Sociology Mind
2012. Vol.2, No.1, 95-108
Published Online January 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/sm) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sm.2012.21013
95
African Americans in the US Women’s National Basketball
Association, 2006: From the NCAA to the WNBA
Amadu Jacky Kaba
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Seton Hall University, South Orange, USA
Received September 17th, 2011; revised October 25th, 2011; accepted December 6th, 2011
This research study presents a social science examination of the US Women’s National Basketball As-
sociation (WNBA) players for the 2006 season. This study does not examine on-court performance data.
Instead, it focuses on the profile of the players as human beings, by looking at their race, average age,
height and weight, colleges or universities attended in the United States and which regions these institu-
tions are located in, demographics of international players, graduation rates, etcetera. The paper also ex-
amines the issue of gender bias when it comes to salaries and advertisement or endorsement opportunities.
Keywords: Women’s National Basketball: USA; African American Women; Educational Attainment;
NCAA; Gender and Sports
Introduction
African American females, like their male counterparts have
been playing or participating in organized sports in the United
States from the 1800s or before. Among the sports that African
American females have been participating in are: Basketball,
Fencing, Field Hockey, Figure Skating, Golf, Gymnastics, La-
crosse, Rowing, Softball, Soccer, Swimming, Tennis, Track
and Field, and Volleyball. Due to its popularity in the United
States and the world, and also due to their history in the country,
the relationship between African American females and Bas-
ketball has been unique. That is because it is the sport that has
contributed to providing college scholarships to a very large
number of Black females in the past several decades. By the
21st Century, basketball is also providing African American
women with jobs and advertisement opportunities, although not
as large as their male counterparts (Abney, 1999; Baker, 2008;
Grundy & Shackelford, 2006; McDonald, 2000; Ruihley, 2010;
Spencer & McClung, 2001; Staffo, 1998a; Wearden & Creedon,
2002; Yafie, 1997). As Abney (1999) notes: “African American
women have made significant contributions and set standards of
excellence in every aspect of sport. Although seldom recognized
and rewarded, they have excelled in many sports including
tennis, golf, gymnastics, figure skating, volleyball, lacrosse, field
hockey, fencing, rowing, track, and basketball. African American
women have attained prominence and had successful careers as
Olympians, professional and collegiate athletes, coaches, admini-
strators, officials, athletic trainers, and sportscasters… African
American women have had to overcome many odds, including the
double jeopardy of gender an d r a ce . D u r in g t h e e a r l y 1900s, they
competed during times when women were not encouraged to
become athletes and African Americans were not given equal
opportunities” (p. 35).
The United States women’s professional basketball league,
the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) is in-
creasing its popularity not only in the US, but all over the world,
despite the fact that the league as of 2011 has been in existence
for only 15 years. Picker (2006) quoted the league’s former
president, Donna Orender as saying that: “Not only is basket-
ball the No. 1 participatory sport for girls in the United States,
there are 100 million females playing this sport around the
world… It is a global game for women as well as for men” (p.
D6). Staffo (1998a) also points out that 80 million females
across the world play basketball and that in the United States it
was the sport most female youths play (p. 191).
The purpose of this study is to take an in-depth social science
examination of the players that comprised the United States
Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) for the
2006 season. The study does not include statistics showing the
numbers or percentages of points, assists, rebounds, etcetera of
the players (Gomez et al., 2009; Kochman & Goodin, 2003).
Nor does this paper include the teams that each player is on.
Instead, this study focuses only on the profile of these players
or in knowing their various characteristics such as their racial
breakdown, colleges and universities attended, international
players, their average height, weight, and age. In some in-
stances, comparisons will be made with their male counterparts
in the 2005-2006 US National Basketball Association (NBA).
The paper begins with the methodology. Next it presents the
statistical findings of the various characteristics of the players.
Finally, the paper presents a discussion section with analysis of
some of the data in the findings.
Methodology
All of the data were compiled from the official website of
the WNBA (http://www.wnba.com) as of May 20, 2006, the
official o pening day of the 2 006 season. The WNBA presents
a profile of each of its players in alphabetical order. I printed
out the profile of each player and transferred her data into an
excel spreadsheet in alphabetical order. One large table was
created and it contains the profiles of all the players. The
variables include date of birth and age, racial background,
height, weight, position played, college/university or institu-
tion attended, state in the US where institution is located,
region of the country (e.g. Northeast, Midwest, South and

A. J. KABA
West, using US Census or government classification) where
institution is located, and year of graduation for those players
who attended colleges or universities in the United States.
Data for salaries of WNBA players are not posted on the
league’s website nor are they posted by the USA Today
newspaper, which posts salary figures for the National Bas-
ketball Association (NBA), their male counte rparts. However,
according to Isaacson (2006): “The WNBA rookie minimum
is $31,800, as opposed to nearly $400,000 in the NBA. The
average WNBA salary is $50,000, as opposed to the NBA’s
$4.5 million” (p. 1; also see Staffo, 1998; Cahppell & Kara-
georghis, 2001). As little as their salaries are by 2006, those
figures actually increased from the 1990s. For example, ac-
cording to Staffo (1998a): “…WNBA salaries range from
$15,000 to $50,000 excluding meal and travel money…
another source described the same sliding scale but listed the
minimum at only $10,000” (p. 193). Kaba (2011a) points out
that the average salary of US National Basketball Association
(NBA) players for the 2005-2006 season was $3.9 million (p.
7).
Data for WNBA players who are foreign-born were also
compiled and computed. The figures for age are as of May 31,
2006. The players are also separated into two categories based
on their pictures posted on the WNBA official website: 1)
Players of African decent (but referred to as Black players in
this study); and 2) White players. This author, who has pub-
lished extensively on the racial make-up of not only the people
of the United States, but also the world, utilized the classifica-
tion of various racial groups in the US to divide the players (see
Kaba, 2006ab, 2011a). For example, in the US, people who are
of Turkish, Arab, Jewish, Iranian, or European ancestry, are
classified as White, while anyone with Black African ancestry
is classified as Black or African American. And individuals
from East Asia and South Asia are classified under
Asian/Pacific Isl an d er s .
It is useful to note that these classifications are by no means
saying that is what these players are or identified themselves as.
The classifications are utilized only to help us understand the
racial make-up of the league.
General Findings
Numbers, P e rcentages and Racia l Make-Up of
WNBA Players
Like their male counterparts in the NBA, players of African
descent or Black players comprise the majority in the US
Women’s National Baske tball Association (WNBA). However,
their proportion is not as high as the men. Of a list of 177
names of WNBA players on the league’s website as of 12:30
pm on May 20, 2006 (opening day of the 2006 regular season),
data were not available for two players, bringing the list down
to 175 players. The data in this entire section focus on these
175 players, all of whom are either categorized as Black or
White (No other players from other racial groups are among
those 175 total players). Of those 175 players, Black players
comprised 118 (67.4%), and White players comprised 57
(32.6%) (Table 1). Lapchick and Kushner (2006) present a
breakdown of WNBA players for the 1999 and 2005 seasons,
utilizing cultural, instead of racial definition. They claim that in
the 1999 WNBA season, African American players comprised
64%, White players, 32% and Latina players, 2%. For the
Table 1.
Profile of 2006 WNBA players: As of May 20, 2006.
Total# of all Players#of Black Players % #of White Players%
175 118 67.4 57 32.6
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.
wnba.com, 2006.
2005 WNBA season, African American players comprised 130
(63%); White players, 69 (34%); Latina players, 2 (1%); 1
Asian player; and a group of players called “Other”, 3 (1%) (p.
13). For comparative purposes, of the 430 players in the NBA
during the 2005-2005 season, 327 (76%) were Black, 101
(23.5%) were White, and 2 were Northeast Asians (Kaba,
2011a: p. 4).
