Last time, it took the WNBA approximately six weeks to respond to the mid-December collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposal submitted by the WNBPA.
This time around, the WNBA shared their response to the WNBPA’s latest counterproposal in three days. However, the league’s improved expeditiousness might as well be irrelevant, as the league did not address the matter that is at the center of these protracted negotiations: revenue sharing.
While the players adjusted their revenue sharing demands
and salary cap target in their counterproposal, the league did not present a reciprocal compromise, instead again offering a revenue sharing model that would allocate less than 15 percent of gross revenue to players, with a Year 1 salary cap set at $5.65 million. The players most recent proposal sought an average of 27.5 percent of gross revenue, down from their previous ask of 31 percent; the players also put forth a 2026 salary cap of $9.5 million instead of $10.5 million.
The refusal to budge on revenue sharing is more consequential than the concession that the league did agree to: guaranteed housing for all player in 2026.
The WNBA originally proposed eliminating all team provided housing, a possibly that inspired immediate and intense pushback from players. After the league then agreed to provision housing for players on minimum contracts, as well as developmental players, the players proposed that teams be required to supply housing support for all players through the first few years of the new CBA, before phasing out the requirement for players on multiyear deals that approach the maximum salary.
According to reporting from ESPN and Front Office Sports, all players will receive housing support in 2026. After that, the league has proposed that teams will only be responsible for offering housing assistance (one-bedroom apartments) to players on minimum contracts and those with zero years of service in 2027 and 2028. Only developmental would be supplied with studio apartments throughout the full term of the next CBA.
As reported by both ESPN and FOS, the league also has accommodated the players’ request for a recognition payment to retired players with eight or more seasons of WNBA service, with the league agreeing to increase the yearly payment from $3,000 to $4,500. The league likewise has agree to increase its 401(k) contributions to players’ retirement accounts. Per The Athletic, the league also has offered a seventh guaranteed contract per team in the latest proposal.
However, as Annie Costabile reports at FOS, a number of matters raised by the players remain unaddressed:
The league has not engaged with player proposals on the season start date or number of games, in addition to proposal items on the core designation, length of rookie scale contracts, reserved players, salary protection limits, mental health reimbursements, or exceptions to the prioritization rule.
The WNBA’s convoluted ownership structure also clouds CBA negotiations
At FOS, Costabile also provided additional reporting on the WNBA’s claim that the latest proposal submitted by the WNBPA would result in “hundreds of millions of dollars” in losses for the league.
As Costabile notes, the WNBA’s insistence on its precarious profitability seems at odds with a growing league that has amassed almost $1 billion in expansion fees since the Golden State Valkyries were approved as the league’s 13th team in late 2023. However, expansion fees are not considered part of league revenue by the WNBA, and Costabile shares that, “The league has not responded to numerous requests from FOS for clarification on how these funds are distributed to stakeholders.“
While expansion fees are excluded from what the WNBA categorizes as league revenue, the revenue from the league’s new media rights deals—$200 million over the next 11 years—is part of league revenue. But, Costabile reports:
Multiple league sources told FOS there is a lack of clarity around how money from the media rights deal is being split up among WNBA stakeholders. Details surrounding the distribution of all league revenues, including national and local, are also murky because of the three groups of stakeholders.
The WNBA ownership structure makes things even more complicated, or makes it easier for the WNBA to obscure its financial realities. NBA owners (42 percent), WNBA owners (42 percent) and an outside investor group (16 percent), which includes owners who own both NBA and WNBA teams, comprise the league’s aforementioned stakeholders. It remains unclear how revenue is shared among the three stakeholder groups.
The disparity between the operational costs of WNBA teams is an additional complication in the negotiations for a new CBA. Costabile highlights a number of examples that demonstrate this differential, from the highly-paid coaches of the Las Vegas Aces, Phoenix Mercury and Toronto Tempo to the smaller venues of the Washington Mystics and Atlanta Dream to the varying amount invested in the construction of practice facilities.
Based on reporting, it appears that the WNBA, which long has had a hard salary cap that prevents teams with owners willing to spend more money from using their financial might to stack their roster with high-salary players, has not seriously considered a softer salary cap, where teams that exceed the cap would pay a “luxury tax,” as is the case in the NBA and MLB. Costabile writes:
The WNBA and the WNBPA have discussed implementing salary cap exceptions related to those that already exist regarding player injury and pregnancy. The union has proposed additional exceptions that would soften the cap further, but the league has not engaged.
