WNBA Finals is most-watched in 20 years

BROOKLYN, NY - OCTOBER 18: Las Vegas Aces celebrate after defeating the New York Liberty in game 4 of the 2023 WNBA Finals to win the championship on October 18, 2023, at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, NY. (Photo by M. Anthony Nesmith/Icon Sportswire)

Arguably the most-anticipated WNBA Finals in league history was its most-watched in two decades.

The four-game Aces-Liberty WNBA Finals averaged a 0.45 rating and 728,000 viewers across ABC and ESPN, ranking as the most-watched Finals in 20 years (2003 Shock-Sparks: 848K) and the eighth-most watched in league history. Viewership increased 36% from Aces-Sun last year (0.31, 534K). Ratings will be added when available.

The Liberty, who played in four of the first six WNBA Finals, have now played in five of the eight most-watched series.

Most-watched WNBA Finals

Wednesday’s Game 4 averaged a 0.52 rating and 889,000 viewers on ESPN, marking the largest WNBA audience of any kind since Aces-Storm Game 3 in the semifinals last season (904K) and the largest WNBA Finals audience since Sparks-Lynx Game 5 in 2017 (913K). Overall, the Aces’ win delivered the 14th-largest audience in WNBA Finals history (95 total telecasts).

Game 4, which peaked with 1.3 million viewers in from 10 PM ET through the conclusion, more-than-doubled last year’s Sunday afternoon clincher (0.22, 396K).

Las Vegas led all markets for the clincher with a 2.3 rating, followed by Hartford-New Haven (1.5) and Virginia markets Norfolk (1.4) and Richmond (1.3). Providence, R.I., rounded out the top five with a 1.2. New York City tied for six with Buffalo at a 1.0.

Sunday’s Game 3 averaged a 0.41 and 659,000 on ABC, marking the largest Game 3 audience in 18 years — since Sun-Monarchs on ABC in 2005 (895K). Ratings increased 20% and viewership 14% from last year’s Game 3, a Thursday night game on ESPN (0.34, 579K).

As previously noted, Game 1 was the most-watched Finals opener since 2000 and Game 2 — a 28-point Las Vegas rout — hit a three-year low.

Overall, 15 WNBA games this season averaged at least 600,000 viewers, more-than-double last year’s total of seven. All four Finals games topped the 600,000 viewer mark, the first Finals since 2000 in which that was the case.

The complete WNBA Playoffs averaged 470,000 viewers, up 3% from last year (456K) and the most-watched postseason in 16 years. The full season averaged 454,000 viewers across the ESPN networks, up 10% from last year and an 18-year high.

(Nielsen estimates from Sports TV Ratings 10.19, Programming Insider 10.19, ESPN PR)

Tags: WNBA on ESPN/ABC WNBA Ratings

WSJ: ESPN, TNT, weighing smaller piece of NBA pie

Jon Lewis

Jon Lewis has been covering the sports media industry on a daily basis since 2006 as the founder and main writer of Sports Media Watch. You can contact him here or on the social media websites X (Twitter) or Bluesky.

WNBA scores fifth-largest audience on record for All-Star Game

by Jon Lewis

5 days ago

The WNBA delivered one of its five largest audiences on record for Saturday's All-Star Game.

Despite rout, Fever-Aces delivers in WNBA’s “Sunday Night Basketball” debut

by Jon Lewis

3 weeks ago

The WNBA debut of "Sunday Night Basketball" delivered one of the league's largest audiences in 25 years.

3F0TR2B LOS ANGELES, CA - JULY 8: Caitlin Clark #22 of the Indiana Fever pleads with referee Amy Bonner for a foul call during a game between Indiana Fever and Los Angeles Sparks at Crypto.com Arena on July 8, 2026 in Los Angeles, California.

Audiences still warm to Fever, with and without Clark

by Jon Lewis

3 weeks ago

The Indiana Fever delivered more viewership highs this past week, both with and without Caitlin Clark in the lineup.

On the Air: A needless plea from John Strong to the American soccer audience

by Armand Broady

3 weeks ago

On the latest "On the Air," Armand Broady explains why John Strong's appeal to soccer fans Monday night was...

Comments 11

4th&long says:

3 years ago

25 years of playing, and best they can get is 728k – that with 25 years of population growth. Yes its “best” since 2002 – but still 14% below 2002! Note NY market involved and that likely helped do as well as they did. Same as 2002.
Eric says:

3 years ago

Jon on your points about ESPN I oddly do remember it how MLB used to be a big thing on ESPN. From the late 90s until about the late 2000s. Great perspective on how ESPN admitted they were indeed burying properties back in the day even properties they owned like the WNBA. You do have to wonder where even in a world of cord cutting how well positioned ESPN would have been positioned currently in regards to ESPN subscribers had they stuck with their original format of super serving sports fans vs becoming just the extension of NBA and its properties WNBA and NFL promotion arms. As always Jon appreciate your insight and knowledge
Eric says:

3 years ago

Hey Paulsen was listening to your last pod and I have to give you some props on having the spine to say something few will honestly say without either being a mean spirited misogynist or inarticulate.

You eloquently framed it in a way few have. What you acknowledged about ESPN WNBA shoe horning or some of the harsher critics will say “shoving it down our throats” was spot on and said in a way to actual trigger thought instead of immediate denial or you must hate women narrative.