Average Age of All Players
On average, Black players are older than White players. The
average age of all 175 players was 25.9 years. The average age
of the Black players was 26.2 years, and the average age of the
White play ers wa s 25.3 y ear s (Ta bl e 2 ). In the NBA, during the
2005-2006 season, the average age of all 430 players was 26.5
years; 26.7 years for Blacks and 26.1 years for White players
(Kaba, 2011a: p. 12).
In addition, no player in the WNBA was 20 years or younger.
A total of 96 players (54.9% of all players) were 21 - 25 years
old. Of that total, Black players accounted for 61 (63.5%, but
51.7% of all 118 Black players, and 34.9% of all 175 players),
and White players accounted for 35 (36.5%, but 61.4% of all 57
White players, and 20% of all 175 players). A total of 41 play-
ers (23.4% of all players) were 26 to 29 years old. Of that total,
Black players comprised 28 (68.3%, but 23.7% of all Black
players, and 16% of all 175 players), and White players com-
prised 13 (31.7%, but 22.8% of all White players, and 7.4% of
all 175 players). A total of 37 players (21.1% of all players)
were 30 years or older. Of that total, Black players comprised
28 (75.7%, but 23.7% of all Black players, and 16% of all 175
players), and White players comprised 9 (24.3%, but 15.8% of
all White players, and 5.1% of all 175 players) (Table 3).
Average Height of All Players
Players of African descent in the WNBA are shorter on av-
erage than White players. The average height of all WNBA
players was 72.4 inches (over 6’0”). The average height of
Black players was 72.3 inches (over 6’0”), and the average
height of White players was 72.6 inches (upwards to 6’1”)
(Table 4). In the NBA, during the 2005-2006 season, the aver-
age height of all players was 79.2 inches (just over 6’7”); 78.6
inches (up to 6’7”) for Black players; and 81 inches (6’9”) for
White players (Kaba, 2011a: p. 6).
Table 2.
Average age of WNBA players.
All Players ( N = 175)Black Pl a yers (N = 118) White Players (N = 5 7)
Average Age Average Age Average Age
25.9 (year s ) 26.2 (year s ) 25.3 (year s)
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.
nba.com, 2006. w
96

A. J. KABA
Table 3.
Age groups of WNBA players: 2006 season.
% of all % of all
Item Number % of total ( 175) Blacks Whites
#of All Players 20 Years Old or Younger 0 0 0 0
#of All Players 21 - 25 Years Old 96 54.9
#of All Blac k Players 21 - 25 Years O l d 61 34.9 51.7
#of All White Players 21 - 25 Years Old 35 20 61.4
#of All Players 26 - 29 Years Old 41 23.4
#of All Blac k P layers 26 - 2 9 Years Old 28 16 23.7
#of All White Players 26 - 29 Years Old 13 7.4 22.8
#of All Players 30 Years Old or Older 37 21.1
#of All Blac k Players 30 Y ears Old or Older 28 16 23.7
#of All White Players 30 Years Old or Older 9 5.1 15.8
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.wnba.com, 2006.
Table 4.
Average height of WNBA players.
All Players (N = 175) Black Players N = 118 White Players N = 57
Average Height Average Height Average Height
72.4 inches (over 6’0”) 72.3 inches (over 6’0”) 72.6 inches (6’1”)
Source: Compiled and Computed based on Data on the WNBA Website. www.
wnba.com, 2006.
It is useful to note that the mean or average height of females
20 years and over in the US from 1999 to 2002 was 63.8 inches
or almost 5’4” tall. When broken down according to race/cul-
tural background both non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic
Blacks are taller than the national average (64.2 inches each for
those 20 years and over) and they are also both at 64.6 inches
tall each for those 20 - 39 years (Table 5). For males 20 years
and over in the US during that same period, their average height
was 69.2 inches; 69.7 inches for non-Hispanic White males;
and 69.5 inches for non-Hispanic Black males (Kaba, 2011a: p.
10).
In addition to their average height, a total of 107 players
(61.1% of all players) are 6’0” or taller. Of that total, 74 Black
players (42.3% of all players, but 62.7% of all Black players)
are 6’0” or taller, and 33 White players (18.9% of all players,
but 57.9% of all White players) are 6’0” or taller. A total of 57
players (32.6% of all players) are 6’1’ to 6’2” tall. Of that total,
42 Black players (24% of all players, but 35.6% of all Black
Table 5.
Mean height (inches) for females 20 years and above, 1999-2002:
United States.
Females
20 Years & Over 63.8
Non-Hispanic Black Females
20 Years & Over 64.2
20 - 39 Year s 64.6
Non-Hispanic White Female s
20 Years & Over 64.2
20 - 39 Year s 64.6
Source: Ogden et al., 2004, pp. 8-15.
players) are 6’1” to 6’2” tall, and 15 White players (8.6% of all
players, but 26.3% of all White players) are 6’1” to 6’2” tall. A
total of 68 players (38.9% of all players) are from 5’3” to 5’11”
tall.
A total of 50 players (28.6% of all players) are 6’3” or taller.
Of that total, 32 Black players (18.3% of all players, but 27.1%
of all Black players) are 6’3” or taller, and 18 White players
(10.3% of all players, but 31.6% of all White players) are 6’3”
or taller. A total of 30 players (17.1% of all players) are 6’4” or
taller. Of that total, 17 Black players (9.7% of all players, but
14.4% of all Black players) are 6’4” or taller, and 13 White
players (7.4% of all players, but 22.8% of all White players) are
6’4” or taller. A total of 16 players (9.1% of all players) are
6’5” or taller. Of that total, 6 Black players (3.4% of all pl ay ers,
but 5.1% of all Black players) are 6’5” or taller, and 10 White
players (5.7% of all players, but 17.5% of all White players) are
6’5” or taller. Finally, a total of 5 players (2.9% of all players)
are 6’6” or taller. Of that total, 1 Black player (0.6% of all
players, but 0.8% of all Black players) is 6’6” or taller, and 4
White playe rs (2. 3% of all pl ayers, but 7% of all White players)
are 6’6” or taller. Four White players (2.3% of all players, 7%
of all White players) are 6’7” or taller. Three White players are
6’8” or taller. There are 2 White players who are 6’8” tall, and
1 White player who is 7’2” tall (Table 6).
Average Weight of All Players
There might be a correlation between being taller and also
weighing heavier. White players in the WNBA on average are
heavier than Black players. The average weight of all WNBA
players was 168.7 pounds. The average weight of White players
was 169.7 pounds, and 168.1 pounds for Black players (Table
7). In the NBA, during the 2005-2006 season, the average
weight of all 430 players was 223.9 pounds; 220.3 pounds for
Blacks; and 233.6 pounds for Whites (Kaba, 2011a: p. 10).
In the general US population, from 1999 to 2002 the mean or
average weight of females 20 years and over was 162.9 pounds.
For non-Hispanic White females, it was 161.7 pounds, and
182.4 pounds for non-Hispanic Black females during that same
period. For those aged 20 - 39 years, it was 158.4 pounds for
non-Hispanic White females, and 179.2 pounds for non-His-
panic Black females (Table 8). For males 20 years and over in
the US during that same period, their average weight was

A. J. KABA
Table 6.
Height breakdown of WNBA players.
