Consequences of new WNBA CBA offer: March training camp, end of housing benefits

The WNBA and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association recently agreed to a 40-day extension of the current collective bargaining agreement, pushing the deadline to get a new CBA done to Jan. 9, 2026. Upon agreeing to the extension, the WNBPA released a statement saying, “We expect substantive movement from the league within this window.”

Sure enough, it didn’t take long to learn that the league had delivered a new offer with improved salaries: max contracts with a $1 million base salary (open to multiple players on the same team), an average salary above $500,000 and a minimum salary above $225,000, a source with knowledge of the situation told CBS Sports. Furthermore, the offer would raise the salary cap from $1.5 million to $5 million, and further growth would be tied to revenue growth, though the specific machinations for that are unclear. 

Those pay raises — the current regular max contract is $214,466 and the current veteran minimum is $78,831 — would not come without a cost. According to Annie Costabile of Front Office Sports, the league has also proposed lengthening the season and eliminating player housing subsidies. 

A source with knowledege of the situation confirmed to CBS Sports that the league’s proposal would eliminate housing benefits, but indicated that any discussion regarding training camps potentially starting earlier than April 1 is merely an opportunity to explore the potential footprint of the season and ways to further generate revenue.

If implemented, such changes would radically alter how the WNBA operates and would have potentially severe effects for rookies and players on short-term contracts, as well as the WNBA’s relationship with the NCAA, FIBA and other leagues. 

Changes to the schedule could be catastrophic on multiple fronts

Let’s first examine the potential schedule changes first reported by FOS and confirmed by CBS Sports:

The league has also proposed lengthening the season, including an earlier start date that is expected to interfere with the NCAA tournament and potentially other leagues like Project B. 

The start date for training camp could be as early as mid-March, sources indicated. 

Historically, training camps have begun in late April, following the conclusion of the NCAA season and the draft, though the league is allowed to begin them as early as April 1 under the current CBA. Moving the start of training camp to mid-March — just as the NCAA Tournament is getting underway — would raise a series of questions:

1. What happens with the draft?

Moving the start of training camp to mid-March leaves no good option for the draft. 

Historically, the draft has taken place in mid-April, following the conclusion of the Final Four. A mid-March start for training camp suggests an early-to-mid April start for the season, and it wouldn’t make sense to hold the draft after the season has already started. 

On the other hand, moving the draft to early March, before the NCAA season has come to a close, would force teams and players into early decisions they may not be entirely comfortable with. While conference tournaments and the NCAA Tournament are not the be-all and end-all of scouting, they provide valuable insight into how players perform under pressure.

2. What are rookies supposed to do?

Regardless of when the draft takes place in this hypothetical new schedule, rookies would be left in the lurch. 

Moving the draft to early March would create a scenario where players are drafted while still playing for their college teams. Leaving the draft in mid-April may mean players are drafted after the WNBA season has already started. 

If the draft gets moved up, would players feel pressure to leave school early so they could participate in training camp? Would that even be allowed? The nature of the NCAA Tournament means that some rookies will be done with their collegiate seasons weeks before other rookies, which could create a significant advantage for certain rookies and teams. If players opt to finish their collegiate season, they could be thrown into the WNBA season without a training camp.

It’s already extremely difficult for rookies drafted outside of the first round to make a roster. These potential changes could make it nearly impossible. Unless roster sizes were increased, there would be no incentive for teams to hold open roster spots for second- and third-round picks during training camp or the beginning of the season. And outside of their college tape, there would be no way for players who don’t participate in training camp to prove they deserve a spot. 

3. An attempt to derail other leagues?

It seems obvious that a primary reason the WNBA is raising the possibility of starting training camp in mid-March is to disrupt other leagues, including Unrivaled, Athletes Unlimited and, in particular, the newly announced Project B. An earlier start would also impact players who play in European, Asian and Australian leagues. 

