Last time, it took the WNBA about six weeks to respond to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposal submitted in mid-December by the WNBPA.
This time around, the WNBA shared its response to the latest counter-proposal from the WNBPA in three days. However, the league’s increased speed might as well be irrelevant, as the league has not addressed the issue at the center of these lengthy negotiations: revenue sharing.
Advertisement
While the players adjusted their revenue sharing demands and salary cap target in their counterproposal, the league did not present a reciprocal compromise, again proposing a revenue sharing model that would allocate less than 15 percent of gross revenue to players, with a first-year 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 request of 31 percent; players also proposed a salary cap of $9.5 million for 2026 instead of $10.5 million.
The refusal to budge on revenue sharing is more substantial than the concession accepted by the league: guaranteed housing for all players in 2026.
The WNBA had initially proposed eliminating all team-provided housing, which may have inspired an immediate and intense backlash from players. After the league agreed to provide housing for players on minimum contracts, as well as developmental players, the players proposed that teams be required to provide housing assistance for all players during the first years of the new CBA, before phasing out the requirement for players on multi-year contracts that approximate the maximum salary.
Advertisement
According to the report of ESPN And Sports at receptionall players will receive housing assistance in 2026. After that, the league proposed that teams would only be responsible for providing housing assistance (one-bedroom apartments) to players on minimum contracts and those with no years of service in 2027 and 2028. Only developmental players will receive studio accommodations for the duration of the next CBA.
As reported by both ESPN And FOS, The league also responded to players’ demand for a recognition payment for retired players with eight or more seasons of service in the WNBA, with the league agreeing to increase the annual payment from $3,000 to $4,500. The league also agreed to increase its 401(k) contributions to players’ retirement accounts. By Athleticsthe league also proposed a seventh team guaranteed contract in the latest proposal.
However, as Annie Costabile points out reports to FOSa certain number of questions raised by stakeholders remain unanswered:
The league did not address player proposals on season start date or number of games, beyond proposal elements on base designation, length of rookie scale contracts, reserved players, salary protection limits, mental health reimbursements or exceptions to the prioritization rule.
Advertisement
WNBA’s convoluted ownership structure also clouds CBA negotiations
HAS FOSCostabile too provided additional reports 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 nearly $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 for FOS for clarification on how these funds are distributed to stakeholders.
Even though expansion fees are excluded from what the WNBA considers league revenue, revenue from the league’s new media rights deals — $200 million over the next 11 years — is part of league revenue. But, Costable reports:
Multiple league sources said FOS There is a lack of clarity on how the money from the media rights deal is distributed among the WNBA stakeholders. Details surrounding the distribution of all league revenue, including national and local, are also murky due to the three stakeholder groups.
The WNBA’s ownership structure makes things even more complicated or makes it easier for the WNBA to obscure its financial realities. NBA owners (42%), WNBA owners (42%), and a group of outside investors (16%), which includes owners who own both NBA and WNBA teams, make up the league’s aforementioned stakeholders. It remains unclear how revenues are shared among the three stakeholder groups.
Advertisement
The disparity between WNBA teams’ operational costs is an additional complication in negotiations for a new CBA. Costabile highlights A number of examples demonstrate this difference, 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 amounts invested in building practice facilities.
Based on reports, it appears that the WNBA, which has long had a strict salary cap that prevents teams whose owners are willing to spend more money from using their financial muscle to stack their rosters with high-salaried players, has not seriously considered a looser 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 WNBPA have discussed implementing salary cap exceptions related to those that already exist regarding player injuries and pregnancy. The union has proposed additional exceptions that would further relax the cap, but the league has not committed to them.
