Clark will be a great opportunity to see if a professional women's league is really viable to a mass viewing audience. March Madness is one thing - a relatively unknown WNBA season is another (seriously, I don't know when they play). If she can keep bombing threes like Steph Curry though - I think she can pull it off. With viewers, more money will come.
But the discussion over the WNBA's finances are much more complex than yearly profit and loss statements (which are really just reported profits and losses for one silo of the related finances). Much like their NBA counterparts (and all other US pro sports franchises for that matter), even if a WNBA team has a yearly loss, the franchises themselves are increasing in value year-over-year. The Seattle Storm just valued at $151M. So money is rolling in, even with running in the red.
As for that discussion of a $10M yearly loss for the league, that's chump change (it's literally the average salary for one NBA player). And to the NBA, that's just their marketing budget to push its product on 50% of the population. Money well spent if it was just cash in/cash out. But it's also a bit misleading. Again, there are different silos related to these teams - for instance, most NBA teams/owners own a piece of the arenas where they play. Nothing loses more money than an empty arena - so just having the arenas running more days makes money for the owners. One, the teams have to pay for use of the arenas (so essentially the owners are paying themselves) and two, the more events, the more eyes on interior advertising and the more you can charge for that permanent advertising.