A pivotal week has arrived for the WNBA. With the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and the players’ union set to expire on October 31, developments over the next few days and weeks could reshape women’s professional basketball as we know it—from player compensation and league expansion to the broader fight for equity in women’s sports.
The WNBA and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA) are unlikely to reach a new collective bargaining agreement by Friday’s deadline, according to the union’s legal counsel.
“We have worked hard to be able to say on Friday, we did it. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen,” Erin D. Drake, senior advisor and legal counsel for the WNBPA, told The Athletic on Tuesday’s episode of the No Offseason podcast. “In a dance, it takes two to tango. And it has been difficult to find a beat, to find a rhythm and to find the same sense of urgency [from the league], just to be frank, to get this done.”
According to a report from ESPN’s Alexa Philippou, the WNBA has offered players a 30-day extension to continue negotiations for a new CBA, but it remains unclear whether the WNBPA will accept the proposal. She further noted that a source close to the union noted that players “might be willing to consider an extension under the right circumstances,” but feel “those circumstances do not yet exist.”
The Legal Framework: What the CBA Really Controls
In collective bargaining, the CBA isn’t just a paycheck agreement—it’s the legal backbone of the league. It governs nearly every operational aspect: how salaries are calculated, how disputes are arbitrated, and even when players must report to training camp. Once the agreement expires, the league technically loses the authority to enforce many of these terms.
Although the league has offered an extension, if the WNBPA does not agree to it, either side could initiate a work stoppage—a legal suspension of normal league activities, commonly referred to as a lockout (if imposed by the league) or a strike (if initiated by the players). During this period, expansion drafts, trades, and player signings would be frozen. Teams would be prohibited from communicating with players under standard contract terms, and the league could risk breaching its expansion timelines for Portland and Toronto, who are set to become the 14th and 15th teams this upcoming season.
Alternatively, both sides could remain in a “status quo” period, during which the terms of the expired CBA continue temporarily. This arrangement preserves normal operations until one side takes formal action—either the players strike or the league imposes a lockout—effectively bringing negotiations and communication to a halt.
Although the WNBA season has never been interrupted due to a labor dispute, historically, work stoppages in professional sports occur when league procedures are halted due to a lack of an agreement between the league and its players’ union.
The most recent prominent example is the 2011 NBA lockout, which delayed the start of the 2011–12 season by two months and truncated it to 66 games. That lockout involved not just a labor dispute but multiple lawsuits: the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge and a lawsuit against the players’ union, while the players dissolved their union and filed antitrust lawsuits against the league. This legal conflict arose after negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement stalled and ultimately led to the cancellation of the first part of the season. The 2011 example illustrates how, in professional sports, the combination of labor law and antitrust law can give both sides significant leverage—and how stalled negotiations can escalate into formal legal action. Courts generally defer to negotiated solutions over litigation, but both labor and antitrust claims can temporarily suspend lockouts and force renewed bargaining.
Extension vs. Lockout: The Law Behind the Leverage
Before the CBA deadline, both sides face two main options:
Negotiate an Extension
An extension acts like a temporary injunction, preserving the current legal framework while negotiations continue. The last WNBA CBA, finalized in January 2020, followed a 60-day extension past the October deadline. This approach keeps the offseason calendar intact, allowing expansion, free agency, and other league operations to proceed. Courts generally favor extensions as a way to avoid labor disruptions.
Allow the CBA to Lapse
If the CBA expires without an agreement, the WNBA could legally impose a lockout, preventing players from using team facilities or receiving pay. In response, the WNBPA has several potential strategies:
Labor Law (NLRA)
The players’ union could file an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Section 8(d) of the NLRA, claiming the league failed to negotiate in good faith. This strategy offers several advantages:
Increased Bargaining Leverage
- Shifts negotiation dynamics: Filing a ULP signals that the union is prepared to use federal regulatory processes, raising the stakes for the league and encouraging serious engagement.
- Forces a response: The league must respond and participate in the NLRB’s investigative process, creating pressure to return to the bargaining table and potentially opening opportunities for settlement.
