Last Monday, the WNBA told its players that if a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was not reached by March 10, the 2026 regular season could be in jeopardy. Even if a deal is reached before the deadline, the league would face a tight window to conduct the majority of its offseason proceedings, including an expansion draft, free agency period, the college draft, and preseason.
In response to the deadline, the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA) offered another counterproposal this past Friday. In it, the WNBPA dropped its previous request for 27.5 percent of gross revenue to 26 percent across the course of the deal. For context, NBA players receive around 51 percent of league revenue.
Although the WNBA generates significantly less revenue than the NBA, this comparison should not disqualify WNBA players from a higher share of revenue, especially when we consider how the NBA — which owns 42 percent of the WNBA — approached player salary at a similar point in NBA history.Â
WNBA players will make a lot less than NBA players at the same point in each league's growth
From 1970 to 1971, during the NBA’s 25th season, and when the league was allegedly not profitable, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar earned the equivalent of roughly $2.15 million in today’s dollars. In the late 1970s, when the NBA was in its 31–35th seasons, maximum salaries were reaching inflation-adjusted levels around $5 million, and by the time the NBA surpassed $1 billion in revenue in 1984–85, Magic Johnson earned the equivalent of around $8 million, adjusted for inflation.
By contrast, during the early 2020s— the WNBA’s 24-27th seasons—maximum salaries remained roughly between $190,000 and $202,154. According to projections cited by David Berri, ownership expects league revenue to surpass $1 billion by the 34th season (2030), yet current proposals would cap player revenue share below 15 percent and limit maximum salaries to approximately $2 million in 2031. The comparison does not suggest the leagues are economically equivalent, but it does reveal a structural difference in how growth is financed: historically, expansion in the NBA coincided with substantial increases in player compensation, while current WNBA proposals allow league value to expand at a much more rapid rate, dwarfing player earnings.
This inconsistency suggests that the central issue in negotiations is not financial capacity, but how league growth will be distributed. If league projections prove accurate, the WNBA’s popularity will significantly increase franchise values and total revenue without proportionally increasing player earnings. The central question of the negotiations, then, is not whether the league can afford higher compensation, but whether growth will be reinvested in players or primarily returned to ownership.
Recent revenue gains suggest that the WNBA is financially capable of paying players a larger percentage of revenue shares. The league announced last week that it generated enough revenue in 2025 to trigger an additional $8 million distribution to players beyond base salaries.Â