Following the Money: How Greed Could Cost Us The WNBA Season

On June 24, 2024, the WNBA formally announced that it had reached a new media rights deal with Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon. This deal had been negotiated as part of the larger NBA deal, which split media rights between the three companies. The numbers were astronomical compared to any influx of revenue the WNBA had ever received to that point. The deal was worth $2.2b, paid over 11 years, making it worth $200m a year through 2036. This could rise to $300m annually, with the WNBA planning to add more partners. This was great news to fans, as now 125 games would be on national television. It was even better news for the players, because for the first time in the league’s history, the league had reached a level of self-sustainability and profitability.

Let's rewind here a little bit. Six years before this deal was signed, things were a little different in the WNBA. Only eight of the twelve teams were turning a profit, and the NBA was subsidizing the league's losses every year. Player pay was not great to say the least, and most teams didn't have a dedicated and well-equipped training facility. Chicago Sky CEO Adam Fox famously gathered the players for a presentation to address the increasing frustrations around the team’s lack of investment into its players. In this Powerpoint presentation, Fox explicitly told the players “We don’t pay you because you don't make us any money”. He claimed that while some teams were generating revenue at the time, the Chicago Sky was not one of them. He also added that the team’s original investors viewed the team as more of a “civic duty” than a business expected to make money.

Putting pen to paper on the new deal closed the door on those days (for good we hope), but opened the door to a new kind of problem. With all this new money coming in, everyone wanted a good chunk of that pie. The players’ union immediately opted out of the current CBA when the window opened; to the surprise of nobody. The owners’ reasoning for not paying their players more was not going to fly anymore. This new deal had proved what the players knew all along: that the league was on its way to becoming one of the premier sports leagues in North America. 

Months later, the WNBA and the players’ union have found themselves in a tug of war of sorts regarding how to split this money. In this article, I will attempt to dive deeper into the numbers, creating a clearer picture of where the disconnect truly lies. Sure, the overarching issue here is that the players want pay based on the gross revenue while the league would like to determine the pay on net revenue, but there's more than  meets the eye. A deep dive into the facts reveals that behind this simple point is a series of obstacles, power dynamics and the potential for a lockout season. 

But first, a history lesson.

Who owns the WNBA?

In 2022, the WNBA raised $75m in capital funding in an attempt to lessen the impact the pandemic had had on the league. This was raised in a funding round where a consortium of external investors surpassed the initial goal of $50m. These investors included strategic partners like Nike, tech leaders like Michael and Susan Dell (Dell Industries) and sports figures like Pau Gasol and Swin Cash. The deal marked the WNBA’s first ever external funding round, and fundamentally changed the league’s ownership structure.

Until then, the WNBA shares were split 50/50 between the WNBA team owners and the NBA owners. The new capital injection diluted the share owned by both parties, with the new partners now owning 16% of the shares. This created a new 42/42/16 split. While the league initially boasted of a $1b valuation during the negotiations, the final post-money valuation was closer to $475m. This was obviously a severe underpay, considering the NY Liberty alone was valued at $450m just three years later. However in all fairness, the league needed the money at the time, and the deal did happen before the recent explosion in popularity that the league has seen over the last few years which definitely helped boost that Liberty valuation. 

This ownership structure makes things a little tricky to say the least. Before the capital investment, the power dynamic was split right down the middle between the NBA and the WNBA owners. However, as the Atlanta Dream owner famously said, if the twelve WNBA team owners all said yes and the NBA said no, then it probably would be a no. This shows that after years of subsidizing the WNBA’s losses, the NBA has gained a lot of power at the table. Additionally, some WNBA teams are owned by NBA owners, and that external consortium included some NBA owners who “tripled down” on the WNBA. It is therefore estimated that about 60% of the WNBA is owned by the NBA.

With this knowledge, it would be fair to assume that many of the major decisions and proposals made by the WNBA are actually made by the NBA. While  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has done a good job of absolving himself of all CBA talk responsibility in public, who is to say that he’s not pulling the strings in the background?

Where does the money come from?

To understand the revenue sharing issue, it is important to truly understand how much money we’re dealing with here. The media rights deal marks the league’s largest revenue driver for 2026, but the WNBA is expected to generate significant additional income from several other streams. The biggest one is sponsorships and partnerships.

