting in peaceful ways. They do have to figure out ways to try to make sure people feel safe, safe on campus. And, you know, that, that's a, that's the challenge always, you know, safety versus freedom of expression. But, you know, they're, they're big. They're big. You know, they're, they're, they're adults. They can figure that thing out. I don't think that our goal in society should try to make everything be, it. Make everything be easy for people. You know, it's. It's okay. Well, from a principal standpoint, where does this stuff, what does this stuff mean? And, you know, students are on campus there. You can draw a line between the students and non students. But at the same time, we can't draw a line saying, oh, well, this is just too hard. So we're going to shut it all down, which is kind of what Harvard did versus, you know, Columbia, saying, okay, hey, if you're going to do it, you know, like, we want to put constraints on it to make sure that it's done in a way that we can still go about our business of educating people. And again, I don't think it should. The question shouldn't be whether that's easy enough for them.
So I do. I want to wrap it here. Wrap it. Wrap our conversation from there. We appreciate, everybody, for joining us on part one of this discussion. Part two of this week's discussion will be coming up soon, so we hope that you join us with that as well.
All right, our second topic this week deals with Caitlyn Clark, who was the former Iowa Hawkeye star, took Iowa Hawkeye to, you know, far in the NCAA tournament the past two years to the title game past two years, and lost both times, but has been just a popular phenomenon. You know, the ratings for the games that she plays in have been, you know, through the roof and, you know, just draw driving interest. She get drafted into the WNBA number one pick, the teams that drafts her, you know, ticket sales through the roof, even the visiting games for the other teams, those ticket sales go through the roof. So it's, you know, it's been a phenomenon. Yet reports recently of her salary that she's going to be paid where I think it's under 400,000 for the next four years total, that that total. And there's been controversy over that, saying, oh, well, she's not getting paid what she deserves. She's getting underpaid. Did people compare to what the number one draft pick in the NBA makes and so forth and. Or just the value that she's driving? And so there's been quite a lot of discussion on whether or not she's being treated fairly, whether or not this is sexist because of the way she's being treated. And so, Tunda, I just want to get your reaction on that. Just with the amount of money that she's in line to generate versus the contract that she signed with the WNBA, do you think that, do you look at this as sexist, or do you look at other factors as driving this? Because the numbers are the numbers, you know, and so, like, what do we attribute, you know, this kind of discrepancy that we see?
[00:41:18] Speaker B: No, it's a good question. I mean, as you're lining it up, it makes me feel like. Just like our first topic today, there's. There's always complexity in these conversations. So let me answer directly on the sexism thing.
Is there sexism in the world? Is there institutionalized sexism, just like racism? I think, yeah, that does exist in this case.
Is her pay and her salary have to do with something sexist? I would say no, but I'll separate that from maybe the real corporate kind of salaries and what the WNBA has already established and the pecking order of how rookies get paid and all that, and the tv rights and all that stuff. I'll separate that from maybe. Has she encountered any sexism in kind of the media and the culture and all that? I have seen some reports about how certain reporters have talked to her and certain things where I could say, yeah, they might not talk to a male athlete like that. So that's why I think, again, it's nuanced. Right?
[00:42:17] Speaker A: So you're saying she is being treated sexist, but that her salary isn't necessarily a reflection.
[00:42:21] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm just being nuanced with it. That's. You know, and that's why I want to be very clear, because I take all this stuff very serious. Just like we had a very serious conversation in the last part of our show about anti semitism. Sexism is real. I'm not going to be one of these guys that just say, oh, you know, that everybody's crying. That doesn't exist. Of course, sexism does exist. And that's what I mean by systemic stuff. Just like we say that racism is still around. Right? So it's. It's. But not everything is racist right now. Not everything that happens to a guy like me, that's negative. I can't wanna run and say it's just cause of somebody who's racist. Sometimes it's my own behavior. Sometimes it just would have happened no matter who I was. And I think.
[00:42:57] Speaker A: Or the salmon that you plug into, the system that you plug into could be unfair for other reasons beyond race.