% of all % of Black % of White
Item # players Players only Players only
Total# of all players 6’0” and tal ler 107 61.1
Total# of all Black players 6’0” and taller 74 42.3 62.7
Total# of all White players 6’0” and taller 33 18.9 57.9
Total# of all players 6’1” to 6’ 2 ” tall 57 32.6
Total# of all Black players 6’1” to 6’2” tall 42 24 35.6
Total# of all White playe rs 6’ 1” to 6’2” ta ll 15 8.6 26.3
Total# of all players 6’3” and tall er 50 28.6
Total# of all Black players 6’3” and taller 32 18.3 27.1
Total# of all White players 6’3” and taller 18 10.3 31.6
Total# of all players 6’4” and tal ler 30 17.1
Total# of all Black players 6’4” and taller 17 9.7 14.4
Total# of all White playe rs 6’4” and taller 13 7.4 22.8
Total# of all players 6’5” and tall er 16 9. 1
Total# of all Black players 6’5” and taller 6 3.4 5.1
Total# of all White playe rs 6’ 5” and taller 10 5.7 17.5
Total# of all players 6’6” and taller 5 2.9
Total# of all Black players 6’6” and taller 1 0. 6 0. 8
Total# of all White players 6’6” and taller 4 2.3 7
Total# of all players 5’3” to 5’ 1 1” tall 68 38.9
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.wnba.com, 2006.
Table 7.
Average weight of WNBA players.
All Players ( N = 170) Black P l ay ers (N = 114 ) White Players (N = 56)
Average Weight
(pounds) Aver ag e Weight (pounds) Average Weight (pounds)
168.7 168.1 169.7
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.
wnba.com, 2006.
Table 8.
Mean weight (pounds) for females 20 years and above, 1999-2002:
United States.
Females
20 Years & O ver 162.9
Non-Hispanic Black Females
20 Years & O ver 182.4
20 - 39 Yea r s 179.2
Non-Hispanic White Female s
20 Years & O ver 161.7
20 - 39 Yea r s 158.4
Source: Ogden et al., 2004, pp. 8-15.
189.8 pounds; 193.1 pounds for non-Hispanic White males; and
189.2 pounds for non-Hispanic Black males (Kaba, 2011a: p.
11).
Number of Players Institutions in Sending States Had
in the WNBA: 20 06 Season
A total of 33 states (with Washington DC as a state equiva-
lent) in the country had colleges and universities with a com-
bined total of 156 players (89.13% of all 175 players) on the
rosters of WNBA teams on opening day on May 20, 2006. Of
those 156 players, Blacks comprised 114 (73.1%), and Whites
comprised 44 (26.9%).
A total of 6 states had double figure numbers of players on
opening day: Tennessee, 14 players (13 Blacks and 1 White);
Texas, 11 players (10 Blacks and 1 White); Connecticut, 12
players (7 Blacks and 5 Whites); Louisiana, 12 players (all 12
are Black players); California, 11 players (9 Blacks and 2
Whites); an d Fl orida, 11 players (9 Blac ks a n d 2 Whit es).
Two states had 9 players each: Georgia (7 Blacks and 2
Whites); and North Carolina (8 Blacks and 1 White). The state
of Virginia had 6 players (4 Blacks and 2 Whites). Three states
had 5 players each: Kansas (1 Black and 4 Whites); Indiana (2
Blacks and 3 Whites); and Pennsylvania (4 Blacks and 1 White).
Four states had 4 players each: Alabama (all 4 are Black play-
ers); Iowa (3 Blacks and 1 White); and Utah (1 Black and 3
Whites). Three states had 3 players each: Michigan (all 3 are
White players); Missouri (all 3 are Black players); and New
Jersey (all 3 are Black players).
A total of 6 states had 2 players each: Massachusetts (1
Black and 1 White); Minnesota (all 2 are White players); Mis-
sissippi (all 2 are Black players); Ohio (1 Black and 1 White);
Oklahoma (1 Black and 1 White); Oregon (1 Black and 1
White); and South Carolina (all 2 are Black players). A total of
7 states had 1 player each: Arkansas (Black player); Colorado
(White player); Nebraska (White player); Nevada (White
player); Washington DC (Black player); West Virginia (White
player); and Wisconsin (Black player) (Table 9).
Sending Institutions (Colleges and Universities)
A total of 69 colleges and universities in the United States
98

A. J. KABA
Table 9.
Number of players institutions (colleges or universities may send 1 or
more players) in sending states sent : 2006 WNBA season.
N = 156
State Total# of
Players Sent
#of Black
Players
#of White
Players
Tennessee 14 13 1
Texas 11 10 1
Connecticut 12 7 5
Louisiana 12 12 0
California 11 9 2
Florida 11 9 2
Georgia 9 7 2
North Carol ina 9 8 1
Virginia 6 4 2
Kansas 5 1 4
Indiana 5 2 3
Pennsylvania 5 4 1
Illinois 4 3 1
Alabama 4 4 0
Iowa 4 3 1
Utah 4 1 3
Michigan 3 0 3
Missouri 3 3 0
New Jersey 3 3 0
Massachusetts 2 1 1
Minnesota 2 0 2
Mississippi 2 2 0
Ohio 2 1 1
Oklahoma 2 1 1
Oregon 2 1 1
South Carolina 2 2 0
Arkansas 1 1 0
Colorado 1 0 1
Nebraska 1 0 1
Nevada 1 0 1
Washington DC 1 1 0
West Virginia 1 0 1
Wisconsin 1 1 0
Total 156 114 42
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.
wnba.com, 2006.
had a total of 156 players (89.1% of all 175 players) in the
WNBA on opening day, on May 20, 2006. Two Universities
had double figure number of players: University of Connecticut,
12 (7 Blacks and 5 Whites), and the University of Tennessee,
11 (10 Blacks and 1 White). The University of Georgia had 8
players (6 Blacks and 2 Whites). Louisiana State University and
Louisiana Tech University each had 5 players (all of them are
Black). Four institutions had 4 players each: Duke University
(3 Blacks and 1 White); Kansas State University (all 4 players
are White); University of Florida (all 4 players are Black); and
University of Southern California (all 4 players are Black).
A total of 9 institutions (13% of all 69 institutions) had 3
players each: Michigan State University (all 3 players are
White); Penn State University (2 Blacks and 1 White); Rutgers
University (all 3 players are Black); Texas Tech (all 3 players
are Black); University of Iowa (all 3 players are Black); Uni-
versity of Missouri, Columbia (all 3 players are Black); Uni-
versity of North Carolina (all 3 players are Black); University
of Notre Dame (1 Black and 2 Whites); and the University of
Virginia (all 3 players are Black).
A total of 21 institutions (30.4% of all 69 institutions) had 2
players each: Auburn University (all 2 players are Black);
Baylor University (all 2 players are Black); Brigham Young
University (1 Black and 1 White); DePaul University (all 2
players are Black); Florida International University (1 Black
and 1 White); Florida State University (1 Black and 1 White);
Mississippi State University (all 2 players are Black); North
Carolina State University ( all two players are Black); Old Do-
minion University (1 Black and 1 White); Purdue University (1
Black and 1 White); Stanford University (all 2 players are
Black); Tulane University (all 2 players are Black); University
of California, Los Angeles (all 2 players are Black); University
of Houston (all 2 players are Black); University of Kansas (all 2
players are Black); University of Minnesota (all 2 players are
White); University of Oregon (1 Black and 1 White); Univer-
sity of South Carolina, Columbia (all 2 players are Black);
University of Texas, Austin (1 Black and 1 White); University
of Utah (all 2 players are White); and Vanderbilt University (all
2 players are Blac k).
A total of 30 institutions (43.5% of all 69 institutions) had 1
player each: Boston College (Black player); Colorado State
University (White player). Florida Atlantic University (Black
player); Georgetown University (Black player); Georgia Tech
(Black player); Harvard University (Black player); Iowa State
University (White player); Liberty University (White player);
The Master’s College (White player); Ohio State University
(White player); Pepperdine University (Black player); Saint
Edwards University (Black player); Southeastern Oklahoma
State University (Black player); Temple University (Black
player); Texas Christian University (Black player); University
of Alabama, Birmingham (Black player); University of Ala-
bama, Tuscaloosa (Black player); University of Arkansas, Fa-
yetteville (Black player); University of California, Santa Bar-
bara (White player); University of Central Florida (Black
player); University of Cincinnati (Black player); University of
Illinois, Champaign (Black player); University of Memphis
(Black player); University of Miami (Black player); University
of Nebraska, Lincoln (White player); University of Nevada, Las
Vegas (White player); University of Oklahoma (White player);
University of Wisconsin (Black player); Western Illinois Uni-
versity (White player); and West Virginia University (White
player) (Table 10).
