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 just made its first big move in talks with the WNBA, dropping its revenue-sharing demand. This is about more than money. It's a message.
The union's new offer: an average of 27.5% of gross revenue, according to ESPN. Year one would be 25%, with a salary cap under $9.5 million. Back in December, the ask was bigger—31% on average, starting at 28%, and a cap near $10.5 million.
This is a big shift. It's the first time the union has really given ground. Talks have been tense, with both sides frustrated and still at odds over how to split the league's growing revenue.
Players voted to authorize a strike in December. Lately, union leaders have downplayed the chance of walking out right now, calling it a waiting game. This new offer keeps the pressure on but shows the union doesn't want to risk the 2026 season if a deal is still possible.
The union still wants revenue sharing based on gross revenue, which is total income before expenses. ESPN says the league has suggested a model based on net revenue, offering players, on average, over 70% of that amount.
Gross revenue is everything before costs. Net revenue is what's left after expenses. Players want their share from the top, not after the bills are paid. They say using net lets owners control expenses and shrink payouts. The league says its way is the responsible one.
For the first time, top players are set to make seven figures. The league's latest offer: salary cap jumps from about $1.5 million in 2025 to $5.65 million in 2026, with more increases tied to revenue. With revenue sharing, max salaries hit $1.3 million in 2026 and could reach $2 million by 2031. The supermax for 2025 is $249,000. Average pay, with revenue sharing, goes from $120,000 in 2025 to $540,000 in 2026 and $780,000 by 2031.
Both sides agree: this next deal will be the richest in league history. The fight is over how much of that growth goes to the players, and who gets to decide what counts as revenue, as media rights, expansion, and sponsorship money keep rising.
Housing is still a sticking point. Since 1999, teams have had to provide housing—either a one-bedroom apartment or a stipend. The union's latest proposal, per ESPN, would keep that in place at first. But for players making close to the max on multiyear, fully protected deals, team housing would start to phase out. As pay goes up, these players would get extra money instead, making them less dependent on team apartments.
Under the league's latest proposal, players on minimum salaries and rookies would get one-bedroom apartments for their first three years. Developmental players would receive studio apartments.
For younger players and those on minimum deals, guaranteed housing is almost like a second paycheck. For veterans making big money, ending team housing could mean more freedom and more cash.
The timing matters here. ESPN reported that league projections showed the union's earlier proposal could result in about $700 million in losses over the life of the deal. A source close to the talks called that number "absolutely false," saying the union's plan would still keep the league in the black. There was still debate over whether expansion fees were part of the math.
By dropping its gross-revenue ask and showing some give on housing for top players, the union can now say it's made real progress. The ball is back in the owners' court.
It's not clear whether the league considers 27.5% of gross revenue a real compromise. What is clear: this CBA will shape how teams are built, how free agency works, and who wins starting in 2026.
The big question stays the same: Who gets the rewards, and who pays the price?