My main concern is if FLAC has the same broad support base and applicability as .wav.
WAV has been around since the start of the 90'es, so no - FLAC certainly loses there, hands-down.
The more interesting property, though, is whether FLAC has the necessary
applicability, for you and your audience. You should divide that question in two: 1) you, 2) your audience.
, there will probably be some adjustments to make. Does the software you currently use in your workflows support FLAC? Do you need to do manuel conversions? FLAC is certainly the superior format - it takes quite less disk space while still retaining 100% audio quality, and it contains checksums to detect corruption (plus a boatload of other things). If it isn't supported well by your current workflow, perhaps there's some better alternatives to the software you use? Distribution sites that accept lossless uploads really ought to support at least WAV and FLAC (I'm not in the industry, though - there might be brain-dead sites that don't accept FLAC).
For your audience
, who currently deal with WAV files? In my experience, "normal" end-users only see MP3, and the "high-end" users that can handle WAV would accept FLAC just as well. As it's a lossless format, if anybody complains "but it's compressed", they'd be the same kind of stupid that buy Monster Audio cables or seriously believe vinyl offers an objectively
better audio quality than digital formats