[00:43:04] Speaker B: Correct. And so that's where I'm saying that. I think I'm drawing that line to say, can she be right now, today, being treated, maybe unfairly, from a sexual. It's not sexual, but sexism. Point from the culture, from certain parts of the media and all that. Yes, that can totally be happening. And I've seen examples, like I mentioned, but I don't think that the salary part and all that is just sexism. A lot of that is capitalism. It's just the way that the revenues and all that flow.
[00:43:34] Speaker A: And, you know, I look at it in a similar sense in that her salary is a reflection of her being treated unfairly. But that doesn't stem from, like, she's being treated unfairly in the way that professional athletes are being unfit treated unfairly in that context. Like, professional athletes. Like, the. The idea that she got drafted is not fair, so to speak. Like that. If I'm the best software engineer in the country, I'm just. I can't get Apple, can't draft me, and then make me have to go work for Apple or some other company. The company that was the worst performing company in the last year doesn't get to draft my rights, and that's the only person I can play for. That's unfair. That's not because she's a woman. That's because professional athletes are subjected to certain unfair things. The fact that she has a slotted salary, she can't negotiate that salary. You know, like, based on. And that's based on the collective bargaining between the players union and the league, that's unfair. You know, like that. That's completely unfair. And then setting aside the. Okay, we're talking about her WNBA salary, but are we going to talk about her. Her college salary as being unfair to her college salary of zero? You know, she gets a scholarship, you know, and so that was unfair, too, with the amount of revenue she generated for Iowa and for the NCAA. But again, that wasn't unfair because of. Because she was a woman. That was unfair because of these structures and these systems are set up to be unfair. So I think it's actually a good thing that she's shining a light on the unfairness that might exist there. The anti. Kind of anti market, anti. It's anti capitalism in many respects, in terms of how the athletes are treated, create. Treated that she shined a light on it. But I do hope that it doesn't get misattributed, you know, that. That the reason she's experiencing these are the same things. It's on a different scale. It means a lot more to us when we see her coming in under $400,000 than it does seeing, you know, a NBA, seeing LeBron James come in at $40 million, even though Caitlin Clark may be worth a lot more than what she's paid, but so is LeBron James. LeBron James might be worth $100 million a year, but he's cap debt a certain amount, and so that won't get our passions fired up. It's like, oh, well, he get in our minds, this isn't necessarily the right way to think about it, but in our minds, like he gets enough anyway, so we're not going to cry about the fact that he doesn't get what he's worth either, you know. So professional sports though, like welcome to professional sports. The whole, the whole system is set up with these collective bargaining agreements and so forth to, in the United States at least, to underpay the athletes and to, you know, to treat them unfairly in many respects.
[00:46:06] Speaker B: I'm just laughing because when you said about LeBron James makes enough money, I mean, this will be for the real people our age who follow NBA. I'm thinking of when Lutrell Sprewell, like at the time he got offered like some $21 million, which was a big, you know, it was like 1518 years ago when that kind of money wasn't thrown around. Yeah. And he was like, I need more money. I gotta feed my kids.
I was thinking like, oh dude, that's not the way to respond.
[00:46:29] Speaker A: That's not going to garner any sympathy for you. Yeah, yeah, he was in a contract with you and yeah, that was, that was, that wasn't, you know, when your salary is public.
[00:46:38] Speaker B: Hey, that's a good example that the way the reason why he's not a hall of famer isn't racism. He was actually a really good player. He was one of those guys that had a certain type of attitude that rubbed people the wrong way.
So that was a good example besides choking his coach. But as a whole nother story. That's what I'm saying. We're old enough now that some young people don't know some of these stories.
But I think you make some great points because in reading and preparing, some good points were made that I think again, and this goes back a little bit of just generationally as well. Again, if you're a younger person, you don't appreciate all this. You and I aren't old enough to even appreciate some of this stuff. But we heard it again. The NBA is 75, 76 years old. And for its 1st, 35, 40 years, it didn't generate much at all. I mean it wasn't until the early eighties with magic and bird and also what kind of globalization, the technology of television, cable television, the ability for games to be seen more around the country. People didn't have to just go to stadiums and watch them.
