logo
Level from the start: Pro sports reimagined

Level from the start: Pro sports reimagined

Fast Company13-05-2025
The 2025 WNBA season is upon us, and it's already making waves. From Caitlin Clark draining logo threes to Paige Bueckers debuting for the Dallas Wings, and the Golden State Valkyries hitting the court for the first time, pre-season coverage has been electric. For those of us who've spent years advocating for women's sports, the buzz surrounding this season isn't just exciting, it's a powerful reflection of the league's progress and promise.
Rising viewership. New sponsorships. Sold-out arenas. Long-overdue increases in minimum salaries making their way into collective bargaining agreements. These are signs that the tide is turning. But let's not mistake momentum for a final destination. The truth is, we're still playing catch-up inside systems that were never built with equity in mind.
Earlier this year, I sat on a panel during NBA All-Star Weekend titled, 'It's Not Women's Sports, It's Sports, Stupid.' I loved the sentiment of this framing. If you're into professional sports, it doesn't matter whether you're watching men or women play—the competition has the same power to captivate and inspire. It's why some of us dare to dream of a future where the label 'women's sports' is no longer needed. But while we may aspire to treat all sports equally, pretending the playing field is already level overlooks decades of systemic inequity built into the longer-running, more prominent sports structures.
Build equity into the foundation
Take the WNBA. While the league continues to break new ground, it operates within a framework borrowed from a time before it existed. Revenue sharing, salary caps, travel accommodations, facilities, and even All-Star Game bonuses—none were designed with parity in mind. Even the most groundbreaking updates to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) represent incremental fixes within outdated architecture.
A stark example: The NBA's salary cap is orders of magnitude higher than the WNBA's, despite surging fan engagement with the women's game. These legacy constraints hamper growth, no matter how bold the vision.
But what if it didn't have to be this way?
At Parity, we work with a community of 1,100+ professional women athletes across 85 sports, from alpine skiing to American football, wheelchair basketball to windsurfing. From our broad vantage point we see what happens when emerging sports properties reimagine structures, athlete resources, and rewards to build equity into the foundation from day one.
Consider Grand Slam Track. Born from the minds of Olympians, it offers equal prize money and visibility for men and women in every meet. Or CrossFit Games, which has featured equal prize money since its earliest days. Premier Rugby Sevens goes even further, with men's and women's teams competing for the same club, their scores aggregated to decide the championship, and all athletes paid equally. Then there's TST (The Soccer Tournament), where both men's and women's brackets offer a $1 million winner-take-all prize. When the women's tournament launched, organizers didn't scale the prize down—they matched it.
These aren't just feel-good stories. They're working models.
Transparency as a baseline
Many up-and-coming leagues didn't inherit inequity; they sidestepped it. They launched with transparent pay, athlete revenue shares, integrated maternity leave policies, and athlete ownership stakes. Sponsorship and content rights are structured to empower players, not just teams. Media distribution is increasingly direct-to-consumer, giving fans deeper access and athletes greater control.
And guess what? Brands are noticing. These properties are fast becoming hidden gems of sports marketing, attracting culturally relevant sponsors and a younger, values-driven fan base hungry for authenticity.
Now imagine if all sports leagues had started this way.
Picture revenue-sharing models that prioritize athletes. Governance that centers the athlete voice. Pay transparency as a baseline. Media rights split equitably. Built-in support for mental health, parenting, and career transition. Fan experiences designed for an inclusive, digitally native audience. This isn't wishful thinking. It's a blueprint for sustainable growth.
The opportunity is clear
For brands and media companies, the opportunity is clear. The next generation of sports fans is demanding more than entertainment. They want alignment with their values. They want to invest in systems that elevate, not exclude. The organizations that recognize this shift and act now will be the ones who define the future of sports marketing.
Of course, we should celebrate the WNBA and NWSL for pushing forward. Their recent CBAs matter. And yes, tennis has made strides too, with equal prize money at Grand Slams, even as disparities persist in smaller tournaments. But we can't limit our ambitions to what can be retrofitted into the past.
The real question is: What could we create if we built it right from the start?
Let's stop thinking about women's sports as the undercard. Let's stop asking athletes to work twice as hard for half as much. Instead, let's imagine—and build—a future where equity isn't an afterthought. It's the foundation.
To the investors, brands, and media companies: The future of sports won't wait. The blueprint is here. The audience is ready. The question is, are you bold enough to build it?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity
Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity

