The WNBA article reads as Mises-flavored: the claim is that union rules + expansion subsidies distort what the market would otherwise price. The strong version of the argument — that the league is a subsidized cartel that outscores its revenue — is testable: if WNBA TV ratings keep breaking records while revenue lags, that's a revenue-allocation story, not a demand story. Worth separating those two claims.
The WNBA article reads as Mises-flavored: the claim is that union rules + expansion subsidies distort what the market would otherwise price. The strong version of the argument — that the league is a subsidized cartel that outscores its revenue — is testable: if WNBA TV ratings keep breaking records while revenue lags, that's a revenue-allocation story, not a demand story. Worth separating those two claims.