Unrivaled, which was co-founded by Breanna Stewart and Napheesa Collier, will employ 54 WNBA players this season and is set to run from Jan. 5 through March 4. Athletes Unlimited has 33 players listed on its roster page, though not all of them are current WNBA players. Their month-long season will run from Feb. 1 through March 1. 

Project B is not slated to start until the fall of 2026, but it appears to be the biggest potential competitor to the WNBA and has already signed a number of stars to seven-figure contracts, including Nneka Ogwumike, Alyssa Thomas and Jonquel Jones. The league, which has significant financial backing, would play from November until April in cities across Asia and Europe. 

“It’s very clear that the league wants to push away all other leagues,” Seattle Storm star Gabby Williams said over All-Star Weekend. “It would make sense if they were paying us more here, but it still isn’t the case, even with the new proposals. And it’s very clear now that they wanna push Unrivaled out, push AU out.”

The league’s prioritization clause, which was introduced in the most recent CBA and requires (with some exceptions) players to be in market for the start of training camp, has been a sore spot, particularly for international players. For now, the WNBA remains signed on to FIBA’s “letter of clearance” system, which allows players to participate in multiple leagues.

As salaries rise, it’s reasonable for the league and owners to want to protect their investment. If teams are now paying some players over $1 million, it makes sense that they don’t want them playing year-round or potentially getting hurt in another league. 

Stars — many of whom can also make real money off the court — might be fine with that reality, but what about players making the minimum or fighting to stay in the league? A player earning the new minimum of $225K who is potentially no longer able to play in other leagues may actually be taking a pay cut overall. And that’s before taking into account the potential loss of housing benefits. 

Housing benefits on the chopping block?

Here’s FOS on that front:

Under the current CBA, players have multiple options during the regular season and the playoffs for housing. Players can either stay in housing provided by the team or receive a monthly stipend, which varies by city; players with children under the age of 13 receive a two-bedroom unit. The monthly stipend for players who opt not to live in team-provided housing ranges between $1,177 in Las Vegas to $2,647 in New York. 

If housing benefits are eliminated, players could lose roughly $8-18K, depending on where they play and whether their team makes the playoffs. That’s a sizeable loss, particularly for players in expensive markets such as New York, Golden State, Chicago and Toronto. 

The housing benefits also set up a conflict between stars and players fighting to stay in the league. For players in line to make the max, especially those with substantial off-court income, giving up the housing stipend for a higher salary is an excellent deal. A player such as Breanna Stewart could go from making $220K in 2025 to north of $1 million in 2026 under this latest offer. What’s roughly $18K in that scenario? About 0.02% of her new salary. 

For someone like Stewart’s Liberty teammate Kennedy Burke, who was on the veteran minimum and doesn’t have major endorsements, it’s a substantial chunk of change. Her salary would potentially rise from $78,831 to north of $225K with this latest offer, but she would lose about $18K in the process, or 8% of her new salary. 

Players on short-term deals would also be major losers if the housing benefits disappear. Due to small roster sizes, teams are routinely bringing in players on hardship contracts for weeks at a time. If team housing is no longer available, will they have to stay in hotels for the duration of that period? And pay out of their own pocket? It’s worth noting that without having access to the full proposal, it’s possible that exceptions to the housing benefits are outlined for players on short-term deals. 

Simply a negotiating tactic?

The WNBA’s proposal is a logistical nightmare, not only for other leagues, but for itself. It would devalue the draft, derail rookie development and potentially encourage players to ply their trade elsewhere. It’s hard to imagine any scenario in which the players would accept these terms.

It makes you wonder, then, if these proposals are simply a negotiating tactic from the WNBA. If the players push back, as they likely will, the WNBA can then try to extract a concession from them in order to maintain the current schedule and/or housing benefits. 

Whatever the case may be, this episode is another reminder that the league’s willingness to raise salaries is not enough to get a deal done. There’s still a long way to go before the two sides agree to a new CBA.