CNN

time30 minutes ago

  • CNN

Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity

Source: CNN The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to decide whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity, revisiting the issue of LGBTQ rights in a blockbuster case just days after upholding a ban on some health care for trans youth. The decision puts the issue of transgender rights on the Supreme Court's docket for the second year in a row and is by far the most significant matter the justices have agreed to hear in the term that will begin in October. The cases, one from West Virginia and the other from Idaho, involve transgender athletes who at least initially competed in track and field and cross country. The West Virginia case was filed by a then-middle school student who told the Supreme Court she was 'devastated at the prospect' of not being able to compete after the state passed a law banning trans women athletes' participation in public school sports. The court's decision landed as transgender advocates are still reeling from the 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on trans youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Though the state law also bars surgeries, they were not at issue in the high court's case. But that decision was limited to questions of whether the state had the power to regulate medical treatments for minors, leaving unresolved challenges to other anti-trans laws. The justices agreed to review two cases challenging sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia. The court didn't act on a third appeal over a similar ban in Arizona and will likely hold that case until it decides the other two, probably by early next summer. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of the legal team representing the athletes in the cases, said school athletic programs should be accessible to everyone regardless of a student's sex or transgender status. 'Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,' said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. 'We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, a Republican, said that the state is 'confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the US Constitution and complies with Title IX.' The Supreme Court will review the case at a time when Republican-led states and President Donald Trump have pushed for policies to curtail transgender rights. Trump ran for reelection in part on a campaign to push 'transgender insanity' out of public schools, mocking Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in advertising for supporting 'they/them,' the pronouns used by some transgender and nonbinary people. But even before that, states had passed laws banning transgender girls from playing on girls' sports teams. Roughly half of US states have enacted such laws. The Trump administration has actively supported policies that bar transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity. On Wednesday, the federal government released $175 million in previously frozen federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania after the school agreed to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas. In West Virginia, former Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the 'Save Women's Sports Act' in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was 'looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team,' filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. 'Her family, teachers, and classmates have all known B.P.J. as a girl for several years, and – beginning in elementary school – she has participated only on girls athletic teams,' US Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, wrote for the court. 'Given these facts, offering B.P.J. a 'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all.' Most of the appeals on the issue of transgender athletes question whether such bans are permitted under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The West Virginia case was different in that it also raised the question of whether such bans violated Title IX. The Supreme Court often prefers to settle a dispute under a law, rather than the Constitution, if it has the option because such a ruling technically allows Congress to change the law in response to the decision. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the appeal court decision 'renders sex-separated sports an illusion.' 'Schools will need to separate sports teams based on self-identification and personal choices that have nothing to do with athletic performance,' the state said. West Virginia initially brought the case to the Supreme Court last year on an emergency basis, seeking to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson while the underlying legal challenge played out. In an unsigned order, the court declined that request. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted it. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. 'Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field,' said Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican. 'For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports.' But Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, stressed the importance of team sports for all students. Lambda Legal is part of the team representing Pepper-Jackson in the West Virginia case. 'Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,' said Buchert said. 'Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.' This story has been updated with additional information. See Full Web Article

Stripe's first employee, the founder of fintech Increase, sort of bought a bank
Stripe's first employee, the founder of fintech Increase, sort of bought a bank

