The WNBA’s collective bargaining talks took a shocking turn this summer when reports surfaced that players rejected a proposal that would have quadrupled their minimum salary from $66,000 to $250,000 and pushed the maximum up to $1 million.
According to union rep Satou Sabally, the deal was considered a “slap in the face,” even though the proposed numbers would have represented the largest salary leap in league history. Sabally emphasized that the union’s fight isn’t just about salary bumps on paper, it’s about changing the revenue model itself.
“I think we can focus on our players in the union. We got a proposal from the league that was honestly a slap in the face. I think we really need to put an emphasis on the players that are in our league right now, but I love to see the league growing. I think adding teams in Philly and Detroit that’s amazing, is that the league can grow.”
“But how cool would it be to also have a little bit expansion on the rosters but focus on teams that have everything set up right now and maybe focus on the teams that find excuses continuously to lack investment into their players, before we focus on adding more to the grain of people that can’t be sustained.”
For context, the WNBA has never turned a profit in its 29-year history. Annual losses hovered around $10 million in the pre-Caitlin Clark era, but ballooned to nearly $50 million in 2024 even as revenues grew past $200 million.
The league survives largely because the NBA owns roughly 60% and has consistently subsidized operations since 1997.
WNBA players currently receive just 9.3% of league income, the lowest share in U.S. pro sports. By comparison, NBA players are guaranteed a 49–51% slice of basketball-related income each season. That disparity fuels much of the union’s frustration, which was on display at the WNBA All-Star game.
Another layer of tension is the league’s expansion timeline. Golden State just joined the league, with Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland scheduled to arrive by 2030.
Players like Sabally argue that current franchises still lack proper investment and infrastructure, and that slicing the financial pie further before addressing those concerns only weakens the product.
Indiana Fever forward Sophie Cunningham drew backlash for bluntly questioning expansion cities, but her comments really reflected a common sentiment inside locker rooms: players want their value recognized before expansion dilutes leverage.
Social media reactions to the reported rejection were predictably divided. Some fans were stunned that players would pass up the chance to make “million-dollar salaries in a league losing money.”
Others argued the players were right to push for systemic change rather than “baby steps.”
Critics pointed to the WNBA’s shorter schedule (44 games, 10-minute quarters, and limited playoff rounds) as justification for why salaries shouldn’t scale anywhere near NBA levels.
Supporters countered that optics matter: if the league is growing in ratings, attendance, and sponsorships, why not give the players a larger cut of that momentum?
The rejection leaves the league and union far apart with no clear roadmap. Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, the two biggest stars driving attendance and ratings spikes, are both battling injuries, further complicating matters.
Meanwhile, fans remain in the dark about the league’s actual financial health; the WNBA has never fully opened its books to the public.
Until the numbers are transparent, the debate will rage on. Was rejecting a $250K minimum reckless, or was it the only way for players to force structural change? Either way, the WNBA’s labor standoff just became one of the biggest stories in women’s sports.
