WNBA’s $1.1 Million CBA Offer: Is a Historic Payday Enough to Quash the Revenue Sharing Rebellion?
The stakes in professional women’s basketball have never been higher, nor has the financial tension been more palpable. As the November 30th deadline for the WNBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) extension looms, the league has put forth a proposal that is, by all accounts, a moment of genuine, historic progress. Maximum salaries are set to break the elusive seven-figure barrier for the first time, reaching over $1.1 million annually [01:32]. Minimum salaries are set to quadruple for some veterans [03:14]. This is a massive, life-altering offer that promises to establish generational wealth for athletes who have long been underpaid.

Yet, this monumental raise comes with a massive catch, a point of contention so fundamental that it threatens to derail negotiations and potentially delay the entire 2026 season. While the WNBA is willing to open its purse for fixed salary increases, it is drawing a hard line against the one demand the WNBPA (Players Union) deems most critical: proportional revenue sharing tied directly to the league’s exponential growth.

This is the ultimate high-stakes chess match. The WNBA is wagering that a historic, fixed payday is enough to secure labor peace. The Players Union, armed with the undeniable data of the sport’s popularity surge—a surge driven almost entirely by their on-court product—is demanding a true partnership, refusing to settle for anything less than a slice of the growing financial pie.

The Price of Progress: A $1.1 Million Historic Leap
The WNBA’s new CBA proposal, which would take effect for the 2026 season, represents a complete transformation of the league’s financial infrastructure. For too long, the narrative surrounding the WNBA was one of perennial struggle, where even the greatest players were forced to seek lucrative contracts overseas during the offseason just to make a living wage. This new offer aims to fundamentally correct that imbalance.

The figures are genuinely transformative for players across the entire roster. For rookies and young players with zero to two years of experience, the minimum salary would rise to $220,000 [02:56]. This is a substantial starting wage that allows newcomers to focus solely on their professional career without the stress of chasing supplementary income. For veteran players with three or more years of experience, the minimum is set to rise even further, soaring above $460,000 [03:09]. These aren’t minor adjustments; they are raises that more than quadrupling the previous minimums for rank-and-file players [03:14].

The biggest headline, however, belongs to the max contract. For the first time in league history, the top salary will officially exceed $1.1 million per year [03:21]. This figure is revolutionary, representing a quintupling of previous salary maximums and creating a benchmark of compensation that, just a few years ago, seemed impossible for women’s basketball [01:32], [04:31].

Crucially, the WNBA’s proposal allows for multiple players per team roster to earn that maximum salary [03:30]. Unlike other sports where salary cap constraints often restrict the top pay tier to only one or two superstars, this proposal enables teams to build true “championship rosters” where multiple stars are appropriately compensated at the highest level [03:45]. Furthermore, the deal promises consistent raises throughout the duration of the agreement, ensuring salary progression that keeps pace with inflation and league growth [03:58]. The WNBA is undeniably making a compelling offer designed to secure stability and commitment from its players.

The Competitive Pressure: Project B’s Shadow
The generosity of the WNBA’s new offer is not born solely out of altruism; it is a direct, defensive response to competitive pressure from external forces. The timing of the proposal is particularly critical, coming shortly after the dramatic emergence of Project B, a new international, Saudi-backed women’s league [09:09], [09:17].

Project B, which runs from November 2026 to April 2027, is designed as a direct, high-paying offseason replacement for the traditional overseas commitments WNBA players have long relied upon [09:46]. The league’s most startling figure is its minimum salary, which is reportedly $2 million per season [02:01].

The competitive threat is underscored by the high-profile players who have already signed with Project B, including Alyssa Thomas and Nneka Ogwumike, the latter being the president of the WNBA Players Union [09:17], [09:24]. These defections, even if temporary, signal that WNBA players now have genuine, lucrative alternatives. That leverage is crucial in any CBA negotiation.

The WNBA understands that if it does not offer competitive compensation, its elite talent will have a clear, well-funded option to defect to [10:44]. The offer of historic fixed salaries is, in part, an attempt to quell this competitive threat and keep star players “happy and committed to the league” [11:01]. Essentially, the league is saying, “We’ve offered historic raises, so you should be grateful,” hoping the sheer size of the fixed number will override any dissatisfaction with the structural issues of the current pay model [08:52].

The Unmovable Wall: The Fight for Revenue Sharing
Despite the unprecedented salary figures on the table, the WNBPA remains hesitant because the league’s offer reportedly maintains the current fixed-rate system rather than implementing a revenue sharing model tied to league growth [07:06], [06:33]. This is the “major problem” [05:09] stopping the deal from getting done.

The union’s demand is based on a simple, foundational principle: proportional compensation [06:23]. If the league’s revenue is skyrocketing due to player talent and popularity, the players who generate that wealth should see a proportional increase in their paychecks.

Under the existing agreement, the system is fundamentally unfair. Player salaries rise by a fixed 3% annually—no matter how much the league’s revenue grows [06:33], [06:41]. Furthermore, players currently receive only about 9% of all revenue generated by the league [06:46].

The disparity, when compared to male counterparts, is shocking. NBA players receive between 49% and 51% of all revenue [06:54]. The WNBPA argues that women’s basketball players deserve a similar, equitable percentage. The WNBA’s offer essentially says, “Here’s a massive raise, but it’s fixed and predetermined. It doesn’t change based on how profitable the league becomes.” The players are countering with, “We want the increase, but we also want a piece of the growing pie—a proportional share in the league’s future success” [07:17], [07:28].

This fixed rate becomes a problem because the league is experiencing exponential growth [11:31]. Viewership is up, attendance is up, and media rights deals are improving [11:37]. Accepting a fixed increase now means that if the league’s revenue triples over the next five years, players will still be locked into their predetermined, non-proportional salaries, enabling the league to generate massive, disproportionate profits.

The Clark Effect and the Looming Deadline
At the center of this watershed moment is Caitlin Clark [12:33]. As the league’s undeniable engine of growth, she is single-handedly driving much of the increased viewership and interest [12:36]. While she stands to gain the $1.1 million max salary, her presence gives the Players Union immense leverage. The WNBA knows that if Clark were to become publicly unhappy, or a vocal voice for the revenue sharing demands, it could create a massive “problem” and destabilize the league just as it is reaching mainstream attention [12:44], [13:27]. Keeping Clark happy is a strategic imperative for the WNBA to maintain its current positive trajectory [12:58].

The stakes of the negotiation are terrifyingly high. The CBA deadline of November 30th is quickly approaching [08:38]. If an agreement is not reached, the consequences could be catastrophic for the 2026 season:

The league cannot conduct the expansion draft [08:07].

The league cannot handle free agency [08:13].

The league cannot conduct the 2026 WNBA draft [08:13].

Without these critical processes, the 2026 season could be delayed or completely disrupted [08:21]. Both sides understand that time is running out, creating immense leverage for the Players Union to press for the revenue sharing model.

The ultimate decision facing the WNBPA is a strategic gamble: Do they accept the genuinely historic, life-changing fixed raises now and risk being underpaid for future growth? Or do they hold out for the revenue sharing that ensures proportional benefit from their efforts, risking a work stoppage and a disruption to the 2026 season that could stall the league’s current momentum? [13:34].

The fact that this conversation is even happening—players demanding proportional wealth distribution instead of merely fighting for survival—is a testament to the immense progress of women’s basketball [15:35]. The WNBA’s $1.1 million offer is historic but strategically incomplete. The Players Union must now decide if the price of peace is worth sacrificing a fair, proportional share of the billion-dollar future they are actively building. The outcome of this negotiation will shape professional women’s basketball for decades to come