A hard question should be asked because afterall its a sports entertainment industry. That question is after all the heavy push for the WNBA which really took off around the pandemic similar to your point none of these games all year have cracked 1m. The heavy promotion ESPN has given to the WNBA doesn’t match or equate to the viewership earned. As you said a strong argument can be made that other leagues with bigger followings NHL/MLS/MLB should have gotten more of a push. Particularly a league like MLS which is often critiqued for not being popular draws at least 1m+ more for its biggest games. Not much of a soccer guy but hard not to see why MLS decided to sign with Apple vs ESPN this go round, similar to NHL back in the day with Versus.

You do sort of have to question ESPNs ethos as they seem more into picking and choosing winners aligned with their own personal pet projects or likes vs properly growing leagues. Imagine how many more fans leagues like NHL or even MLS would’ve had if ESPN spent as much time pushing those leagues vs pushing air time on its shows and on social media for the WNBA to not even get 1m viewers. Makes you wonder is this a NBA directive for a new favorable deal?
- Brian Stone says:
  
  3 years ago
  
  Really, really like your post, but I will disagree with certain points. With sports leagues, you really have to play the long game (no pun intended :)). Sports don’t become popular overnight. All four of our major sports are 75 years old+. You can promote a league or sport as much as you would like but if people do not like it, it won’t draw well. Look at Lacrosse, they have games on OTA and the ratings are abysmal. ESPN promotes Lacrosse also very much.
  
  I do not have a problem with ESPN promoting WNBA, ESPN is a business after all. Like why would you promote the hell of the NWSL or MLS if you do not have a media deal with them. To come back to the long run with sports, if ESPN keep the contract with the WNBA and Caitlin Clark is as good as advertised, I am pretty much sure that the ratings will increase. We could even see more than 2 million viewers if she participates in some finals down the road. If she has a big rivalry with another great player in the WNBA (cough, cough Angel Reese), we could see more.
  
  The things that people do not realize is that it takes time, perseverance and luck to grow your league. I am convince that there is no Michael Jordan without Bird and Magic. What I mean by that is that Jordan is not as big as he was (still is) without those two putting the seeds. The WNBA is well positioned to take the next step if Caitlin becomes their next superstar. From the low, that they were, there is growth the last few years and that is the thing that you want to see. Let’s see where the league goes next. But let’s not give too much credit to ESPN for growing sports. They can only do so much. The WNBA has put the time, have persevered (they can thank the NBA and ESPN), now they need luck (Caitlin has to be great for them) to grows the league to new heights.
  - Eric says:
    
    3 years ago
    
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply Brian. I’m aware about ESPN not having the rights to MLS and NWSL but even when they have rights I saw very little MLS promotion despite MLS having more fans and drawing bigger audiences for ESPN when they had the MLS contract MLS promotionwas no where close to the amount we’ve seen the last 2 to 3 yrs with WNBA. Its apparent there’s been a directive of hey we’re pushing this everyone outside of Wilbon(earned it) going of script. As much as Angel Reese has been hyped she’s no Messi.
    
    I’ll concede obviously since ESPN got the NHL contract more they’re pushing it more. However there were periods when they had the contract and prior years they treated it as the red headed step child similar to how MLS was treated. My whole point is they are actively picking and choosing what they want to succeed more than solely just pushing what they own rights too. It’s fair to ask how much they could’ve grown leagues they had rights to if they took the same initiative. ESPN would’ve loved to have had Messi until 2026. They also cut MLB games. The more I think about it with the cost cutting in Bristol some of there moves likely come down to that. Go with a cheaper product they can build up vs paying more at the time for a league like MLS that wanted more money than ESPN was comfortable giving in MLS and cutting games and reducing the upward creep of expected rights fees payments in a league that is MLB. ESPN is a business and can do what they like. But it’s also fine pointing out the cynicism in their business approach aka picking winners and losers vs simply airing and promoting sports (The World Wide Leader) in Sports.
    - Jon Lewis says:
      
      3 years ago
      
      I would say ESPN has always done its fair share of picking winners and losers among the events it owns rights to. Nobody remembers this (or will believe it) but there was a time when ESPN put much more investment and energy into its MLB coverage than the NBA (ex. Sammy Sosa’s corked bat getting a 2-hour SportsCenter special on day one of the 2003 NBA Finals). Plus with the WNBA, the disproportionate level of coverage today is just the flip side of what ESPN did in the early 2000s — when it intentionally buried the league (Mark Shapiro is on the record about that in “Those Guys Have All the Fun”). I think ESPN sees its WNBA coverage as 1) a way to show commitment to women’s sports, something that was not an incentive for the network prior to ~5ish years ago, 2) a way to show commitment to the NBA and 3) a growth opportunity down the line if the league is able to take off.
Mn_ace says:

3 years ago

Amazing how NBC still has the most watched NBA and WNBA Finals in history. ABC and ESPN really have done basketball wrong
ESL says:

3 years ago

Paulsen, do you have any numbers for Wednesday’s ALCS game 3 on FS1?
- Jon Lewis says:
  
  3 years ago
  
  4.6M on FS1
  - esl says:
    
    3 years ago
    
    Disappointing numbers for the ALCS. How much of an impact do you think being on FS1 has on these numbers? Without an NFL lead in, do you think this could have reached 6 million on Fox broadcast?
    - Jon Lewis says:
      
      3 years ago
      
      6M might be a bit high, maybe somewhere in the high 5M range.