Rendering: Adam Pardee/STAFF.

The social media collective lost its mind this week over the new salary of basketball star Caitlin Clark, after she was drafted No. 1 by the WNBA’s Indiana Fever on Monday.

It wasn’t wrong in spirit. But it lacked perspective.

The screaming from my favorite wing of the political spectrum — tree-hugging leftists sipping fair-trade coffee and believing corporate CEOs should have to spend a month roaming the urban wilderness, hungry and homeless, before assuming their jobs — was a bit embarrassing.

It was largely based on plain gender fairness — a great idea and motivator — but lacking details in this case.

If something doesn’t turn a profit, its owners aren’t going to pour any money into it. Welcome to U.S. capitalism. The WNBA has survived, until very recently, on NBA subsidies and the league’s refusal to give up on the women. No other wealthy institution has poured so much into women’s professional sports, and it deserves credit.

The yellers meant well. But screaming about WNBA players not making as much as NBA players makes no sense without a few qualifiers. Caitlin Clark, the NCAA Division I all-time leading scorer in both women’s and men’s basketball, will earn $76,535 the first year of her contract, $78,066 in the second, $85,873 in her third year and $97,582 in the fourth. The Iowa Hawkeyes’ star will earn $338,056 throughout her first four years playing in the WNBA.

As some pointed out, last year’s first overall pick in the NBA, Victor Wembanyama of the San Antonio Spurs, will likely earn $55.7 million in his first four years in the NBA.

It’s a big difference and seemingly very unfair. Ultimately, it is unfair. But sports are results-driven. Numbers don’t always tell the whole story, but they don’t lie. According to Statista, during the 2022-23 season, the NBA’s 30 franchises made $10.58 billion in revenue. This was an increase of over $500 million from the previous year.

According to Bloomberg, the WNBA was projected to bring in between $180 million and $200 million in combined team and league revenue that same season, up from roughly $102 million in 2019. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert called the league’s 27th season “a growth story.”

Still, that’s a pretty big gap. Just like the difference in salary between Clark and Wembanyama.

In the name of fairness, the NBA instituted a salary cap in 1984. It’s based on league revenue and varies depending on the latest contract between owners and the players’ union, but it usually hovers around 50 percent of league revenue for players. WNBA players get about 10 and 20 percent of their leagues revenues, by comparison.

That’s the problem, right there. But there’s reason to believe the WNBA will soon start shrinking that gap.

Part of the lower percentage is likely rooted in the fact that, at least until very recently, the WNBA didn’t turn a profit. The NBA subsidizes it. There’s been substantial private investment the past couple years as attendance and TV numbers go up.

For the first time ever, the NCAA women’s basketball final outdrew the men’s final in TV viewers. There’s enough hope to prompt the league to expand from 12 to 16 teams by 2028 (including a franchise for Oakland next year, owned by Golden State Warriors honchos Joe Lacob and Peter Guber.

Growth was finally happening for the WNBA. Now, with Clark’s arrival and those other college players, the WNBA suddenly has a real chance to make a dent in public consciousness. I never saw stories on WNBA draft fashion until this year.

So instead of complaining, buy tickets, Buy gear. Get them playing. Take your daughters to WNBA games. I’m going to take mine when the league lands in Oakland.

It didn’t hurt that NBA players like Steph Curry has championed the WNBA. Curry brought Sabrina Ionescu to NBA All-Star Weekend earlier this year for a three-point contest, in which the WNBA star came only three made shots short of the greatest shooter in basketball history.

And don’t feel bad for Caitlin Clark. She’s already made more in endorsements than any of us may ever see.

The NBA was founded in 1946 and got a half-century head start on the WNBA, which has succeeded where other women’s leagues in the U.S. failed, mostly thanks to the NBA pushing it wherever possible. Not that we shouldn’t give credit to the women. They play a great brand of the game that some call a purer version of basketball. It’s a fun game to watch. See you in Oakland next season.

Follow music critic Tony Hicks at Twitter.com/TonyBaloney1967.