Number of Players Institutions and Regions Had in
the WNBA: 200 6 Season
Institutions in the Southern United States sent the highest
proportion of players to the WNBA. In fact, the South had the
majority of players in the WNBA, compared to the other three
official regions of the United States. Of 156 players for whom
available data showed that they attended colleges or universities
n the US, 85 (54.5%) are from institutions located in the i

A. J. KABA
100 Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Table 10.
All 69 sending institutions and NCAA & NAIA conferences: 2006 WNBA season.
N = 156 Players
Institution Total# of
Players
#of Black
Players
#of White
Players NCAA or NAIA Conference
University of Connec ti cut 12 7 5 Big East Conference
University of Tennessee, Knoxville 11 10 1 Southeastern Conference
University of G eorgia 8 6 2 Southeastern Conference
Louisiana State University 5 5 0 Southeastern Conference
Louisiana T ech University 5 5 0 Western Athletic Conference
Duke University 4 3 1 Atlantic Coast Conferenc e
Kansas State University 4 0 4 Big 12 Conference
University of Florida 4 4 0 Southeastern Conference
University of Southe rn California 4 4 0 Pacific-10 Conference
Michigan State University 3 0 3 Big Ten Conference
Penn State University 3 2 1 Big Ten Conference
Rutgers University 3 3 0 Big East C onference
Texas Tec h University 3 3 0 Big 12 Conference
University of Iowa 3 3 0 Big Ten Confe rence
University of Mi ssouri, Columbia 3 3 0 Big 12 Conference
University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill 3 3 0 Atlantic Coast Conference
University of N otre Dame 3 1 2 Big East C onference
University of Vir ginia 3 3 0 Atlantic C oast Conference
Auburn University 2 2 0 Southeastern Confe r ence
Baylor University 2 2 0 Big 12 Conference
Brigham Young Univers ity 2 1 1 Mountain West Conference
DePaul University 2 2 0 Big East C onference
Florida International University 2 1 1 Sun Belt Con ference
Florida State University 2 1 1 Atlantic Coast Conference
Mississippi State University 2 2 0 Southeastern Conference
North Carolina State University 2 2 0 Atlantic Coast Conference
Old Dominion University 2 1 1 Colonial Athletic Association
Purdue University 2 1 1 Big Ten Co nference
Stanford University 2 2 0 Pacific-10 Conference
Tulane University 2 2 0 Conference U SA
University o f California , Los Angeles 2 2 0 Pacific-10 Conference
University of Houston 2 2 0 Conference USA
University of Kansas 2 2 0 Big 12 Conference
University of Minnesota 2 0 2 Big Ten Conference
University of Oregon 2 1 1 Pacific-10 Conference
University of South Carolina, Columbia 2 2 0 Southeastern Con f erence
University of Texas, Austin 2 1 1 Big 12 Conference
University of Utah 2 0 2 Mountain West Conference
Vanderbilt University 2 2 0 Southeastern Conference
Boston College 1 0 1 Atlantic Coast Conference
Colorado State University 1 0 1 Mountain West Conference
Florida Atlantic University 1 1 0 Atlantic Sun Conference
Georgetown University 1 1 0 Big East C onference
Georgia Tech 1 1 0 Atlantic C oast Conference
Harvard Univ ersity 1 1 0 Ivy League
Iowa State U niversity 1 0 1 Big 12 Conference
Liberty Unive r sity 1 0 1 Big South Conferenc e
The Master’s College 1 0 1 Golden State Athletic Conference (NAIA)
Ohio State University 1 0 1 Big Ten C onference
Pepperdine University 1 1 0 West Coast Conference
Saint Edwards University 1 1 0 Heartland Conference (Division II)
S.E. Oklahoma State Unive rsi ty 1 1 0 Lone Star Conference (Division II)
Temple University 1 1 0 Atlantic 10 Conference
Texas Christia n University 1 1 0 Mountain West Conference
University of Alabama, Birmingham 1 1 0 Conference USA
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 1 1 0 Southeastern Conference
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 1 1 0 Southeastern Confere nce
University of C alifornia, Santa Barbara 1 0 1 Big West Conference
University of Central Florida 1 1 0 Conference USA
University of Cincinna ti 1 1 0 Big East Conference
University of I llinois, Champaign 1 1 0 Big Ten Con ference
University of Memphis 1 1 0 Confere nce USA
University of Mia mi 1 1 0 Atlantic C oast Conference
University of Nebraska , Lincoln 1 0 1 Big 12 Conference
University of Nevada, Las Veg as 1 0 1 Mountain West Conference
University of O klahoma 1 0 1 Big 12 Conference
University of Wisconsin 1 1 0 Big Ten Conference
Western Illinois U niversity 1 0 1 Mid Continent Conference
West Virginia University 1 0 1 Big East Conference

A. J. KABA
Continued
Total 156 114 42
Percentages 73.1 26.9
NAIA = National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.wnba.com, 2006.
South; 31 players (19.9%) are from the Midwest; 21 players
(13.4%) are from the Northeast; and 19 players (12.2%) are
from the West. Of the 114 Black players who attended institu-
tions in the US, 74 (64.9%) are from the South; 15 players
(13.2%) are from the Midwest; 14 players (12.3%) are from the
Northeast; and 11 players (9.6%) are from the West. of the 42
White players who data showed that they attended institutions
in the US, 16 (38.1%) are from the Mid west; 11 players (26.2%)
are from the South; 8 play ers (19%) are from West; and 7 play-
ers (16.7%) are from the Northeast. The 74 Black players who
attended institutions in the South account for 47.4% of all 156
players who attended institutions in the US, and 42.3% of the
total 175 players in the WNBA (Table 11).
College or University Graduation Rates of WNBA
Players: 200 6 Se ason
WNBA players may be among the top (if not the top) of pro-
fessional teams in the United States with an extremely high
proportion of their players with at least a bachelor’s degree.
These degrees are earned from many of the most highly ranked
academic institutions in the country (such as Harvard Univer-
sity, Duke University, Stanford University, etcetera). To pre-
sent a better perspective on the academic progress of WNBA
players, this author compiled the names of the 69 colleges or
universities that had players in the WNBA and counted how
many of them are also listed in the 2006 US News & World
Report college rankings for the United States. The US News &
World Report college academic rankings are divided into three
sections: 1) National Universities, which ranks the top 120
institutions (both Tier 1 and Tier 2 combined) according to
academic strength. This particular ranking had 124 institutions
because some institutions are tied for certain positions. For
example, Princeton University and Harvard University are tied
for the top spot; 2) Tier 3 institutions, which are a group of 64
colleges and universities listed alphabetically; and 3) Tier 4
institutions, which are a group of 60 institutions listed alpha-
betically. The total number of all institutions in the three groups
is 248.
Of the 69 colleges and universities that had players in the
WNBA as of May 20, 2006, six (8.7%) were not listed on any
of the three rankings by US News & World Report. A total of
64 institutions (25.8% of all 248 institutions) with players in the
WNBA were listed on one of the three ranking lists. For the
Top 120 academic institutions, a total of 46 institutions (37.1%)
with players in the WNBA were ranked; A total of 23 institu-
tions (18.5% of all top 124 institutions listed) were ranked in
the top 60; a total of 8 institutions (6.4% of all top 124 institu-
tions listed) were ranked in the top 25; and 3 institutions (Har-
vard University, Duke University and Stanford University)
(2.4% of all top 124 institutions listed) were ranked in the top 5
(Table 12).