And so that all helped. But there was a time, like I said, in the sixties, early seventies, that I hear of that? All professional sports, the athletes, actually, most of them held summer jobs, not because they just wanted to work more, because they had to. They just didn't. The leagues didn't earn that much money back then, and these leagues were new. And if you look at the WNBA is a much newer league than the NBA. And so part of it is, we are watching, and it's a good thing. The maturation of the WNBA and the ability, because of technology like we're talking about, maybe it's here, social media, as well, is able to blow through some of the existing order of media, and people get a real raw look at a really good basketball player named Caitlin Clark, and they like her, and so they're responding by buying tickets and watching her on tv and all that. And hopefully the goal. That's why I think, for people that feel like somehow Caitlin Clark's being treated unfairly from a salary perspective, maybe it makes them feel down about how women athletes are treated, and then maybe by extension, women in corporate America, we're seeing also a change. And this could be the beginning of where the collective bargaining agreement and the ability for female basketball players to negotiate higher revenue and higher salaries is coming. I mean, I would. I'm gonna assume that the next collective bargaining agreement is gonna play out different than current.
[00:49:11] Speaker A: Well, but there's an intermediate step, which we're about to witness. And your point is well taken. Like, from a pacing standpoint, the first 30 years of the WNBA, they're more successful than the first 30 years of the NBA. Now, it was a different time. And I don't think this is an issue of youth. I mean, this is an issue of just, if you parachute in, if you haven't followed professional sports, or more particularly, the business of professional sports, then learning some of this stuff will make. It will seem like, oh, well, that's. That's messed up, because, like I said, in large part, is several. Several structures in professional sports that a lot of Americans don't question are inherently unfair. Like, if you try to, if you go to european soccer and you start talking salary cap or you start talking draft, they'll laugh you out the room. It's like, well, hold up. I thought you guys were the free market people. Why would you do all these anti market.
The joke is always that professional sports owners are the most socialist guys in the room.
All of the rules that the leagues are governed by are very socialist. They're very collective, and it's the teams operating against the players, so to speak, and they have antitrust exemptions. With the government to back that up, so to speak, or to make sure that they can do that. But the intermediate step that Caitlin Clark is going to be a part of this is she's akin to a Larry Bird or a magic johnson in this sense, and to some degree, Michael Jordan, but he was a little further along. Or doctor J.
The growth in revenue happens before the growth, in the spoils for the players. And so if Caitlin Clark comes in and because she's there, there are more ticket sales, and this momentum continues, the next. The next group of players that come in and so forth, the league continues to build on this, then the salaries will increase, because, by and large, the way that these collective bargaining agreement works. Collective bargaining agreements work is that the players get a percentage of the revenue of the. Whether it be basketball related income, which is. Will be a defined formula or whatever. And so as the revenue grows, then the players pie will grow. You know, like, their cut may not stay the same or they may not. May not grow, but they're growing. Their cut will be where the next collective bargaining agreement, they can say, okay, well, we're. The revenue is growing. We want a larger cut, because right now, I do understand they get a smaller cut of the pie than what the men's leagues do. But again, that may be because it's smaller pie, necessarily, then, and the bargaining power of it. But Caitlin Clark and the ability to grow the revenue has to happen first before the amount of money can. Can start to compare with if the NBA is making billions of dollars every year and the WNBA is making a fraction of that, it's understandable why the top stars in the WNBA would make less than the top stars in the NBA. So they got to grow the revenue first. And Caitlin Clark should be, you know, the tip of the spear, the front end of that, which. And that's not to say that they haven't done that so far. Like, from what I understand, the revenue has grown a lot over the past five years already, so. But that's the process, though. It's.
You bring your star power, you grow the revenue, then you negotiate better deals, whether it be with the media rights or then the CBA deals, and then you get more money, more spoils out of it.
[00:52:13] Speaker B: Yeah, and I think that's a good point of, it's kind of like, it reminds me of the old field of dreams thing. If you build it, they'll come. And I think that's what you're saying, is that the talent pool in the WNBA has gotten a lot better in recent years. And Caitlin Clark is someone who will continue to improve that.
