Even as January 9, the second, extended deadline for collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations fast approaches, the WNBA and WNBPA seem nowhere close to reaching a deal.
As reported by ESPN’s Alexa Philippou, the two sides remain at odds over not just a revenue sharing model, but also “what should be considered revenue and how to account for expenses.”
Here’s a look at what is known about the most recent proposals from the players and the league, as well as what the opposing sides are saying about the other’s position.
What’s the latest proposal from the WNBPA?
The WNBPA’s most recent known proposal seeks a revenue sharing system that would allocate an average of 30 percent of gross revenue to players over the term of the deal and would institute a $10.5 million salary cap in the first year.
This proposal represents a revision from a proposal put forth by the union on November 28, according to ESPN.
In that proposal, the WNBPA sought a $12.5 million salary cap for the 2026 season, which would be over eight times greater than the 2025 salary cap. This earlier proposal also featured an average player salary of approximately $1 million and a maximum player salary of $2.5 million, or 20 percent of the proposed salary cap. These are the only known salary figures proposed by players in negotiations.
What’s the latest proposal from the WNBA?
According to Philippou, the latest proposal from the league outlines a financial model where players would be granted over 50 percent of net revenue, which is “defined as revenue after subtracting expenses.”
The other details of the league’s most recent known proposal also include:
- an uncapped revenue sharing component
- a $5 million salary cap in the first year of the deal
- a maximum player salary that starts above $1.3 million and would grow towards $2 million over the deal
- an average player salary that begins above $350,000 and grows to over $780,000
- a minimum player salary that stars at $250,000 in the first year of the deal
While how the league intends to determine the uncapped revenue sharing component is unclear, Philippou additionally reports that if league revenues “exceed projections” then “the WNBA’s revenue sharing component allows players to still participate in that upside,” with Philippou interestingly noting that such projections could be exceeded “if the league and its media partners reevaluate their recently agreed-upon rights deal.”
What are both sides saying about the proposals?
League sources have suggested to Philippou that the WNBPA’s latest proposal “would result in $700 million in losses over the course of the agreement.” Sources further posited that:
Such losses would jeopardize the league’s financial health…and they would be more than the combined losses of the league and its teams in the WNBA’s first 29 years of existence.
The $700 million in losses, according to Philippou’s sources, was projected “based on previously audited league financial information.” The WNBPA disputed that loss projection, with other sources telling Philippou that the players’ proposal would keep the league in a “profitable position.”
Expansion fees are at the core of the two sides’ divergent calculations. The union is factoring in expansion fees, while the league is not.
According to Philippou, “The league considers expansion fees a transaction that generates zero net revenue,” explaining:
New teams are out the expansion fee but earn a fractional share of future league revenue, while preexisting team get a portion of the fee but lose a fractional share of future league revenue.
The union, in contrast, understands the expansion fees distributed to preexisting teams “as real money that still contributes to owners’ bottom line.”
The league additionally continues to position sustainability as their top priority, with Philippou reporting that the league “wants to incentivize owners to continue to invest in operating the business,“ with the league believing that ”tremendous growth in recent years provides an opportunity for the business to go from operating at losses to building sustained profitability.“
In a statement shared with ESPN, the union reasserted their emphasis on fairness, insisting, “The players remain fully engaged and focused on securing a transformative agreement that delivers a meaningful share of the revenue their labor creates.”