The WNBA Changemaker initiative is a collective of industry-leading brands that provide not just direct financial investment, but also deep strategic collaboration. It includes six market-leading brands; AT&T, Deloitte, Nike, Google, U.S Bank and CarMax, that work together to fundamentally change the league’s business model. The impact of this initiative has been swooping. In February 2026, the players’ union announced that for the first time in history, the league’s total revenue passed the benchmark required to trigger a $16m payout to players. A lot of credit has gone to these partners for creating this new model, and working with the league and its players to see it through. 

The increase in popularity is also expected to bring a big boost in revenue. The union reported generating over $10m in licensing revenue in 2025 alone. This includes revenue from jersey sales, trading cards, video games and other branded merchandise. The “Caitlin Clark effect” has been truly felt over the last few years as noted in this article.  Attendance records were shattered in 2024 and 2025, and there is no indication that this trend is going anywhere. The WNBA has grown some sort of cult-like following, especially among female fans who prior to this hadn't really paid much attention to the sport. Ticket sales and game-day concessions will surely be steadily rising.

All this is to say that the issue at hand is so contentious because we truly have no idea how much revenue will be generated over the course of this CBA. It is important to establish that the discussion isn't exactly about how much the players will be paid, but how their pay will be determined moving forward. Sources estimate the revenue for 2026 will be anywhere between $350m and $680m. I tend to disagree with that floor number, based on the fact that the WNBA is rumored to have made $300m in 2025. Simply adding the oncoming $200m from the media right deal for 2026 would put the total expected revenue for 2026 at $500m.

The expansion fee problem

A big point of contention in these CBA talks is whether the expansion fees paid to the WNBA by expansion teams should be considered as “revenue”. The CBA discussions have coincided with the league being amidst a historic expansion, with it planning to grow from 12 teams to 18 teams by 2030. It therefore goes without saying that this point has become absolutely crucial for both parties to figure out. 

Expansion fees in the WNBA have seen a steep increase over the last couple years. The Golden State Valkyries, who had their debut season in 2025, paid $50m in expansion fees. The new teams coming in 2026 (Toronto and Portland) paid a total of $175m. The other three teams that are expected to join by 2030, (Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit) will each pay $250m, essentially 5x what the Valkyries paid. The rapid rise of fees has been a major source of frustration to players, and they want a piece of it. In full totality, the league is expected to make nearly $1 billion in expansion fees.

The players view expansion fees as "real money" that contributes directly to owners' bottom lines and team valuations. They argue these funds should be used to assist with league operating costs rather than players being asked to subsidize those costs through a "net revenue" sharing model. The league, on the other hand, argues that while existing owners receive a portion of the fee, they simultaneously lose a fractional share of all future league revenue to the new team, essentially canceling out the financial gain.

It is important to note that while the league’s argument is true, it lacks some nuance. Sure, the current owners are splitting more of the pie with the new owners, but isn't the hope that the pie will also be bigger? The whole point of expansion is to grow the sport, to new cities and new fans, bringing an even bigger and better product to the fans. This will hopefully increase the revenue generated, with the footprint growing year by year. The mere fact that new owners are willing to pay top dollar to own a WNBA franchise is proof that they believe in the profitability of the product. The players should get a say in what happens to this money ($1b is no joke!) and the two parties should find a model that moves the league forward but also takes care of its players.

The pain point

These CBA discussions have been ongoing for well over six months at this point and for as much back and forth as has happened, the main point has seen little to no movement. The WNBA has made concessions in almost every other issue other than the revenue sharing. The league’s offer of 70% net revenue has essentially stayed the same throughout these talks, despite the union cutting down its offer from 30% of gross revenue to “between 20-25%” of gross revenue. When I started doing the research for this article, I wanted to truly understand why the league wouldn’t give an inch on this issue ( Especially because it may cost us the season!).

The league cites sustainability as the main reason for not giving the players a portion of the gross revenue they help generate. According to the WNBA, the union’s request of pay based on gross revenue is “unrealistic” and would lead to losses of more than $460m. This, the league says, would do nothing but hinder the growth of the sport that has come so far to get to where it is. So, instead, the league wants to pay the players based on the net revenue, which financial experts say amounts to less than 15% of the gross revenue. 

