Its a ridiculous piece of maths.
Without defending or attacking BA, they get $700,000 from the clubs. Those monies pay for equalisation of league activities.
Equalise airfares, equalise referees, admin costs etc etc.
So the $87,000 supposedly is BA's contribution to the league. So in looking at that, if the WNBL was a co-op, then the co-op would be getting more money from its 11th member, BA, than it does from its clubs. SO BA is actually subsidising the WNBL, to a tiny extent.
You should only quote that if in turn you quote how the NBL works. My understanding is that the NBL is self sufficient for admin and operational costs and that the clubs pay airfares equalisation.
If that is correct then the NBL's external revenue picks up their costs. It is the fact that the NBL makes more money from external sources than the WNBL.
The question is, what is BA's contribution to the NBL that is not directly recouped from NBL commercial activities? We know the figure for WNBL - its 87k. If BA is contributing $400,000 to the NBL but only 87k to the women, then we have an argument. But... I don't think that is the case.