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.<\/p>\n
As reported by ESPN\u2019s Alexa Philippou<\/a>, the two sides remain at odds over not just a revenue sharing model, but also \u201cwhat should be considered revenue and how to account for expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s 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\u2019s position.<\/p>\n Advertisement<\/p>\n What\u2019s the latest proposal from the WNBPA?<\/p>\n The WNBPA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n This proposal represents a revision from a proposal put forth by the union on November 28, according to ESPN.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Advertisement<\/p>\n What\u2019s the latest proposal from the WNBA?<\/p>\n According to Philippou<\/a>, the latest proposal from the league outlines a financial model where players would be granted over 50 percent of net revenue, which is \u201cdefined as revenue after subtracting expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n The other details of the league\u2019s most recent known proposal also include:<\/p>\n an uncapped revenue sharing component<\/p>\n a $5 million salary cap in the first year of the deal<\/p>\n a maximum player salary that starts above $1.3 million and would grow towards $2 million over the deal<\/p>\n an average player salary that begins above $350,000 and grows to over $780,000<\/p>\n a minimum player salary that stars at $250,000 in the first year of the deal<\/p>\n While how the league intends to determine the uncapped revenue sharing component is unclear, Philippou additionally reports<\/a> that if league revenues \u201cexceed projections\u201d then \u201cthe WNBA\u2019s revenue sharing component allows players to still participate in that upside,\u201d with Philippou interestingly noting that such projections could be exceeded \u201cif the league and its media partners reevaluate their recently agreed-upon rights deal.\u201d<\/p>\n Advertisement<\/p>\n What are both sides saying about the proposals?<\/p>\n League sources have suggested to Philippou<\/a> that the WNBPA\u2019s latest proposal \u201cwould result in $700 million in losses over the course of the agreement.\u201d Sources further posited that:<\/p>\n Such losses would jeopardize the league\u2019s financial health\u2026and they would be more than the combined losses of the league and its teams in the WNBA\u2019s first 29 years of existence.<\/p>\n The $700 million in losses, according to Philippou\u2019s sources<\/a>, was projected \u201cbased on previously audited league financial information.\u201d The WNBPA disputed that loss projection, with other sources telling Philippou<\/a> that the players\u2019 proposal would keep the league in a \u201cprofitable position.\u201d<\/p>\n Expansion fees are at the core of the two sides\u2019 divergent calculations. The union is factoring in expansion fees, while the league is not.<\/p>\n Advertisement<\/p>\n According to Philippou<\/a>, \u201cThe league considers expansion fees a transaction that generates zero net revenue,\u201d explaining:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The union, in contrast, understands the expansion fees distributed to preexisting teams \u201cas real money that still contributes to owners\u2019 bottom line.\u201d<\/p>\n The league additionally continues to position sustainability as their top priority, with Philippou reporting<\/a> that the league \u201cwants to incentivize owners to continue to invest in operating the business,\u201c with the league believing that \u201dtremendous growth in recent years provides an opportunity for the business to go from operating at losses to building sustained profitability.\u201c<\/p>\n