In their latest collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposal, the WNBA has reportedly relented, agreeing to a modicum of revenue sharing, which has been the primary priority of the WNBPA throughout negotiations.
However, the league’s willingness to share remains limited, as the proposed salary structure would result in players receiving less than 15 percent of the league’s revenue, with players’ share decreasing over time.
Advertisement
The WNBA, it seems, is trying to entice the WNBPA with a significant increase in salaries, promising more for max players ($1 million before incentives), veterans (an average of $500,000) and players on minimum salaries (at least $250,000), hoping the players will elect to grab the up-front extra money, rather than fighting for a bigger portion of league revenue moving forward.
Players clearly see this ploy, standing firm in their stance that a fair revenue sharing model is an absolute-must. The union is not seeking a short-term salary upgrade. They are committed to a longer view where players are fairly compensated for the continued growth of the WNBA
As Kelsey Plum, the WNBPA first vice president, explained to Front Office Sports:
We’re saying we bet six years from now we will be much better. More money, more revenue, more business than right now. Because of that, revenue share is so important. The mistake is trying to offer money up front but not being wise about it and not betting on your long-term vision of revenue share being the ultimate goal.
Plum additionally emphasized:
We have been very adamant from the jump, very specific about what we are going for, and that’s revenue share. Meaningful revenue from all aspects of the business. That’s not just the league, that’s the team revenue, too. There’s a level of frustration because we’ve started with this, and we can’t move forward until we get that and get to a level where we feel comfortable.
WNBA players’ resistance to other aspects of the league’s proposals similarly reflect a firm commitment to making sure the WNBA is league that supports, rather than complicates or inhibits, players’ quality of life, beginning in 2026 and beyond.
Advertisement
Preserving WNBA team-provided housing is a top priority
That begins with protecting team-provided housing, a staple of the WNBA since 1999, when the first CBA was implemented, that the league is looking to eliminate in the next CBA.
ESPN explained the WNBA’s long-standing player housing policy:
In the current CBA, teams provide housing in the form of a one-bedroom apartment or a housing stipend for all of their players. Players with children under 13 who live with the player full or part-time (visitation does not qualify) are entitled to a two-bedroom unit. There is no explicit limit in the CBA for what teams can spend on housing, but there is a limit to the stipends that can be provided to players who opt out of team housing that vary from market to market.
Any player wishing to upgrade accommodations within the team housing facility can pay the team the difference in cost.
During the offseason, players who are rehabbing an injury sustained during the prior season or who are paid to market the team during the offseason—known as team marketing agreements—can continue to live in team-provided housing.
According to sources that spoke to ESPN, most players take advantage of team housing, rather than the stipend, during the season.
Regarding the league’s proposal, one player told ESPN, “I think it’s just really overcomplicating something that shouldn’t be complicated. I shouldn’t be stressed about where I’m going to live when my job is to play basketball.”
The WNBPA considers housing a “top-five priority,” particularly due the fact that a significant number of players are on non-guaranteed contracts and because of the severe cost-of-living disparities between markets.
Advertisement
Somewhat encouragingly, ESPN’s reporting suggests both sides are offering some concessions related to housing. Players are willing to include the cost of housing in the player benefits that would be deducted from the players’ share of revenue. Additionally, ESPN reports that, “The expectation is that there will still be ways for teams to assist players in certain circumstances—such as if they’re on training camp or seven-day contracts or traded midseason—in securing accommodations.”
ESPN also notes that the continuation of team-issued housing could be beneficial to some organizations. Although requiring a significant amount of logistical coordination, teams in markets with a high cost of living, namely the Bay Area and New York, could risk losing out on free agents who are discouraged by exorbitant housing costs. ESPN likewise forsees another potential wrinkle, proposing:
Alternatively, the league could explore not prohibiting team-provided housing, but simply not requiring it. That would potentially become a competitive advantage, too, akin to the leaguewide race in recent years for franchises to build multimillion-dollar practice facilities, for teams that are more willing and able to pour money into providing housing accommodations.
A too-early WNBA season start date—and potential “exclusivity”—would be a problem
News of the WNBA’s proposed earlier training camp start date was puzzling to most fans, analysts and other league observers, most especially due to how it would directly conflict with the NCAA Tournament and, presumably, complicate the draft and rookie integration processes.
Advertisement
The WNBPA, per FOS, understands that an increase in the number of games will likely be codified in the new CBA. But, the union prefers that games be added to the back, not the front, of the schedule.
The crux of players’ opposition to this timeline adjustment stems from how an earlier training camp start date could prevent them from competing in other leagues.
As several players expressed to FOS, because “the WNBA is not yet the premier league in terms of salaries, resources and benefits,” players “believe the league should not interfere with outside earning opportunities unless it’s ready to compensate them in a way that warrants their exclusivity to the WNBA.”
Advertisement
“Exclusivity,” meaning prohibiting WNBA players from playing in other professional leagues, has not been an “explicitly” discussed in negotiations, according to FOS. Rather, as some sources indicated to FOS, “[E]xclusivity has been implied with the proposed longer season, coupled with the same prioritization rules that exist in the current CBA.” FOS further noted that, “The WNBA has historically been encouraging of players competing in other leagues, but the new CBA proposal signals a shift in that mentality among owners and league executives.”
