The WNBA Lacks Economic Transparency

The WNBA Playoffs begin on September 14. The 2025 season featured record attendance and TV viewership. According to USA Today, ABC has increased viewership by 14% and broken the attendance record set in 2002. The league's largest storyline this season, however, is the "Pay Us What You Owe Us" shirts from the All-Star Game. Fans, pundits, and provocateurs have attempted to turn this into a controversial issue. So, the question is, what do WNBA players deserve to be paid?

Photo by Kylie Osullivan on Unsplash

WNBA players currently make between $66,000 and $270,000. Morally, this is a just pay scale for athletics in any professional sport, which are all arguably overpaid for the value they bring to society. The NBA contracts rising over $50M a year are even more egregious. These leagues provide entertainment, yes, but it would be silly not to recognize that most pro athletes make more than the median wage in America: $83,000 in 2024, according to Census.gov.

But this is America. Pay is based on what value the market determines a job is worth. An extra on a network television show can be paid as little as $100 a day, while the face of the show made $1M that week. That's supply and demand. The same concepts apply to the WNBA.

Perception

So, when WNBA players ask for more, many people cringe, assuming they are being overpaid. The primary reason for this belief is that the league doesn't generate a profit. The reality of how the WNBA generates revenue, or if it does, is difficult to determine. Reports indicate that the league will lose $40M this year, despite the WNBA generating a record amount of revenue. So, what is the average person to believe? The new television deal will infuse $200 million per year, and then there are the latest expansion franchise purchases, which will also inject more money. Money that NBA owners claim they do not know where it is being spent.

Ultimately, it's difficult to say what is fair when the details about how and where the money is spent are obfuscated by the NBA. "Pay What You Owe Us" feels like a poor choice of words. The better pitch would be, "Be transparent with the money!" If players, media, and fans all knew the exact financial situation, rather than having to research it themselves, there would likely be a unified front.

WNBA Lacks Economic Transparency

The players should be paid market value. With the influx of money, that might be possible. According to MarketWatch, WNBA players are paid 9.3% of league revenue. The NBA, NFL, and NHL are right around 50%. So, what would players make if that changed? Estimates suggest that players could earn up to $1M per year. Is it not fair to argue for the same percentage as other pro athletes? Especially with the growth in popularity and profitability? It seems fair. No legitimate person can argue that they should make what NBA players make, and no one is arguing that. That is a red herring, intended to disparage the athletes and devalue their argument.

The league's profit issues affect the perception of the debate. The average American is reasonably upset by employees of a business that loses money requesting higher salaries. This problem is one of optics, not logic.

A more pertinent issue is whether the NBA and the team owners want a cut of the WNBA's new growth for their 30-year investment in the league. It's not unfair for the people who spent their money helping the league reach this popularity to share in the profits. By the same logic, the players should also see increased pay. The investors and the players helped the league survive, and both sides would benefit from avoiding public squabbles. Owners and the players should get paid, and a rising tide raises all boats. The reason the narrative matters is that the league needs its increased fan base to continue growing and not turn away. For example, see the MLB in the 90s. In a league that feels like a throwback, "For the love of the game," its image could see irreparable damage during its first growth spurt in over 20 years. Baseball, America's Game, never recovered. For a league seeing profits for the first time, it may be wise to learn from the past.

History Repeats Itself

Players like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese deserve a massive amount of credit for the increased popularity. So does the league's focus on promoting itself during College Basketball games instead of during NBA games. Then again, so do the players who have been around, sustaining the league. The talent has been there, just like the NBA had talented players before Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. And this is an interesting comparison.

When Magic and Bird entered the NBA, the league was not what it is today. The 1980 NBA Finals had games played on tape delay. The stars of the 1979 National Championship match between Michigan State and Indiana State drew 35M viewers. A few years later, the NBA had radically increased its viewership, setting the stage for the league's most profitable years with Michael Jordan. The players arguably "saved the league," but that doesn't mean they didn't have talented players before that. Julius Erving played in that era. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had been in the NBA for over a decade, a player whose scoring record stood for decades before LeBron James surpassed it.

When these two stars joined the NBA, the league's average contract was $180,000, and by the end of the decade, it had risen to $900,000, following a new collective bargaining agreement that led to a revenue share for players of around 50%. Funny how history repeats itself.

The narratives of the previous generation, such as stars believing they don't receive enough credit, the young college athletes arriving to start the change, and the revenue sharing, are all repeats. Even the racial aspects of Magic and Bird are being replayed with Clark and Reese. Furthermore, the league has recently faced criticism for being "too physical," with accusations that players intentionally try to hurt Clark, drawing echoes of MJ playing against the Bad Boys.

Ultimately, the players should probably be paid more, but it's impossible to say how much without transparency. How can players negotiate unless they know how the money is being spent? How can media and fans judge the changes if they don't have the data to support or refute an argument? The players should receive the same revenue percentage as the other leagues. The players would be wise to demand a thorough explanation of the WNBA's economic situation. The WNBA lacks transparency. Resolving that issue will settle the others.

For more material like this, click here to see all previous sports-related posts. Additionally, consider subscribing to or following us on Facebook or Instagram to stay up-to-date with our latest posts.