Sources: WNBPA counterproposal includes some concessions on revenue share, housing

The Women’s National Basketball Players’ Association submitted a counterproposal to the WNBA on Tuesday that included some concessions on revenue sharing and housing, sources told ESPN.

According to a source familiar with the proposal, the players’ union is now asking for an average of 27.5% of gross revenue, defined as revenue before deducting expenses, over the course of the agreement, including 25% — and less than a $9.5 million salary cap — in Year 1.

In its previous proposal from December, the union asked for the players to receive an average of 31% of gross revenue, starting at 28% in Year 1 with a roughly $10.5 million salary cap.

On the issue of housing — which has also been a critical point in negotiations — the players propose that teams continue to provide housing to players in the first several years of the new agreement, but that in later years, teams will no longer be obligated to provide housing for players making close to the maximum salary on multiyear deals and receiving full salary protection, a source said.

WNBA teams have been required to provide housing for players since the first CBA was ratified in 1999, and in the previous agreement, which officially expired in January after two extensions, teams could provide housing in the form of a one-bedroom apartment or a stipend. But the league had not included housing provisions in its proposals prior to its latest one.

In its proposal from early February, the league made concessions of its own on housing and facility standards. The league offered to have players on their applicable minimum salary and those with zero years of service be provided a one-bedroom apartment for the first three years of the new deal and for developmental players to be provided studio apartments.

The WNBPA had previously proposed having the cost of housing come out of the players’ portion of its revenue sharing system as well as eliminating the housing stipend.

“The Players Association’s latest proposal remains unrealistic and would cause hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for our teams,” the WNBA said in a statement. “We still need to complete two Drafts and free agency before the start of training camp and are running out of time. We believe the WNBA’s proposal would result in a huge win for current players and generations to come.”

Tuesday’s counterproposal comes 11 days after the league submitted a response to a WNBPA proposal from around Christmas. That six-week gap caused much frustration on the players’ side, but the league felt the players’ proposal did not warrant a response as it wasn’t much different from their previous one.

The two sides have not seen eye-to-eye on what a revenue sharing system should look like, with the league continuing to propose one based on net revenue and the WNBPA continuing to seek one based on gross revenue.

The league has proposed that players receive on average over 70% of net revenue. Its latest proposal included a $5.65 million salary cap in 2026 (up from roughly $1.5 million in 2025) that will grow in subsequent years in line with revenue growth.

In the WNBA’s previous proposal, maximum salaries, including revenue share payouts, would amount to $1.3 million in 2026 and were projected to approach $2 million in 2031. The supermax in 2025 came in at $249,000. The average player salary, including revenue sharing, was projected to reach $540,000 in 2026 and $780,000 by 2031, up from $120,000 in 2025.

ESPN reported in December that the league projected the union’s previous plan would result in $700 million in losses over the course of the agreement and that it would jeopardize the league’s financial health. The union believed its revenue sharing model would still put the league in a “profitable position,” a separate source close to the negotiations said, and called the league’s projected loss figure “absolutely false,” citing a difference in whether expansion fees are factored into those calculations.