Over recent weeks, negotiations between WNBA and WNBPA have drawn renewed attention, not just for the higher salaries on the table, but for what insiders describe as a fundamental disagreement over the league’s financial future.
The WNBA‘s current offer is substantial on paper: a maximum base salary of $1 million starting in 2026, a projected minimum above $225,000, and a leaguewide salary cap expanding to approximately $5 million.
On average, player salaries under the proposal would exceed $460,000, a leap from last season’s minimum of about $66,079 and top salaries near $249,244.
But according to Kelsey Plum of the Los Angeles Sparks, numbers alone aren’t the point. The bigger issue remains how revenue, at the league and team level, gets divided.
“We have been very adamant from the jump, very specific about what we are going for, and that’s revenue share,” Plum said.
“Meaningful revenue from all aspects of the business. That’s not just the league, that’s the team revenue, too.”
She emphasized that a fixed contract structure, even with higher salaries, doesn’t account for the potential upside as the league grows.
“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.”
Why a revenue-share model matters now
The players’ demand for a revenue-based pay system comes at a pivotal moment for the WNBA.
The league has recently locked in a major longterm media rights deal and is undergoing expansion, both of which promise a sharp rise in total earnings from broadcasting, sponsorships, merchandise, ticket sales, and other team revenue streams.
But under the league’s latest proposal, the revenuesharing mechanism would only result in players receiving roughly 10-15% of total league revenue (after expenses), depending on projections.
That figure strikes many players as inadequate, especially when compared to the revenue share model under the NBA, where players generally receive around 50% of basketballrelated income.
A player-revenue share model would ensure that as the WNBA grows, players benefit directly, rather than relying on fixed raises negotiated at discrete intervals.
As one internal source described the league’s offer as “a system that looks at players as being paid last, almost, in the business.”
Players argue that non-salary issues, like housing, benefits for parents, scheduling constraints, rookie contract terms, and offseason flexibility, are bundled into the new proposal in ways that could erode longterm stability even as nominal pay rises.
For many union members, the demand is simple: make the compensation system reflect their role in growing the business.
Read the full article here