Public and Reputational Pressure
- Generates publicity: A ULP filing can frame the league as unfair or obstructionist, influencing public perception and sponsors.
- Boosts player solidarity: Proactive legal action can strengthen union cohesion, rally members around key demands, and highlight issues like increased revenue share.
Antitrust Law — The “Nuclear Option”
If labor law avenues are insufficient, players can pursue antitrust strategies by disclaiming interest or decertifying as the union’s bargaining representative.
How it works:
- Decertification ends the union’s status: Players vote to terminate the union’s role as bargaining agent, removing collective bargaining protections.
- Loss of exemption: Without the non-statutory labor exemption, the league’s labor restrictions—such as salary caps, free agency rules, or the draft—can be challenged under antitrust law.
- High-risk, high-reward: Known as the “nuclear option,” this strategy opens the league to potentially costly litigation but can create significant leverage for players.
The 2011 NBA lockout illustrates this dynamic. When negotiations stalled:
- The NBA filed lawsuits under the non-statutory labor exemption against the players’ union and individual players.
- Players responded with twin antitrust class-action suits—one in Minnesota and one in California—claiming the lockout was an illegal restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. The cases were later consolidated.
For the WNBA, this precedent shows that once a CBA expires and union representation is dissolved or sidelined, antitrust and labor-law claims become credible threats, giving players substantial leverage in negotiations over extension versus lockout.
Revenue Sharing: The Core of the Dispute
The most contentious legal issue in negotiations is how the league defines “revenue.” Players are seeking a model more aligned with Basketball Related Income (BRI),the same standard used by the NBA, which allocates roughly 50 percent of league revenue to player salaries.
The WNBA, by contrast, has historically used a fixed-rate structure with small annual increases. From a legal perspective, that’s permissible—but it effectively decouples player pay from league growth. As sponsorships, media rights, and franchise valuations soar, the players’ fixed-rate pay scale shrinks as a percentage of total league income.
If the league acknowledges a shared revenue system, it is legally bound to disclose, audit, and verify those revenues under federal bargaining law,a major shift in transparency and enforcement obligations.
The Engelbert Factor
Commissioner Cathy Engelbert’s leadership has become another legal—and symbolic— flashpoint. Her apparent absence from negotiations last week raised concerns within the union about whether the league was negotiating through its authorized representatives. Under Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, both parties must meet and “confer in good faith” through recognized agents. If Engelbert were to delegate that authority improperly, it could technically expose the WNBA to claims of procedural noncompliance, though such claims rarely succeed without proof of intentional delay.
Prioritization, Pregnancy, and Player Rights
Beyond salary and revenue, players are also pushing for expanded benefits: more robust retirement contributions, guaranteed maternity protections, and greater flexibility around prioritization rules—the policy that limits players’ ability to play overseas.
From a labor law standpoint, prioritization is legally defensible as a “management right,” but only if it’s negotiated explicitly. If the union can show that the rule creates a discriminatory or coercive effect—say, by disproportionately impacting players who depend on overseas income—it could open the door to legal challenges under Title VII or the Equal Pay Act.
The Broader Implications
This CBA isn’t just about paychecks; it’s about the power to define women’s sports on players’ terms. The WNBA’s next media deal is expected to exceed $2 billion—a number that will set the financial trajectory of the league for the next decade. Whether or not players secure a “share” of that revenue will determine how much of that success is truly mutual.
If both sides strike a deal—or at least agree to an extension—the WNBA could enter 2026 with a modern legal framework reflecting growth, global reach, and player empowerment. But if talks collapse, the league risks entering its most uncertain offseason in history—a collision between legal technicalities and moral legitimacy.
Footnotes / References
- National Basketball Ass’n v. Williams, 857 F. Supp. 1069, (NBA suit against union/players regarding lockout).
- Caron Butler v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, No. 11-cv-3112 (D. Minn. filed Nov. 15, 2011) (players’ antitrust class-action filing).
- Anthony v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, No. 3:11-cv-05525 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011) (players’ antitrust filing in California, later consolidated with Minnesota case).