TechCrunch

time30 minutes ago

  • TechCrunch

Stripe's first employee, the founder of fintech Increase, sort of bought a bank

It's an open secret in the fintech world that the founder and CEO of startup Increase, Darragh Buckley, has been trying for years to 'buy a bank,' as one person familiar with the landscape told TechCrunch. A couple of weeks ago, he basically succeeded. He bought a big enough stake in Twin City Bank to trigger a public disclosure of the transaction by the Federal Research Board. Such share purchases are then subject to FDIC approval. Twin City is a small community bank in Longview, Washington, about an hour north of Portland, Oregon. The stake had to be in excess of 10% to trigger the disclosure. Buckley confirmed the deal to TechCrunch but declined to say how big of a stake he purchased. Whether he owns 11% or, say, 51%, we understand he is not the sole owner. Still, anything upwards of 10% makes him a major shareholder. (For comparison, public companies have to disclose all ownership stakes of 5% or more.) The assumption in the industry was that Buckley wanted a bank to further the ambitions of Increase, his banking-as-a-service (BaaS) startup, multiple sources told TechCrunch. What's particularly wild is that a mysterious entity — most likely one of Buckley's competitors — was so opposed to this deal that it hired an agency to pitch the press on writing negative stories about it and him. But, Buckley told TechCrunch, this was actually his third investment in a Washington community bank and his interests are not what his competitors think. Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW This is not an effort for Increase to own the bank, he said. 'Twin City Bank is, and will remain, a community-focused bank,' he said. Silicon Valley finds a banking shortcut Increase offers an API platform that allows financial services to be programmatically served. It performs tasks like automated clearing house transactions, wires, real-time payments, etc. Increase's customers are largely other fintechs like Ramp, Check, and Pipe. As Stripe's first employee, Buckley has 'a great reputation as an engineer among his peers,' one person in the fintech industry told TechCrunch. Even some BaaS competitors refer business to Increase when they can't handle it themselves. Like most fintechs, Increase partners with (and shares revenue with) FDIC-insured banks to offer such regulated services. Obtaining banking licenses themselves is difficult and expensive. Even Chime, which offers checking and savings accounts and recently had an IPO, is not an FDIC-insured bank but has banking partners. In Increase's case, it works with Grasshopper Bank and First Internet Bank of Indiana. (Buckley said he has no personal investment in either one.) However, BaaS is a crowded, competitive market. That's led a small number of them to find a workaround to stand out: buying small community banks directly and doing away with banking partners. The biggest example of this is William Hockey, co-founder of Plaid, whose current fintech, Column, bought Northern California National Bank for $50 million in 2021. Another example is a Kansas City bank called Lead, bought and led by former Block executives Jackie Reses, Lead's CEO, and Ronak Vyas, CTO. The dangers of fintech partnerships Buckley insists he has no plans to turn Twin City into his company's personal partner bank or to swell its revenues with lots of fintech partners like Increase's customers. The latter, he knows, can be dangerous. For example, Evolve Bank, a partner to many fintechs from Affirm to Stripe, was the target of a large ransomware attack in 2024. This was shortly after the Federal Reserve System issued a cease-and-desist consent order to Evolve over problems it found with the bank's risk management systems. Evolve was ordered to implement pages of compliance fixes. (The bank was also associated with the meltdown of BaaS startup Synapse.) 'Twin City Bank shouldn't support sponsor banking,' Buckley explained, referring to banking partnerships with fintechs. 'Sponsor banking requires very specific capability and capacity to supervise partners safely and soundly. Only specialized banks should do it.' So why make such a big investment if not to benefit Increase? Because he likes community banks. They are the underdogs of the banking world. 'There's perhaps a prevalent view in the financial technology industry that community banks can't grow on their own. But community banks' strength is their relationships and knowledge,' he said. If Buckley's plan for the bank ever changes, his BaaS competitors will be watching. As for the mysterious entity hoping to stop him: it's too late. He said he received the FDIC's 'non-objection for control' approval and the deal has already closed.