A total of 12 institutions (18.7% of all 64 institutions ranked
in Tier 3) with players in the WNBA were among the 64 insti-
tutions grouped in Tier 3. Finally, for the 60 institutions ranked
in Tier 4, there were 6 institutions (10% of all 60 institutions in
Tier 4) among those 60 Tier 4 institutions in the US News &
World Report 2006 college rankings (Table 12).
Let us now examine the graduation rates of WNBA player.
For the 2006 WNBA roster, college or university attendance
data were provided for 156 (89.1%) of the 175 total players.
College or university attendance data were not provided for 19
players. Out of the 156 players who attended colleges and uni-
versities in the US, data show that 155 (99.4%) graduated or
have at least a bachelor’s degree. The 155 players with degrees
comprised 88.6% of all 175 players in the WNBA.
A total of 113 Black players (72.9% of all players with de-
grees) had bachelor’s degrees. A total of 42 White players
(27.1% of all players with degrees) had a bachelor’s degree. No
college or university degree attainment data were available for
one Black player who attended a univer sity in the United States.
Of the 114 Black players who attended institutions in the US, 113
(99.1%) graduated or have bachelor’s degrees. of the 42 White
players who attended institutions in the US, 42 (100%) graduate d
or have bachelor’s degrees. The 113 Black players for whom data
show that they have degrees, comprised 95.8% of all 118 Black
players, and 64.6% of all players. The 42 White players for
whom data show that they have degrees, comprised 73.7% of all
57 White players, and 24% of all players (Table 13).
Number of WNBA Players Sent By NCAA and NAIA
Conferences
Of the 32 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
Division I conferences 18 (56%) had at least 1 player in the
2006 WNBA season. There is 1 player in the league from the
Table 11.
Institutions and regions send ing players to th e WNBA: 2006 season.
N = 175
Region Total# Insts. Sent % Total# of Black Players Sent% of BlacksTotal# of White Players Sent% of Whites
Northeast 21 13.4 14 12.3 7 16.7
South 85 54.5 74 64.9 11 26.2
Midwest 31 19.9 15 13.2 16 38.1
West 19 12.2 11 9.6 8 19
Total 156 100 114 100 42 100
Source: Compiled and computed based on dat a on the WNBA website. ww .wnba.com, 2006.

A. J. KABA
Table 12.
Total# of players of each sending Inst itution to the WNBA, 2006 US News & World Report academic ranking, 2006.
N = 156 Players
Institution Total# of Players Rank# of Top 120 InstitutionsTier 3 Institutions Tier 4 Institutions
University of C onnecticut 12 68
University of Tennessee, Knoxville 11 85
University of Georgia 8 58
Louisiana State University 5 Tier 3
Louisiana Tech University 5 Tier 3
Duke Univers ity 4 5
Kansas State University 4 Tier 3
University of Florida 4 50
University of Southe rn California 4 30
Michigan State University 3 74
Penn State University 3 48
Rutgers University, New Brunswick 3 60
Texas Tech University 3 Ti er 3
University of Iowa 3 60
University of Mi ssouri, Columbia 3 85
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 3 27
University of N otre Dame 3 18
University of Virginia 3 23
Auburn Uni v ersity 2 85
Baylor Uni versity 2 78
Brigham Young Univers ity 2 71
DePaul University 2 Tier 3
Florida International Univer sity 2 Tier 4
Florida State University 2 109
Mississippi State University 2 Tier 3
North Carolina State University 2 78
Old Dominion University 2 Tier 4
Purdue University 2 60
Stanford University 2 5
Tulane University 2 43
University o f California, Los Angeles 2 25
University of H ouston 2 Tier 4
University of Kansas 2 97
University of Mi nnesota 2 74
University of O regon 2 115
University of South Carolina, Columbia 2 109
University o f Texas, Austin 2 52
University of U tah 2 120
Vanderbilt University 2 18
Boston College 1 40
Colorado State University 1 120
Florida Atlant i c University 1 Tier 4
Georgetown University 1 23
Georgia Institute of Technology 1 37
Harvard Univ ersity 1 1
Iowa State University 1 85
Liberty University 1 NA
The Master’s College 1 NA
Ohio State University, Columbus 1 60
Pepperdine University 1 55
Saint Edwards University 1 NA
S.E. Oklahoma S t ate University 1 NA
Temple University 1 Tier 3
Texas Christian University 1 97
University of Alabama, Birmingham 1 Tier 3
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 1 104
University of Ar k ansas, Fayetteville 1 Tier 3
University o f California, Santa Barbara 1 45
University o f Central F lo r ida 1 Tier 3
University of Cincinnati 1 Tier 3
University of Illinois, Champaign 1 42
University o f Memphis 1 Tier 4
University of Mia mi 1 55
University of Nebraska, Lincoln 1 97
University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1 Tier 4
University of Oklahoma 1 109
University o f W i s consin 1 34
Western Illinois University 1 na
West Virginia U niversity 1 Tier 3
102

A. J. KABA
Continued
Total 156
NAIA = National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association
NA = Not Available
Source: “America’s Best Colleges”, US News & W orld Report College Rankings. http://www.usnews.com/usn ews/edu/college/rankings/ . Retrieved on May 20, 2006.
Table 13.
College or university att en da nc e and graduation rates of WN BA players: 2006 season.
N = 175
Item
# % of Total
(N) As % of Those Enrolled
#of
Blacks % #of Whites %
Total# of all players e nrolled in College/University in US 15689.1
Total# of all players who graduated from College/University 15588.6 99.4 113 72.9 42 27.1
Total# of players with out College Attendance Data A vailable 19 4 21.1 15 78.9
#of black players who attended but no year of g raduation d ata Shown 1
#of white players who attended but no year of g raduation d ata Shown 0
% of black players who gradua ted within 118 black total (9 5.8%)
% of white players who graduated within 57 white total (73.7 % )
% of black players who gra duated within 114 blacks who attended (99.1%)
% of white playe r s who graduated within 42 whites who attende d (100%)
Source: Compiled and computed based on dat a on the WNBA website. ww .wnba.com, 2006.
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). There
are 2 Division II conferences with 2 players combined in the
league. A total of 6 NCAA Division I conferences had double
figure numbers of players in the WNBA: Southeastern Confer-
ence, 38 players (24.4% of all 156 players who attended institu-
tions in the US); Big East Conference, 23 players (14.7%); Big
12 Conference, 19 players (12.2%); Atlantic Coast Conference,
17 players (10.9%); Big Ten Conference, 16 players (10.3%);
Pacific-10 Conference, 10 players (6.4%); Conference USA, 7
players (4.5%); Mountain West Conference, 7 players (4.5%);
Western Athletic Conference, 5 players (3.2%); Colonial Ath-
letic Association, 2 players (1.3%); Sun Belt Conference, 2
players (1.3%); Atlantic 10 Conference, 1 player (0.6%); Atlan-
tic Sun Conference, 1 player (0.6%); Big South Conference, 1
player (0.6%); Big West Conference, 1 player (0.6%); Ivy
Group, 1 player (0.6%); Mid Continent Conference, 1 player
(0.6%); West Coast Conference, 1 player (0.6%) (Table 14).
The Golden State Athletic Conference of the National Colle-
giate Athletic Association (NAIA) had 1 player (0.6%). Two
Division II Conferences had 2 players: Heartland Conference, 1
player (0.6%), and the Lone State Conference, 1 player (0.6%)
(Table 14).
Number and Names of Institutions in States with
Players in the WN B A : 2 006 Season
The 33 states (including Washington DC as a state equiva-
lent) that had players in the WNBA on opening day on May 20,
2006, had 69 colleges and universities with each having at least
1 player in the league. According to Table 15, three states
(9.1% of all 33 states) have 6 different institutions with players
in the WNBA: California, Florida and Texas. A total of 6 states
(18.2% of all 33 states) have 3 different institutions each with
players in the WNBA: Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, North
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A total of 9 states (27.3% of
all 33 states) have 2 different institutions each with players in
the WNBA: Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Utah. Finally, a total of 15
states (45.4% of all 33 sending states) had 1 institution each
with players in the WNBA: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington DC, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin (Table 15).
