WNBPA eases revenue share demands, signaling a strategic shift in the ongoing CBA negotiations. Will this concession bridge the growing financial divide?
The Women’s National Basketball Players’ Association has taken its first clear step backward in collective bargaining negotiations with the WNBA, trimming its revenue-sharing demand in a move that appears designed as much for leverage and optics as for dollars.
According to ESPN, the union submitted a counterproposal Tuesday that reduces its ask to an average of 27.5% of gross revenue over the life of the agreement, including 25% in Year 1 with a salary cap of less than $9.5 million. That marks a meaningful shift from the union’s December proposal, which sought an average of 31% of gross revenue, beginning at 28% in the first year, with a roughly $10.5 million salary cap.
The adjustment is not just a tweak in percentages. It is the first clear structural concession from the union in these talks, which have been marked by frustration over delayed responses and sharply different visions for how the league’s growing revenues should be divided.
Players authorized a strike in December, but recent comments from union leaders have downplayed the idea that a walkout is imminent, describing the process as a “waiting game.” The latest proposal suggests the union is attempting to maintain pressure while signaling it does not intend to derail the 2026 season if a transformative deal remains within reach.
The central divide is not simply 27.5% versus the league’s offer of more than 70%. It is gross versus net.
The union continues to push for a revenue-sharing system based on gross revenue — money counted before expenses are deducted. The league, according to ESPN, has proposed a model built on net revenue, offering players on average more than 70% of that figure.
The distinction is critical. Gross revenue reflects the entire financial pie before operating costs are removed. Net revenue reflects what remains after those costs. Players have argued that basing their share on net revenue allows owners to define expenses in ways that could reduce the players’ cut, while the league has framed its model as fiscally responsible and sustainable.
This is the first CBA cycle in which seven-figure salaries are widely expected to become standard for top players, which heightens the stakes. Under the league’s most recent proposal, the salary cap would rise from roughly $1.5 million in 2025 to $5.65 million in 2026, with future increases tied to revenue growth.
Maximum salaries, including revenue-sharing payouts, would reach $1.3 million in 2026 and were projected to approach $2 million by 2031. The supermax in 2025 stands at $249,000. Average player compensation, including revenue sharing, was projected to jump from about $120,000 in 2025 to $540,000 in 2026 and $780,000 by 2031.
On paper, both sides agree the next agreement will be the most lucrative in league history. The fight is over how much of that growth flows automatically to players and who controls the definition of revenue as media rights, expansion and sponsorship income continue to rise.
Housing remains another significant piece of the puzzle.
Teams have been required to provide housing since the league’s first CBA in 1999, either through a one-bedroom apartment or a stipend. According to ESPN, the union’s latest counterproposal would maintain team-provided housing in the early years of the new agreement but phase out mandatory housing for players earning near the maximum on multiyear contracts with full salary protection.
Earlier this month, the league proposed that players on applicable minimum salaries and those with zero years of service receive one-bedroom apartments for the first three years of the deal, while developmental players would receive studio apartments.
For young or minimum-salary players, guaranteed housing functions almost like a second paycheck. For high-earning veterans, phasing out mandatory housing could create greater financial flexibility and shift more resources toward direct compensation.
The timing of the union’s concession is notable. ESPN previously reported that league projections estimated the union’s earlier proposal could result in roughly $700 million in losses over the course of the agreement. A source close to negotiations disputed that figure, calling it “absolutely false” and arguing the union’s model would still leave the league profitable, with disagreements centered in part on whether expansion fees were included in the calculations.
The six-week gap between proposals earlier in the winter frustrated players and slowed offseason planning. By lowering its gross-revenue ask and showing flexibility on housing for top earners, the union can now argue it has moved meaningfully — shifting the spotlight back to ownership.
Whether the league views 27.5% of gross revenue as a viable middle ground remains unclear. What is certain is that the financial framework established in this CBA will shape roster construction, free agency strategy and competitive balance beginning in 2026.
The question is no longer whether players will be paid more. It is how the upside of a rapidly expanding league will be defined — and who ultimately controls the check.