NextFin News - In a high-stakes encounter that could determine the future of professional women’s basketball, the WNBA and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA) convened for a three-hour in-person bargaining session on Monday, February 2, 2026, in New York City. According to ESPN, the meeting was the first face-to-face negotiation involving players since October, aimed at breaking a month-long stalemate as the 2026 season looms less than 100 days away. The session was attended by high-profile figures including WNBPA President Nneka Ogwumike and league owners such as Mat Ishbia of the Phoenix Mercury and Clara Wu Tsai of the New York Liberty. While the gathering was described by sources as "helpful" for sharing philosophies, it failed to produce a formal response from the league to the union’s December proposal, leaving players expressing "some disappointment" as the threat of a strike remains a viable leverage point.
The core of the dispute lies in two radically different financial frameworks that reflect the league's transition from a subsidized entity to a standalone commercial powerhouse. According to ESPN, the WNBA has proposed a model where players receive 70% of "net revenue"—total revenue minus operating expenses. Under this plan, the league projects that maximum player earnings could rise from $249,244 in 2025 to over $1.3 million in 2026, eventually reaching $2 million over the life of the agreement. Conversely, the WNBPA is pushing for a 30% share of "gross revenue"—income before any expenses are deducted—alongside a $10.5 million salary cap. The league claims the union's model would result in $700 million in losses over the agreement's duration, a figure the union has dismissed as "absolutely false."
This valuation gap is not merely a disagreement over numbers; it is a battle over the definition of financial health in a rapidly expanding market. The league’s insistence on a "net revenue" model suggests a conservative approach designed to protect against the rising costs of expansion and infrastructure. With new franchises and increased travel costs, including the transition to full-time charter flights, the league argues that gross revenue sharing would jeopardize its long-term solvency. However, from the perspective of the players, a gross revenue model is the only way to ensure they benefit directly from the league's massive new media rights deals without their shares being diluted by "creative accounting" or escalating administrative overhead.
The presence of owners like Ishbia and Wu Tsai at the bargaining table signals that the league's power structure has shifted. These newer owners, who have invested heavily in facilities and branding, are often more aligned with the players' desire for "professional standards"—including better retirement benefits and team housing—than the legacy ownership groups. Yet, the financial friction remains. The league's offer to raise the average salary to $530,000 is a significant leap from the current $120,000, but it still pales in comparison to the revenue-to-salary ratios seen in the NBA, which the players increasingly use as their benchmark for equity.
Looking forward, the next 30 days will be critical. The WNBPA has already authorized its executive committee to call for a strike, a move that would be catastrophic for a league currently enjoying record-breaking viewership and sponsorship interest. U.S. President Trump’s administration, which has emphasized domestic economic growth and sports as a cultural export, may find itself observing a labor dispute that tests the limits of the "new economy" of women’s sports. If the league does not provide a formal counter-proposal by mid-February, the likelihood of a work stoppage increases exponentially.
The most probable outcome is a hybrid "smoothing" mechanism, where the league adopts a gross revenue share that is capped or tiered based on specific growth milestones. This would provide the players with the transparency of a gross model while offering the league the fiscal safety net it claims to need. However, until both sides can agree on the baseline data—specifically whether the union's plan truly leads to a $700 million deficit—the WNBA remains in a precarious position, caught between its unprecedented commercial success and the labor costs of that very evolution.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.