[00:52:28] Speaker A: So, as you know, I don't think that's the case. The talent. I do think talent pools gotten better, but actually, what. What's needed isn't better. What's been shown is it's not necessarily. Is the gameplay better? It's stars. It's people who bring eyeballs. It's not necessarily, like, the talent. Excuse me. The. The players were maybe just as good three years ago, but if they didn't have the same star power, and this is movies. This is you. You could be the best method actor in the world. But if you don't have the star power, your movie may not draw like Tom Cruise, you know? And so what she's bringing. She's a great player, but she's also bringing star power. And so that's what's gonna help really push. And so that's why I would push back on you. And just that, yes, the players are better, but what's really needed is, are these magnetic personalities or these storylines, which we talked about a couple weeks ago, like these storylines that bring more people in. And Caitlin Clark, you know, and some of the controversies he's been in has been a storyline. It brought more people in, and her game has brought more people in, and her personality has brought more people in. So that's the kind of stuff you need.
[00:53:29] Speaker B: Yeah, and that's a good point. And, you know, when you think about it, to your point about the WNBA, I mean, the idea you use of pacing is very good. Cause I'm thinking about it. We're in 2024 now, the year, it's been exactly 40 years since the first Air Jordans were released. Think about that.
Ten years later. By 93, I think. So let's call it nine years later. Michael Jordan was the highest paid player in the league that year, and I think his salary was $4 million.
And last year, in 2023, I believe Stephen Curry was the highest paid player. His salary was 48 million. So you're right when you're talking about the pacing. The NBA just had a lot more time and a lot more longevity with things like sports marketing, the shoes, the video games, all that stuff into your point, the collective bargaining nature of that. And so the WNBA is now going to start having that. And I think it's evident with things like the fact that Caitlin Clark signed. I believe it's a $28 million contract with Nike, which is unprecedented for a female basketball player. And it's great. And think about this. Nike is just like they do with other people, right. They're taking a risk because she hasn't played one WNBA game yet. We don't know what kind of player is. And again, going back to the men's side, how many times have you and I, specifically in basketball since we were in high school, seen players that were really awesome in college that didn't play out in the NBA the same way? And, you know, that could happen with Caitlin Clark. I hope it doesn't. But I'm just saying that the idea that Nike took this type of gamble and given her this kind of contract is another sign to me that her salary isn't about sexism. Let me just put it that way.
[00:55:12] Speaker A: It's because that. That salary is not subject to collective bargaining.
[00:55:16] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:55:16] Speaker A: She didn't get drafted by Nike. She could negotiate with any shoe company and all shoe companies and try to get the best deal and so forth. And that's what I mean as far as how the actual WNBA piece of it is unfair. But again, don't miss attribute the unfairness. The unfairness isn't because she's a woman. The unfairness is because those systems are set up to. Rigged against the professional athletes. And, you know, that's not. That's not something I think is a good thing. But, you know, that's kind of. We accept that for whatever reason in the United States, we accept that. You know, like, just with the. We take. When. When there's disputes between players and owners, we take the owner's side. You know, it's really bizarre, you know, to me, you know, to see that, like, just.
[00:55:52] Speaker B: We are susceptible to let billionaires manipulate us in the United States. I don't know why.
[00:55:59] Speaker A: I want to make one point because we got to get out of here. But I'm glad you brought up the Nike thing, because I've seen also some of the pushback. They didn't do this. But do people say, oh, well, it's okay that her WNBA salary is low because she has the opportunity to state farm and Nike and all these other. To make up for endorsements. And I think that's a. That point is objectively wrong. That should be additive. Like, the. Her. The fact that she makes less than the WNBA isn't made fair because she makes more in these other contexts from, you know, she's making that money because those companies, independent of anything else, think that she. Her star power drives their business. And so it's not something that like. But again, the WNBA game, that process happens on a different timeline. Again, she didn't get State farm, didn't draft her. And so Allstate couldn't sign her, like, State Farm, and Allstate had to compete. But I'm not saying. I don't know. There's not reporting that. Allstate tried to, but just for purposes of illustration, had to compete. And whoever offered the best money or the most best opportunity got the deal, you know, with her. So the. The fact that she makes marketing money doesn't take away from the fact that what she makes perfect from, because the WNBA money, it's not like the money that she's supposed to get a fair cut of the WNBA money as well. And so. And she doesn't get that yet, but that pot needs to grow, and then they need to get a better cut out of it. That she's part of that process is the overall point. But it shouldn't be that, oh, okay. WNBA shouldn't have to pay her as much, because these other companies will do it as well, because the WNBA is making money. And, you know, the Indiana fever, the team she's going to play for, they're making money. And so that money should be. I mean, and that's just, you know, the way, like, with. She's part of the labor, and so that money should be shared with, you know, in terms of the people that are generating that revenue, so to speak. So I just wanted to make that point as far as it is a throw off to say, oh, well, because she has the market, the $20 million Nike contract, the WNBA stuff doesn't matter. That stuff still matters. It's different pots, it's different revenue streams. But the Nike one and the other endorsements, just the path to growth for those is straighter because it doesn't involve revenues of the holy collective bargaining. All this other stuff. Yeah.
