The Women’s National Basketball Association – WNBA – and the players’ union are negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement at a time of significant business growth. The deadline to reach a deal is March 10 and, if no framework is agreed by then, the start of the season scheduled for May 8 could be affected. The calendar includes the college draft, an expansion draft and the opening of free agency for close to 100 players.
In its latest proposal, the league has put forward a salary cap of $5.65 million per franchise for 2026, which would translate into an estimated average salary of $535,000 per player. The figure would almost quadruple the current $1.5 million team cap and represent the largest structural increase in salary history in the competition. The Women’s National Basketball Players Association – WNBPA –, however, argues that the rise does not reflect the recent surge in league revenues and is seeking a $9.5 million cap per franchise.
The gap between the two proposals stands at $3.85 million per team per year, which, extrapolated across the league, amounts to more than $46 million annually. According to The Athletic, the league estimates that accepting the union’s demands would generate cumulative losses of $460 million over the lifespan of the new agreement, projected at five to six years. Yet the players are not asking for more money without a rationale. They argue that the current revenue-sharing model does not reflect the league’s new economic scale. In simple terms, they want a larger slice because the pie itself has grown.
Revenue sharing and the 2025 precedent
Beyond the salary cap, the core of the dispute lies in the percentage of future revenues allocated to players. The WNBA is proposing 15% of future profits, while the union is pushing for 27.5%. The disagreement is not only about percentages, but about methodology: what financial base is used to calculate that share and which expenses are deducted before determining distributable profit.
In 2025, for the first time in league history, the WNBA generated enough business to trigger the extraordinary revenue-sharing clause negotiated under the previous agreement. In total, close to $16 million was activated, half distributed equally among players and the other half allocated through marketing agreements, capped at $250,000 per player. For the union, crossing that threshold signals that growth is structural. The league maintains that increased revenues still coexist with a cost structure that requires prioritizing sustainability.
The league argues that significant structural investments — expansion, charter flights, infrastructure and commercial development — are part of a broader strategy to consolidate growth and must be amortized before raising the percentage allocated to salaries. The union counters that activating revenue sharing for the first time demonstrates that the consolidation phase has already begun.
Preserving momentum
The competitive calendar adds further pressure to the talks. Before the season tips off, the WNBA must stage an expansion draft for its new franchises, Toronto Tempo and Portland Fire, conduct the college draft and open free agency, in addition to beginning training camp on April 19. The absence of a new regulatory framework affects contract decisions, roster planning and asset valuation at a time when the league is expanding.
Commissioner Cathy Engelbert has stated that “it’s about finding a balance between a substantial increase in salaries and benefits and the long-term sustainability of the league,” while NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has called for “urgency” to finalize the deal and avoid slowing “the incredible progress we’ve seen in women’s basketball.” From the union’s side, executive director Terri Jackson has said that “what we’ve proposed is very realistic” and has rejected any suggestion that players lack commitment after more than 16 months of negotiations.
The arrival of new audiences, stronger media contracts and the commercial momentum driven by figures such as Caitlin Clark have increased the league’s market value and strengthened the union’s position. The comparison with the NBA is useful from a structural standpoint — particularly in how basketball-related revenues are defined and shared — although the economic scale of the two competitions remains different. The outcome of this negotiation will determine not only average player salaries, but also the institutional design of a league that has moved from fighting for visibility to debating the architecture of its economic growth.