International Players in the WNBA: 200 6 Se ason
The 2006 WNBA season had a substantial proportion of
players from many countries across the world, including Aus-
tralia, Belarus, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, the
Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ivory Coast, France, Latvia,
Mali, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Yugoslavia. For example,
research by this author identified a total of 29 international
players on rosters as of May 20, 2006 opening day of regular
season games. These 29 players include both those who at-
tended college in the US and those who came directly from
abroad. The 29 international players comprised 16.6% of the
total 175 players in the league. Among the 29 international
players, White players accounted for 20 (69%) and Black play-
ers account for 9 (31%). The 20 White players comprised
35.1% of the total 57 White players. The 9 Black players com-
prised 7.6% of the total 118 Black players.
Also, the average age of all 29 international players is 26.3
years, and their average weight is 171.1 pounds. Their average
height is 73.7 inches (almost 6’2”). The average age of the 20
White players is 26.7 years, and their average weight is 173.5
pounds. The average height of the 20 White international play-
ers is 73.9 inches (almost 6’2”). For the 9 Black international
players, their average age is 25.7 years, and their average
weight is 166.2 pounds. Their average height is 73.3 inches
(just over 6’1”) (Compiled and computed based on 2006 data
on the wnba.com).
In addition, a total of 19 international players arrived in the
WNBA directly from overseas or abroad. of that total, 15
(78.9%) are White and 4 (21.1%) are Black. These 19 players

A. J. KABA
Table 14.
Number of WNBA players sent by NCAA & NAIA conferences.
N = 156
Name of Conference Number of
Players Se nt%
American East Conference 0 0
Atlantic 10 Conferenc e 1 0.6
Atlantic C oast Confe rence 17 10.9
Atlantic Sun Conference 1 0.6
Big 12 Confe rence 19 12.2
Big East C on ference 23 14.7
Big Sky Conference 0 0
Big South Conference 1 0.6
Big Ten Conference 16 10.3
Big West Conference 1 0.6
Colonial Athle tic Association 2 1.3
Conference USA 7 4.5
Division I Indepe nd e nts 0 0
Horizon League 0 0
Ivy Group 1 0.6
Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference 0 0
Mid Continent Confere nce 1 0.6
Mid-American Conference 0 0
Mid-Eastern At hletic Conference 0 0
Missouri Valley Conference 0 0
Mountain West Conference 7 4.5
Northeast Conference 0 0
Ohio Valley Conference 0 0
Pacific-10 Conference 10 6.4
Patriot League 0 0
Southeastern Confere nce 38 24.4
Southern C onference 0 0
Southland Conference 0 0
Southwestern Athletic Conference 0 0
Sun Belt Conference 2 1.3
West Coast Conference 1 0.6
Western Athletic Conference 5 3.2
Heartland Conference (Division II, St. Edwards
University) 1 0.6
Lone Star Conference (Division II SE Oklahoma State
University) 1 0.6
Golden State Athletic Conference (NAIA), The
Master’s College 1 0.6
Total 156 99.7
NAIA = National Association of I ntercollegiate
Athletics
NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website.
www.wnba.com, 2006.
comprised 10.9% of all 175 WNBA players (Table 16).
For comparative purposes, during the 2005-2006 NBA sea-
son, almost 1 out of every 5 of the 430 players (19%) was from
overseas. of the 82 international players, 56 were non-Black, 26
were Black (Kaba, 2011a: p. 4). International players were from
38 nations and territories, with 54 of them from 15 European
countries, 11 from Latin American nations, 8 from Caribbean
nations, 7 from sub-Saharan African nations, 3 from the Middle
East, 2 from Canada, 2 from the Asian nation of Georgia, 1
each from Australia, China, South Korea and New Zealand
(Kaba, 2011b).
Discussion
A contributing factor to the large number of Black WNBA
players is that they comprise a substantial proportion of female
college basketball players in the US, where the WNBA drafts the
majority of its play ers. For exa mple, according to a January 2005
NCAA report, in 2003- 2004, there were an estima ted 3947 (27%
of all female basketball play ers) non-Hispanic Black female bas-
ketball players and 9373 (64.2% of all female basketball players)
non-Hispanic White female basketball players in Divisions I, II &
III combined. These figures did not include non-resident alien
female basketball players, who comprised 364 during that same
period (“1999-2000—2 003 -2004 NCAA”, January 2005: pp. 5-9,
66). It is in Division I Women’s college basketball (where the
majority of WNBA players are either drafted or come from),
however, that has a higher proportion of Black female players.
For example, in 2003-2004, there were 1987 (41.6% of all Divi-
sion I female basketball players) non-Hispanic Black female
Division I basketball players, and there were 2235 (46.8% of all
Division I femal e basketball players) non- Hispanic White female
basketball players (“1999-2000—2003-2004 NCAA”, January
2005: p. 8, 67).
The reason why the proportion of Black female players is
relatively high is that in October 2004, for example, there were
9,808,000 females enrolled in US colleges and universities,
with non-Hispanic Black females compri sing 1,525,000 (15.5%),
and White females in general accounted for 7,438,000 (75.8%)
(“School Enrollment”, 2005). To look at this differently, for
example, as of March 2002, of the 282 million people in the US,
males comprised 137.9 million (48.9%), and females comprised
144.2 million (51%). Non-Hispanic Black females comprised
19.3 million (13.4% of the total female population) and
non-Hispanic White females comprised 99.4 million (68.9% of
the total female population) (“The Black Population in the
United States”, 2003).
The data in this study also show that WNBA players, in-
cluding Black players are highly educated, with at least a bach-
elor’s degree. Among professional sports in 2006 in the United
States, it appears as if WNBA players may have the highest
proportion with at least a bachelor’s degree, from America’s
colleges and universities, including from Harvard University.
This is a trend also observed in society in general, with females
now earning more bachelor’s degrees than their male counter-
parts, despite experiencing exclusion from most colleges and
universities in US history. Black females, who have experi-
enced the most severe exclusion, have been the most impressive
as the data above show and as new educational attainment data
(from Bachelor’s degree to professional and doctorate degrees)
of the US show. By 2009, within the general US population
Black females are behind only Asian males and Asian females
most of whom are foreign born) in the proportion within their (
104

A. J. KABA
Table 15.
Number & names of institut ions in states with players in the WNBA: 2006 season.
N = 69
State Total # of Institutions Names of Institut ions
Tennessee 3 University of Tennessee, Universi t y of Memp h is, & Vanderbilt University
Texas 6
University of Texas, Austin, Texas Christia n, University of Houston, St. Edwards Unive rsity, Texas Tech
University & Baylor University
Connecticut 1 University of Connecticut
Louisiana 3 Louisiana State University, Louisiana Tech Uni, & Tulane University
California 6
UCLA, USC, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of California, Santa Barbara, & The
Master’s College
Florida 6
Florida International, University of Florida, Florida Atla n ti c Universi ty, Florida Sta te University, Un i versity of
Miami, & Universi ty of Centr al Florida
Georgia 2 University of Georgia & Georgia Ins t itute of T echnology
North Carolina 3 Duke University, N.C. State Un iversity, & Unive rsity of North Carolina
Virginia 3 Liberty University, Old Dominion University, & University of Virginia
Kansas 2 Kansas State Uni & University of Kansas
Indiana 2 University of Notre Dame & Purdue University
Pennsylvania 2 Penn State University & Temple Unive r s it y
Illinois 3 DePaul Uni, University of Illinois, Champaign, & Western Illinois University
Alabama 3 Auburn University, University of Alabama, Birmingham, & University of Ala bama, Tuscaloosa
Iowa 2 Iowa State University & University of Iowa
Utah 2 Brigham Young University & University of Utah
Michigan 1 Michigan State University
Missouri 1 University of Missouri
New Jersey 1 Rutgers University, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
Massachuset ts 2 Boston College & Harvard University
Minnesota 1 University of Minnesota
Mississippi 1 Mississippi State University
Ohio 2 Ohio State U ni v ersity & Unive rsi t y of Cincinnati
Oklahoma 2 Southeastern Oklahoma State University & University of Oklahoma
Oregon 1 University of Oregon
South Carolina 1 University of South Carolina, Columbia
Arkansas 1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Colorado 1 Colorado State University
Nebraska 1 University of Nebraska
Nevada 1 Universit y of Nevada, Las Veg as
Washington DC 1 Georgetown University
West Virginia 1 University of West V irginia
Wisconsin 1 University of Wisconsin
Total 69
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.wnba.com, 2006.
