The WNBA and its players union remain at odds as details emerge from collective bargaining negotiations. The sides are operating under a second deadline extension that runs through Jan. 9.
The biggest sticking point remains a revenue growth model. The league’s latest proposal includes a 10 percent to 14 percent share of league revenue, according to a person with knowledge of the proposal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions. Those figures are based on growth projections that the players feel are conservative.
The union is seeking a model that keeps up with the growth of the league. For example, if league revenue grows 18 percent in 2027, the players want their share to increase 18 percent. Their concern is that the league’s growth will outpace a fixed revenue share.
“It’s a joke, honestly,” said Alysha Clark, the Women’s National Basketball Players Association executive committee’s vice president. “For it not to grow, it would decrease over the span of this new CBA. We want to grow as the business grows. That’s the whole point of us coming into this CBA saying we want a meaningful revenue share model because we want to compensate players for what we do to help grow this business.”
The league’s proposal includes a maximum base salary of $1 million guaranteed in 2026 with projected revenue sharing increasing the salary to more than $1.2 million for max players, according to another person who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Under the proposal, the average salary in 2026 is projected to exceed $500,000 and the minimum salary is projected to surpass $225,000. The salary cap would increase to $5 million in the first year of the deal – up from $1.5 million last season – and would be directly tied to revenue growth in each year of the deal.
Under the old CBA, the minimum base salary in 2025 was $66,079 and the supermax was $249,244. The previous CBA also included a revenue sharing component but, because of the language of the deal, it was never triggered.
On Nov. 18, a league proposal included a $1.1 million maximum salary and a minimum over $220,000. The same person noted the league has presented multiple proposals with “unprecedented increases in player compensation and a fundamentally different compensation structure from the previous CBA that ensures compensation will continue to grow as league and team revenue grow.”
“That’s why the league put those numbers out,” Clark said. “They knew people were going to be like, ‘Oh, wow, look at those numbers; it’s so much higher.’ What happens in 2028, 2029 when the league has skyrocketed and, boom, because of the new teams that are coming in, new money that’s coming in, partnerships are coming in, guess where we’re going to be sitting? In the exact same position.”
The league disagrees with that characterization. A WNBA spokesman referred to a statement from October when asked about revenue sharing.
“It is incorrect and surprising that the Players Association is claiming that the WNBA has not offered an uncapped revenue sharing model that is directly tied to the league’s performance,” the statement read. “The comprehensive proposals we have made to the players include a revenue sharing component that would result in the players’ compensation increasing as league revenue increases – without any cap on the upside. … We stand ready to continue negotiating in good faith and hope they will do the same so that we can finalize a mutually beneficial new CBA as quickly as possible.”
The league’s latest proposal also removed team housing provisions and included lengthening the season in a way that would result in training camps opening in mid-March. The most recent deal required teams to provide players housing during the regular season and the playoffs or to provide a monthly housing stipend. The league believes removing the housing element is offset by the substantial pay increase.
A mid-March training camp could interfere with offseason opportunities for players, including competition overseas. It also could affect players coming directly from college; the NCAA tournament typically ends in early April.
A person with knowledge of the league’s position noted that adjusting the footprint of the season is exploratory. The players argue that would take away chances to supplement their income.
“With the proposed season footprint, it’s almost as if the league and teams want exclusivity,” Clark said. “If that’s the case, then make sure we can live and do all these things that you’re asking of us in the best way possible.”
Another element to the league’s latest proposal would establish a player combine before the draft in which prospects gather to be evaluated by league personnel. Invited players would be required to attend or be subject to losing half of their potential base salary without an excused absence.
The players are seeking to remove tenets of previous CBAs, including core and reserved contracts that let teams delay players from reaching free agency.
Another issue is the length of the rookie-scale contract, which keeps a player with the team that drafted them for three seasons with a team option for a fourth year. Caitlin Clark, for example, played four years in college and came into the WNBA at 22. The Indiana Fever will have control over her contract until she’s 26.
Additionally, the players are seeking maternity leave for non-birthing parents and more substantial retirement benefits. Those benefits currently are provided through a 401(k).
One thing the sides agreed to is a second extension, which would push the negotiating deadline to Jan. 9. Both sides have the option to cancel the extension with 48 hours’ notice. Even without an extension, that would not constitute a work stoppage; negotiations could continue under the status quo, in which the league would continue to operate under its current rules.
The only piece of league business currently affected by the impasse is the expansion draft for the Portland Fire and Toronto Tempo. The draft rules must be specified in the new CBA.
“Right now is crucial for us,” Clark said. “And why we’re standing so strong is because we understand what’s at stake. This league has survived for 28 years with minimal investment into it, into the players, into the facilities, into the staffing, all of it. It’s survived and thrived despite all of that. And so now we want to make sure that, when we step away, this new negotiation this year will carry on and be able to help this league stand for the next 28 years.”