The WNBA has until October to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players, but judging by this week’s comments, the sides aren’t exactly meeting in the middle. Union vice president Satou Sabally called the league’s opening proposal “a slap in the face.”
Sky center Elizabeth Williams, a veteran leader of the players’ union, declined to elaborate on where the proposal fell short but said the players’ message hadn’t landed.
“We don’t feel heard clearly and fully in what we’re asking for,” she said.
So how will league expansion factor into negotiations?
On Monday, the league announced that three teams — in Cleveland, Detroit and Philadelphia — will be added beginning in 2028, each reportedly paying $250 million in expansion fees. That’s an eye-popping number at a time when increased salaries are at the center of player demands.
“The league is saying we’re growing, we’re expanding, business is booming,” Williams said. “That’s a sign to us that some of the things we’re asking for aren’t unrealistic.”
In June, players across the league led a coordinated campaign demanding a pay raise. Williams said in a postgame statement: “We deserve a fair share [of the growing business], and we’re demanding salaries that reflect our true value.”
A few days later, the union made the messaging even more explicit on Instagram: “The men have a salary system tied to the revenue, and we don’t. That’s not fair.”
The revenue-sharing system in the NBA is far more generous than in the WNBA — in part because it’s a bigger business. Now, with expansion on the horizon, the pot in the W is growing, too.
But when and how the new expansion fees hit the books remain unclear. Have they already been paid? Will they trickle in starting in 2028? The league hasn’t said, which feels relevant to both sides of the negotiations.
Privately, the league might argue the money hasn’t come in yet, so it can’t be factored into player salaries. Or that adding 36 new roster spots is a major expense that limits how much existing salaries can rise.
Some players are bracing for that kind of logic, but they’re not buying it.
“I don’t want it to be like, just because you’re giving us more teams, now we’re not gonna get paid more,” Sky guard and union rep Rachel Banham said. “We still need to get paid more.”
Expansion also brings up another battleground issue: workload.
This season, teams are playing 44 games — up from 34 before the pandemic — with a minimal increase in rest days. It’s the max allowed under the current CBA, and players have been vocal about the toll it’s taking.
Adding more teams to the league basically guarantees more games. But unless the new franchises are coming in with a magic calendar wand, the same scheduling crunch remains. Starting the season earlier conflicts with college basketball; stretching it out conflicts with the NBA schedule.
It’s a multidimensional problem. Can the magic word — compromise — help solve it?
Maybe players agree to more games if they get better revenue sharing. Maybe the league resists sharing revenue but agrees to cap the number of games.
Or maybe the NBA agrees to push back its calendar to make room for a longer WNBA season with proper rest days included.
Sure — and maybe Candace Parker will come out of retirement and win the Sky another title. Sounds unfathomable. But a few years ago, who would’ve predicted NBA owners shelling out $250 million just to get in the door?
If the WNBA has taught us anything, it’s to keep pushing what we think is possible.