group or category enrolled in college. The dedication to educa-
tional attainment of Black American females is so strong that
they would go deep into debt to attain their college education
(Fiegener, 2009; Hoffer et al., 2003; Kaba, 2005, 2011c). For
example, due to Black females, among those in the United
States who earned doctorates in 2008, Blacks had the highest
level of debt: $38,586; $29,698 for American Indians; $27,553
for Hispanics; $25,761 for multiracial individuals; $21,299 for
Whites; and $13,216 for Asians (Fiegener, 2009: p. 53).
In addition to their love for the game of basketball, Black
females in particular and females in general use the game to
win scholarships to earn their bachelor’s or master’s degrees,
which can cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Videon
(2002) points out that: “…participation in athletics is associated
with an array of positive educational outcomes. Students who
participate in sports have better attendance records, lower rates

A. J. KABA
Table 16.
Players coming directly from overseas to the WNBA.
Total# Directly
from Overseas Total# from Overseas Black Players % Total# from Overseas White Players %
19 4 21.1 15 78.9
Source: Compiled and computed based on data on the WNBA website. www.
wnba.com, 2006.
of discipline referrals, and higher academic self-esteem and are
more likely to be in a college preparatory curriculum, earn
higher grades, and aspire to, enroll in, and graduate from col-
lege” (p. 415). According to Lapchick (2011), during the 2011
NCAA Men’s and Women’s tournaments: “95 percent (60) of
the women’s teams compared to 63 percent (42) of the men’s
teams graduated at least 60 percent of their players” (p. 1; also
see Gaston-Gayles, 2004: p. 75). Hamilton (2003) writes of a
talented African American University of Tennessee women’s
basketball player named Kara Lawson, who despite being one
of the top college basketball players in the country, managed to
graduate “…as a finance major with 3.75 GPA” (p. 22).
According to Kaba’s (2011a) study of the 2005-2006 NBA
season, data were only provided for the academic institutions
(high schools, colleges and universities) in the US that the
players attended, but not whether they graduated. There were
35 players who entered the league directly from US high
schools during that season (also see Kaba, 2011b).
Finally, it is important to briefly discuss why society would
allow WNBA players to be paid a salary of $50,000 by 2006
while their brothers or male counterparts are paid an average of
almost $4 million during the 2005-2006 season. This is the case
even with advertisement or endorsement opportunities. Fans
appear to be willing to pay the males substantially more than
their female counterparts. As a result, a substantial number of
WNBA players have to go overseas to play professionally once
the WNBA season ends because they are paid better in those
nations than in the United States (James, 2002; McCabe, 2011;
Spencer & McClung, 2001; Staffo, 1998ab; Ruihley et al., 2010;
Wearden & Creedon, 2002). Staffo (1998a) notes that an esti-
mated 500 women from the United States we re playing overseas
(p. 190). Staffo (1998a) also adds that: “Professional leagues
outside the United States existed in Spain, Italy, Germany,
Scandinavia and Japan. A few US stars, such as Teresa Ed-
wards and Katrina McClain, made an estimated $200,000 for a
six-month season” (p. 190).
Even though some WNBA players earn significantly more
than the average and that some also get endorsements, those
figures are not as high as the males. Issacson (2006) points out
that: “The highest-paid WNBA players earn about $90,000, and
with endorsement deals, stars can push that to as much as
$200,000. Overseas salaries for the best players approach
$500,000” (p. 1). Staffo (1998a) also notes that “…superstars
like Lisa Leslie, Rebecca Lobo and Sheryl Swoopes are said to
be making up to $250,000 when promotional fees are added
in...” (p. 193). According to Spencer and McClung (2001),
former WNBA star Cynthia Cooper signed endorsement con-
tracts with both General Motors and Nike for an estimated
$500,000 annually (p. 334). Ruihley et al. (2010) note that
NBA player LeBron James, who entered the league directly
from high school, signed a multi-year contract with Nike for
$90 million; that in 2009, golf player Tiger Woods’ endorse-
ment income was $110 million; and that in 1997 former NBA
player Michael Jordan earned $40 in endorsements (pp.
133-135).
Fans tend to show more support for male sports through their
rate or level of attendance and also through ticket price. Ac-
cording to McCabe (2011), “A critical outcome of understand-
ing the nature of spectators’ involvement with competitive
sports is its relevance in predicting consumption attitudes and
purchasing behavior” (pp. 107-108). Smith and Roy (2011)
claim that: “Ticket sales represent the most important source of
local revenues for most sport teams. Revenue from ticket sales
makes up at least 50% of all local revenues for the four major
professional sports leagues in the United States (NFL, MLB,
NBA, and NHL)” (p. 93). According to Staffo (1998a): “During
the first [WNBA] season average attendance was 9669 per
game, with the single largest crowd being 18,937 when Hous-
ton played at Charlotte August 16, 1997… The first champi-
onship game was played August 30 at The Summit, with the
Houston Comets defeating the New York Liberty. Attendance
was 16,285” (p. 192). Cotes and Humphreys (2007) point out
that the average attendance to NBA games from 1991 to 2001
was 16,671 (p. 167).
Jacobsen (2010) reports that in the WNBA: “[Ticket prices
for] Most franchises start around $10 and go as high as $200 or
more. Single-game tickets to the defending champ Phoenix
Mercury begin at $10 and go as high as $195.25. The New
York Liberty charges anywhere from $10 to $260, the latter for
courtside seats” (p. B1). It is noted that the average NBA ticket
price in 2010 was $48.08; $99.25 for the Los Angeles Lakers;
and $88.66 for the New York Knicks (“NBA Sees Ticket Prices
Slump,” 2010: p. C2). Staffo (1998b) claims that during the
1996-1997 NBA season, the price of front row seat at a New
York Knicks home game at the Madison Square Garden was
$1000 (p. 15). Voisin (2011) points out that the NBA’s annual
revenue is $4 billion.
How can one explain this human behavior of gender bias in
sports? According to James (2002): “It has been proposed that
women’s sports have a different appeal than men’s sports” (p.
141). Wearden and Creedon (2002) claim that: “Feminist
scholars point to the huge disparity in endorsement revenue
between male and female athletes as evidence of a male hierar-
chy in sport… The gender hierarchy argument holds that fe-
male athletes are both “other than” and “less than” their male
counterparts” (p. 189).
In addition, females involved in team sports may experience
more discrimination in earnings than those in individual sports.
For example, according to Wearden and Creedon (2002): “…
researchers have found a sex-appropriate ranking scheme in
sport that suggests individual sports (that is tennis, figure skat-
ing, golf and gymnastics) are more appropriate for women than
team sports” (p. 189). Staffo (1998a) attempts to present this
philosophical explanation of gender bias in sports: “Finally one
big difference between the development of men’s sports and
women’s sports in the US is that women’s sports have always
been based in the philosophy and are an outgrowth of the
women’s physical education program and therefore have gen-
erally maintained a purer attitude in the pursuit of sports for
sports sake. This philosophy has generally kept women’s sports
free from the corruption that has frequently marred men’s
sports” (p. 195).