House passes "big, beautiful bill," sending it to Trump's desk in 218-214 vote
House passes "big, beautiful bill," sending it to Trump's desk in 218-214 vote

CBS News

time35 minutes ago

  • CBS News

House passes "big, beautiful bill," sending it to Trump's desk in 218-214 vote

Washington — The House on Thursday passed the signature piece of legislation of President Trump's second term, approving a massive bill that includes trillions of dollars in tax and spending cuts while ramping up funding for defense and the administration's immigration agenda. The lower chamber voted 218 to 214 to approve the measure, with two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joining all Democrats in opposing the bill. The Senate passed the legislation, dubbed the "big, beautiful bill," earlier this week. The House vote tees up President Trump to sign the bill as early as Friday, coinciding with the July 4 holiday. The vote came after a marathon overnight session that saw GOP leaders overcome internal opposition to advance the bill, paving the way for final passage. Republican members who balked at many of the changes the Senate made to the legislation eventually relented and voted to pass it. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries tried to delay the inevitable by speaking on the floor for 8 hours and 44 minutes, setting the record for the longest House speech in U.S. history. He called out Republicans for the bill's deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs, highlighting the Americans who he said would suffer because of the bill. Before the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson said the bill will "make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before, and every American is going to benefit from that." "We've had spirited debate, we've had months of deliberation, and now we are finally ready to fulfill our promise to the American people," Johnson said. "That's what we are doing today." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next 10 years and leave millions without health insurance, due to the cuts to Medicaid and programs under the Affordable Care Act. It would also dramatically increase funding for immigration enforcement, a key priority for Republicans and the president. GOP opposition melts away House members vote on President Trump's tax bill at the Capitol on July 3, 2025. ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images The final vote came after House GOP leadership scrambled Wednesday and into the wee hours Thursday to shore up support for the measure ahead of a key procedural vote. Although Johnson spent weeks pleading with his Senate counterparts not to make any major changes to the version of the bill that passed the lower chamber by a single vote in May, the Senate made a number of tweaks that irked House members on a number of fronts — from its cuts to Medicaid to its impact on the deficit. Johnson acknowledged that the Senate bill's changes "went a little further than many of us would've preferred," though he repeatedly urged that the final product was largely what the House had signed off on in May. The Senate-passed bill includes steeper Medicaid cuts, a higher increase in the debt limit and changes to the House bill's green energy policies and the state and local tax deduction. Other controversial provisions that faced pushback in both chambers, including the sale of public lands in nearly a dozen states, a 10-year moratorium on states regulating artificial intelligence and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry, were stripped from the Senate bill before heading back to the House. Potential holdouts, including moderates and members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, met with Mr. Trump on Wednesday as the White House pressured House Republicans to vote for the bill. The vote on the key procedural hurdle began around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday and didn't wrap up until about 3:20 a.m. Thursday. Five House Republicans initially voted no on the vote setting the rules for debate on the measure, which would have been enough to tank the vote. But the vote remained open as GOP leaders worked to shore up support, allowing lawmakers to change from no to yes. Johnson told reporters that Mr. Trump was "directly engaged" with skeptical members to get them onboard. "Members wanted to hear certain assurances from him about what's ahead, what the future will entail, and what we're going to do next, and all of that," Johnson said. "And he was very, very helpful in that process." Mr. Trump ramped up the pressure over Truth Social as a handful of Republican holdouts didn't appear to be budging, declaring: "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" "What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!" Mr. Trump wrote shortly after midnight. The House ultimately voted 219 to 213 to advance the bill in a key victory for Republican leaders, who won the support of about a dozen GOP opponents to the rule. And when the vote finally came to an end, Fitzpatrick was the sole Republican opposed. He would also vote against final passage. Johnson told reporters that the breakthrough came amid help from the president, along with lengthy listening sessions with the bill's opponents, "making sure that their concerns were addressed." "A lot of people had to take the time to thoroughly go through the Senate's changes to our bill and that's fine," Johnson said. "That was necessary to get them to yes." , and contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store