[00:58:05] Speaker B: And I just want to finish on just some of the stats. I mean, just to compare. I mean, the NBA's revenue last year was around ten and a half billion dollars.
And that's up. I was looking back, there's some good charts. In, like, the year 2000, the NBA was at 2 billion in revenue. And so it was probably around 2010, 2011, it was around five, 6 billion. The WNBA, they estimate, made close to $200 million last year. In 23. The year before, it made $100 million in revenue. So, meaning the date doubled in one year, where it took the NBA almost a decade to double to where it is now. So, to your point about the pace of things and this exponential growth, the WNBA appears to be on a good trajectory.
[00:58:52] Speaker A: I want to highlight, in order for her salary. Yeah, yeah.
[00:58:55] Speaker B: Well, that's where I'm going, because I want to. I want to highlight Shaquille O'Neal's comments that I saw recently. And I think he was right. I mean, he made a great point. He said, first of all, I can't name you any of the male college basketball players from this Final Four and all that. And, I mean, look, I can't either, but that's because I wasn't paying too much attention to it. I also wasn't paying too much attention. That's where I'm getting at. I wasn't paying attention to the girls, either. But I can name three or four female players from this year's WNBA. Sorry, NCAA female tournament. So that Shaq's point is valid. That, to your. And your point of it already shows that the star power, the media, is starting to pay attention more than they did in the past. The second is, if you look at the amount of people that watched the finals in the NBA in 2022 on television was 12.4 million, as opposed to 412,000 viewers for the WNBA Finals in the same year of 2022, I'm going to assume those numbers will be higher going forward. But what Shaq's case was, was for everyone that's got an issue with this, they really need to go and support the WNBA. And that doesn't mean just turning on the tv once in a while and all that. That means you got to go spend money on the jerseys. You got to go buy the video games. You got to go to the actual games. If you're within that market, not just watch on tv, but pay for tickets, because that's how the NBA got to where it is today, is the merchandise. It's the shoes. It's the this, the that. So, when Nike does create the Caitlin Clark shoe, hopefully a lot of people buy it because it'll give Nike and other companies confidence to go find the next female basketball player and do an endorsement contract. So this goes back to, like, everything else in our society, like our democracy and all that. If we want to see a change, we got to actually, we, as the people within this society, have to do something about it. And in this case, we need to support those of us that want to see the WNBA have more revenue and the players make more money. We actually got to go spend money now in that space. And I think that's. That's key.
[01:00:53] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's from. If you want to create change in a market type system, then you vote with your pocketbook. And so that's kind of that point is that, you know, like, yes, you choose where to spend your money. If you don't load the way, don't like the way certain things happen. You know, you, you withhold your money if you, if you want to encourage certain things or to support certain things that you, you would direct your, your money there. So, but, no, I think that's a good point. And, you know, that's the ongoing challenge, so to speak. And, you know, it'll be on the labor union and so forth to, to also get a better, shake, a better share of what they're doing. But growing the revenue is, and it has to happen for the salaries to match up. So, so, yeah, but, but I think we can wrap from there. We appreciate everybody, for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it, subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it. Tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Until next time. I'm James Keys.
[01:01:43] Speaker B: I'm tunde one. Lana.
[01:01:44] Speaker A: All right. We'll talk to you next time.