106

A. J. KABA
Conclusion
This study has attempted to present an in-depth examination
of the players in the 2006 United States Women’s National
Basketball Association (WNBA) season. The data show that
Black players or players of African descent comprised the ma-
jority of the league as of the first day of the 2006 season. Al-
most all of the players who attended colleges and universities in
the United States graduated. These athletes also attended many
of the most selective institutions in the United States, including
Harvard University. Colleges and universities from the South-
ern United Stat es sent the majority of all players to the WNBA
in 2006. International players comprised a significant propor-
tion of players in the WNBA in 2006. WNBA players, like
professional women athletes in other sports do not get a fair
compensation for their talents due to gender bias within the
society.
However, the data in this study also indicate that these
women are set to take-up various leadership positions after their
athletic careers not only in the United States, but the world as
well. They have the first class academic education and disci-
pline from sports that they will take with them in their future
leadership roles. Finally, these players also have become repre-
sentatives or ambassadors of the colleges and universities and
states where they were educated.
REFERENCES
Abney, R. (1999). African American women in sport. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70, 35-38.
America’s Best Colleges (2006). US News & World Report. URL (last
checked 20 May 2006).
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings
Baker, C. A. (2008). Why she plays: The world of women’s basketball.
Winnipeg: Bison Books.
US Census Bureau (2003). The black population in the United States:
March 2002. Washington DC: Gover nment Printing Office.
Cahppell, R. H., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and
gender in British basketball. Women in Sport & Physical Activity
Journal, 10, 29-46.
Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. R. (2007). Ticket prices, concessions and
attendance at professional sporting events. International Journal of
Sports Finance, 2, 161-17 0.
Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic moti-
vation among student athletes at a Division I University. Journal of
College Student Devel opment, 45, 75-83.
doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0005
Gomez, M. A., Lorenzo, A., Ortega, E., Sampaio, J., & Ibanez, S. J.
(2009). Game related statistics discriminating between starters and
nonstarters players in Women’s National Basketball Association
League (WNBA). Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8,
278-283.
Grundy, P., & Shackelford, S. (2007). Shattering the glass: The re-
markable history of women’s basketball. Chapel Hill, NC: The Uni-
versity of North Car oli n a Press.
Fiegener, M. K. (2009). Doctorate recipients from US universities:
Summary Report 2007-2008. Directorate for social, beh avior al, a nd eco-
nomic sciences, National Science Foundation. Table 24, 53. Arling-
ton: Divisi on of Sci ence Resour ces Stat istics.
Hoffer, T. B., Sederstrom, S., Selfa, L., Welch, V., Hess, M., Brown, S.,
Reyes, S., Webber, K., & Guzman-Barron, I. (2003). Doctorate re-
cipients from United States universities: Summary Report 2002 (pp.
113-115). Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Hamilton, K. (2003). Courting success; University of Tennessee fi-
nance major balances hoops excellence with academic achievement.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 20, 22-23.
Isaacson, M. (2006). Promotions in motion: WNBA athletes do more
than play: They also sell the league. Knight Ridder Tribune Business
News, 1.
Jacobsen, L. (2010). Shock is pleased by ticket sales for opener. Tulsa
World, B1.
James, J. D. (2002). Women’s and men’s basketball: A comparison of
sport consumption motivations. Women in Sport & Physical Activity
Journal, 11, 141-170.
Kaba, A. J. (2011a). African Americans in the National Basketball
Association (NBA), 2005-2006: Demography and earnings. Interna-
tional Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 4, 1-25.
Kaba, A. J. (2011b). Characteristics of players in the 2005-2006 US
National Basketball Association (NBA). URL (last checked 14 Oc-
tober 2011).
http://www.hollerafrica.com/index.php
Kaba, A. J. (2011c). Black American females as geniuses. Journal of
African American Studies, 15, 120-124.
doi:10.1007/s12111-010-9134-1
Kaba, A. J. (2006a). The blood and family relations between Africans
and Europeans in the United States. African Renaissance, 3, 105-
114.
Kaba, A. J. (2006b). Race, geography and territorial inheritance: People
of Black African, European and Chinese Descent. URL (last checked
14 October 2011).
http://www.hollerafrica.com/
Kaba, A. J. (2005). Progress of African Americans in higher education
attainment: The widening gender gap and its current and future
implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1-34.
Kochman, L., & Goodwin, R. (2003). Market efficiency and the
women’s NBA. American Business Re vi ew, 21 , 141-143.
Lapchick, R. (2011). Keeping score when it counts: Academic pro-
gress/graduation success rate study of NCAA Division I Women’s
and Men’s Basketball Tournament Teams. URL (last checked 20
October 2011)
http://tidesport.org/Grad%20Rates/2011_Womens_Bball_Study_FIN
AL.pdf
Lapchick, R., & Kushner, D. (2006) . The 2005 racial and gender report
card: Women’s National Basketball Association. Orlando: University
of Central Florida.
McCabe, C. (2011). Spectators’ relationship women’s professional
basketball: Is it more than sex? North American Journal of Ps y ch ol o gy ,
13, 107-122.
McDonald, M. (2000). The marketing of the Women’s National Bas-
ketball Association and the making of Post-Feminism. International Re-
view for the Sociology of Sports, 35, 35- 47.
doi:10.1177/101269000035001003
NBA Sees Ticket Prices Slump (2010). The Times—Transcript. Monc-
ton, C2.
Ogden, C. L., Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., & Flegal, K. M. (2004).
Mean body weight, height, and body mass index, United States
1960-2002. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 347.
Hyattsville, MA: National Center for Health Statistics.
Picker, D. (2006). East all-stars break through on night for young and
old. New York Times, D.6.
US Census Bureau (2005). School enrollment—Social and economic
characteristics of students: October 2004. Washington DC: Gov-
ernment Printing office.
Smith, J. G., & Roy, D. P. (2011). A framework for developing cus-
tomer orientation in ticket sales organizations. Sports Marketing
Quarterly, 20, 93-102.
Spencer, N. E., & McClung, L. R. (2001). Women and sport in the
1990s: Reflections on embracing stars, ignoring players. Journal of
Sport Management, 15, 318-349.
Ruihley, B., Runyan, R. C., & Lear, K. E. (2010). The use of sport
celebrities in advertising: Replication and extension. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 19, 132-142.
Staffo, D. (1998a). The history of women’s professional basketball in
the United States with an emphasis on the Old WBL and the New

A. J. KABA
108 Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
ABL and WNBA. Physical Educator, 55, 187-198.
Staffo, D. F. (1998b). The development of professional basketball in
the United States, with an emphasis on the history of the NBA to its
50th anniversary season in 1996-199 7. Physical Educator, 55, 9-18.
Videon, T. M. (2002). Who plays and who benefits: Gender, interscholastic
athletics, and academic outcomes. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 415-
444. doi:10.1525/sop.2002.45.4.415
Voisin, A. (2011). NBA must fix its broken business model. The Sac-
ramento Bee. URL (last checked 8 October 2011).
http://m.standard.net/topics/sports/2011/07/01/voisin-nba-must-fix-br
oken-business-model
Wearden, S., & Creedon, P. J. (2002). “We Got Next”: Images of
women in television commercials during the inaugural WNBA Sea-
son. Culture, Sport, Society, 5, 189-210. doi:10.1080/713999865
Yafie, R. C. (1997). The WNBA’s full court press. The Journal of
Business Strategy, 18, 32- 33.
1999-00—2003-04 NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report (2005).
Published by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. P.O. Box
6222. 317/917-622 2 . www.ncaa.org.