The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) stands at a crossroads that will define its trajectory for the next decade. With the collective bargaining agreement deadline just two days away. as this article gets published, the league faces the most consequential labor negotiations in its 29-year history. At stake isn’t just player compensation — it’s the fundamental question of whether the WNBA can sustainably grow into the mainstream sports powerhouse it’s becoming.
The numbers tell an extraordinary story of growth. In 2024, the WNBA finalized an 11-year media rights deal worth approximately $2.2 billion through 2036, a sixfold increase from its previous agreement. Viewership surged, with games averaging over one million viewers across nationally televised broadcasts. League attendance jumped 48 percent. Merchandise sales soared more than 600 percent. The WNBA app saw user growth exceeding 250 percent. By any measure, the league has arrived at a cultural moment it’s been chasing since 1996.
Yet here’s the conflict as the WNBA has become more valuable, the labor relationship between players and owners has fractured dramatically. The players opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement in October 2024, rejecting a deal that had governed the league and rejecting the notion that their compensation should be predetermined by fixed formulas. ESPN has reported many times that they want what NBA players fought for decades to obtain — a direct connection between their earnings and the league’s actual revenue.
The core dispute centers on how to define and divide revenue. The WNBA has proposed a system where players receive more than 50 percent of what they call net revenue — that is, revenue after subtracting all operating expenses. Sounds generous until you examine the fine print. That formula translates to less than 15 percent of gross revenue, the total money coming into the league. The union, meanwhile, is demanding approximately 30 percent of gross revenue. That’s not just a numerical difference; it represents fundamentally different philosophies about who bears the costs of operating a professional sports league.
The players’ provide the labor, the entertainment value, and increasingly, the cultural relevance that’s driving the WNBA’s explosive growth. Caitlin Clark alone was responsible for 26.5 percent of all WNBA economic activity in 2024. Why, players argue, should they be penalized by expenses they don’t control? Why shouldn’t their earnings grow proportionally as the business grows, just like NBA players do through basketball-related income calculations? The union has called the league’s most recent proposal lipstick on a pig, a retread of the same restrictive system that’s undervalued players for nearly three decades.
The league has countered that accepting the union’s proposal would result in roughly $700 million in losses over the course of a new agreement. That figure dwarfs the combined losses of the WNBA across its entire 29-year history. League officials argue they need to transition the business from chronic losses to sustained profitability while incentivizing owners to continue investing in infrastructure, marketing, and talent development. Without that financial stability, they contend, there’s no guarantee the growth trajectory continues.
Here’s where things get genuinely complicated, both sides might actually be right about their numbers. The union disputes the league’s projection, pointing out that expansion fees — the money new franchises like Toronto and Portland paid to join — should be counted as real revenue. The league views expansion fees differently, as zero-net transactions where established teams lose fractional ownership even as they share in the upfront payments. These aren’t trivial accounting disputes. They determine whether a deal is sustainable or catastrophic.
The salary figures being discussed represent an extraordinary leap from today’s reality. The league has proposed maximum salaries exceeding $1.3 million (compared to $249,244 in 2025), average salaries above $530,000 (compared to $120,000 in 2025), and minimum salaries exceeding $250,000 (compared to $66,079 in 2025). The union’s proposal would push salaries even higher, with average salaries around $1 million and maximum salaries reaching $2.5 million. By historical standards, these are breathtaking increases. Yet the chasm between the proposals remains vast.
Beyond salary lies the question of housing. For 27 years, the WNBA has required teams to provide housing for all players during the regular season and playoffs. It’s a unique provision in American professional sports, reflecting the era when WNBA salaries were closer to poverty wages. The league wants to eliminate this requirement, arguing that players’ dramatically increased salaries make it unnecessary and that removing housing costs for franchises helps offset the payroll explosion. Players view this as essential protection, especially for those in expensive markets and those on contracts that are not guaranteed who face the risk of being cut mid-season. One player described housing as a top-five negotiation priority. For younger players or those earning minimum salary in cities like New York and San Francisco, the loss of team housing could be genuinely devastating.
In December 2024, WNBPA members voted 98 percent in favor of authorizing their executive committee to call a strike if necessary. This wasn’t an immediate call to strike — rather, a demonstration of player unity and solidarity, a way of saying: we’re serious, and we have leverage. The move surprised some observers. If negotiations were truly stalled, why not walk out immediately? Union president Nneka Ogwumike explained that authorization was a symbol of our unity and the confidence that we have in each other, combined with a way to give ourselves as much leverage as possible to get a good deal done.
The question looming over all these discussions is whether either side will actually allow games to be canceled. The 2026 season doesn’t tip off until May, giving both sides time before any work stoppage directly impacts fans. Industry insiders remain skeptical that a strike will occur. Multiple sources suggested that key stakeholders — potentially including NBA Commissioner Adam Silver — will ultimately pressure both sides toward compromise. Everyone acknowledges the stakes are too high and the momentum too valuable to squander on a labor dispute.
Here’s the thing, folks: The January 9 deadline is not purely symbolic. The WNBA must finalize a new agreement before holding the expansion draft for Toronto and Portland, before free agency opens (when an unprecedented 85 percent of the league will be available), and before the college draft on April 13. Every day without a deal creates cascading complications.
With that… The WNBA’s future depends on navigating this moment without derailing what might be women’s basketball’s greatest opportunity yet. The league has stars, viewership, corporate investment, and cultural relevance. What it needs now is a labor agreement that fairly compensates the athletes who created that value while preserving the league’s financial foundation. That’s a genuinely difficult balance to strike, and the next few weeks will determine whether the two sides can find it.
When you do not play with them, for obvious reasons, you should definitely then root for them!