Let’s use that $200m the league is expected to make strictly from the media right deal this oncoming season. Based on the ownership structure, should the league get its way, the NBA owners would get 42% of that money. That's roughly $84m divided amongst the owners. The external funding consortium would then get its portion, 16% which is roughly $32m, and the WNBA team owners would get the remaining $84m. This is the portion that is responsible for paying the players, but that’s not all.

The league would then use this portion to pay for charter flights (there goes $25m) and any other upgrades and expenses. From what is left over, the players would then get 70% as their pay. This is what the players mean by saying they don’t want to be “paid last”. Essentially, the players will be subsidizing costs for travel and upgrades. 

The union’s proposal would have them take home about 25% of the whole $200m before any revenue is shared with its shareholders. The three groups would then divide the rest among themselves (true to their current stakes ownership of course) and then any improvements made would be charged to the WNBA portion. 

This obviously would hurt the WNBA owners’ bottom lines, but the group with the most to lose here are the NBA owners. They would be giving up about $17m each year, just off the media right deal money alone. Why would the NBA agree to a deal that takes a portion right off the top and gives it to the players? Well, NBA players make 50% of all basketball related income, which amounts to 40% of gross revenue. As a matter of fact, never in the NBA’s history has the NBA offered the men as small a percentage of revenue as they are currently offering the women. David Berri of the NY Times argues that “Maybe the NBA wants to pay the WNBA players nothing!”

>$500m in losses?

Now this is a mindblowing number. I simply can’t wrap my head around such a loss, simply by conceding an extra 5-10% of gross revenue to the players. The WNBA, of course, will not provide any justification for this number ( sports leagues never truly open their books) and simply expect us to take it as gospel. The players’ union is obviously not falling for this, calling the loss projection “absolutely false” and “frustrating”. Well I, being who I am, decided to do a little digging and number-crunching to try and see where this number could be coming from, and if there was any justification behind it. Bear with me as I go on a numbers tangent but I promise it will all make sense when I’m done.

First, what is the league projecting to make over the life of this CBA? The league’s proposal of $530,000 in average salaries for 2026 is a good place to start. With 15 teams each having 12 players, we can see that total salaries would be $95.4m in 2026. Since experts suggest that this is less than 15% of the gross revenue expected, we can put that expected gross revenue at around $636m in 2026 alone. By 2030, the league expects average salaries to grow to $780,000, and with the three expansion teams already added, the total salaries will be at $168.5m and the total revenue is expected to be at $1.12b. 

Assuming the league experiences linear revenue growth over the course of this CBA, (until 2030) the total salaries paid out to players would be about $660m. This would put the total expected revenue generated over the course of the CBA at roughly $4.4b. Now, if the players got their way, they would make 25% of this ($1.1b). The difference between what the players are asking for ($1.1b) and what the league is offering ($660m) comes out to … (drumroll please) $464m! Now if that number sounds a bit familiar, it's probably because that is the amount of projected losses the league is announcing should they accept a gross revenue sharing model.

My point for doing all this is to show that the league (and the NBA) believes 100% of this loss will be from paying the players that extra percentage. Otherwise, according to these numbers, the league expects to break even! Now, I’m not claiming to be a business expert, but a business bringing in almost four and half billion dollars over a five year span should have a model that guarantees profits. Maybe the owners want us to believe that they will reinvest all this money back into the league? Maybe they are willing to offer up to a billion dollars in expansion fees to join an unsustainable business that isn’t projected to make any profits? The tough pill to swallow is that every time the union concedes 1% of gross revenue, they are giving up $47.1m! The union started at 40% and their most recent proposal was 25%, so you do the math. 

Looming Lockout

The WNBA is in danger of having its first ever lockout season. The WNBA recently gave the union a drop-dead deadline of March 10, by when the two sides need to reach a resolution and allow for the season to start on time. This deadline has since passed without a deal being struck. There are so many things that need to happen before the season starts, including an expansion draft, the regular draft and free agency. With so much up in the air, it is getting less and less likely that we will have a normal 2026 season, much to the disappointment of the league’s growing fanbase.