The Supermax Squeeze: Are WNBA Stars Underpaid by Design?

By now, it’s no secret that the WNBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is problematic in more ways than one. While it was initially praised for ushering in a “new era” of player empowerment in 2020, the deeper you dig into it, the more cracks begin to show. The rosters are still too small, the salary cap, while higher than before, still leaves teams with no choice but to cut players, and the prioritization rules put players in a tough spot.

However, the biggest of its issues came disguised as a blessing bestowed upon the players in 2017. It was when the concept of the “supermax” contract entered the conversation. At first glance, it looks like a way to reward veterans with financial security and team loyalty. But in reality, it is more like a velvet cage. It just strips away the leverage W players would have in a more open market, like the NBA folks do.

The CBA’s built-in barriers

The CBA, or Collective Bargaining Agreement, is the ultimate rulebook that governs everything that goes on in the WNBA. It is negotiated between players and the league and first came into existence with the foundation of the WNBPA in 1998. The first format was rolled out in 1999 and has gone through multiple updates over the years. Its most recent version was finalized in 2020. It covers everything from salaries and contract terms to benefits, free agency rules, and other key league operations.

You can think of it as the invisible court where business happens, behind closed doors. However, not so long ago, the doors opened wide after a collective outrage from the W players. A big shift is on the horizon: the players officially decided to opt out, and the negotiations for a fresh deal have been kicked off. Led by WNBPA President Nneka Ogwumike and Vice President Kelsey Plum, the goal is to finalize a new deal by 2026. But, the big question is what triggered this move? What pushed them to demand change yet again?

The Salary Cap

For the 2025 season, the WNBA applies a hard salary cap of $1,507,100 with a minimum team payroll of $1,261,440, leaving no flexibility since every dollar is strictly accounted for. There is no room to exceed the cap unless teams rely on hardship exceptions, which are rare and temporary. Contrast this with the NBA’s soft cap system, which includes exceptions like the mid-level exception, Larry Bird rights, and luxury tax thresholds, allowing franchises to exceed the cap when needed to maintain competitive balance. 

This is what majorly limits how the teams can build their rosters and amplifies what’s known as the “structure squeeze.” This financial crunch hits the rookie contracts especially hard, though. A supermax contract in 2025 is worth $249,244 (roughly 16.5% of the cap), leaving limited space for more quality signings. With such strict numbers, teams often compromise depth or cut rookie talent, not for performance, but for fiscal necessity. 

On top of that, there are no performance-based raises, bonuses, or escalators in place to reward that kind of performance. The teams cannot even give early raises to standouts. This just makes it harder to keep talent in the league.

Roster Limits and the Talent Logjam

The WNBA allows each team to carry up to 12 players, but the harsh reality is that most clubs only keep 11, or sometimes even fewer. This happens due to the league’s tight salary cap restrictions and fewer spots. For example, in 2024, the Chicago Sky waived Kayana Traylor, despite her solid preseason showing. It happened simply because they couldn’t afford a full roster under that cap.

The Phoenix Mercury, too, had to waive Charisma Osborne (a UCLA standout and 25th overall draft pick) despite her impressive college career and solid preseason performance. The year before, Monika Czinano, a dominant Iowa center and Caitlin Clark’s teammate, was cut by the Los Angeles Sparks right after being drafted 26th overall. Even Zia Cooke, the 13th pick in 2023 who made the Sparks roster, found herself buried on the bench because of roster congestion before eventually being traded.

Between 1997–2021, over 40% of drafted players never made a roster. The list includes established names in women’s basketball who could not find roster spots just because the system won’t accommodate them. The league clearly has more talent than it can currently handle.

The “Prioritization” rule

The WNBA’s prioritization rule is part of the 2020 CBA and has been active since 2023. Applying to players with two or more years of WNBA experience, the rule requires them to report by training camp or May 1, whichever is later, or face fines. Entering 2024, the penalty escalated with missing camp leading to a season-long suspension. While the rules are meant to ensure player commitment, they have backfired for those with lucrative overseas commitments. Think WNBA champion and 2019 Finals MVP Emma Meesseman, Seattle Storm forward Gabby Williams, Phoenix Mercury forward Satou Sabally, and New York Liberty guard Marine Johannes.

“As a player, I obviously criticized the prioritization rule that the WNBA implemented,” Sabally said. “I think it’s really bad to punish International players, especially, you know, players coming from France, they can’t come over at all anymore. That’s just unfair. And I think the NBA does a better job of incorporating international players and also pushing them in the media.”

These terms were agreed upon by the WNBPA to secure other important advantages like salary increases and maternity leave. However, now that the league is witnessing historical growth, the rules need to change to offer the best to those who bring the revenue. As WNBA top agent Boris Lelchitski said, “At the end of the day, prioritization has to change”. 

Furthermore, even if we want to look at the business side of things, the prioritization hurts the very “go global” agenda the league has. “How many nations are represented with NBA players? The same thing is going to happen in the WNBA as we continue to expand our opportunities and we continue to and globalize the sport,” Cheryl Reeve said following her first Olympic championship as USA’s coach. “There’s things that we have to contend with there, and the WNBA prioritization, etc. I’m really hopeful that women’s basketball globally can come together and solve some of these issues so that we can have these opportunities to continue to grow the game“.

True. After all, as Gabby Williams said, America is not the “entire world“.

The layered system

The WNBA’s player movement system operates through strict tiers. These maintain team control even after contracts expire. Players get sorted into four key classifications:

• Unrestricted Free Agents (UFA): This is the rarest tier. Only veterans with 5+ years who’ve avoided core designations finally gain true freedom to choose their team. Currently, players like DeWanna Bonner, Sydney Colson, Nneka Ogwumike, and others fall under this category.
• Restricted Free Agents (RFA): These players have four or more years of experience in the league. They can receive offers from other teams, but their original team has the right to match any offer within four days. Currently, DiJonai Carrington, Aari McDonald, and a few others fall under this category.
• Cored Players: Teams get one core tag per year (max three per player lifetime). This option simply nukes free agency; the veteran (6+ years) is basically stuck. They either take a one-year supermax or bargain under those rigid terms. Like in 2024, Skylar Diggins-Smith wanted out of Phoenix but got blocked by prior core tags, freezing her free agency plans.
• Reserved Players: Anyone with three or fewer seasons under their belt falls here. This player’s current team holds all the cards, and no other franchise can negotiate unless they’re cut loose. Zero leverage.

The Velvet Cage: Supermax vs. Player Freedom

What Is the Supermax in the WNBA?

The WNBA’s “supermax” deal is officially called the Designated Veteran Player Extension. This system represents the league’s top salary tier. For 2025, this supermax figure is $249,244  per year.

To qualify for this, the players must hit specific benchmarks:

• Five full seasons in the league
• Unrestricted free agent status
• Potentially get “cored” by their current team (which we’ll break down separately)

Here’s the catch, though: while the supermax sounds like an honor, it’s really a trade-off. It rewards long-term WNBA players but actually restricts their options. This prestige comes with permanent strings attached.

How does Supermax limit player movement and bargaining leverage?

The WNBA’s supermax contract might seem like a win for players at first glance, but it actually creates a gilded trap. Here’s how it really works: Teams can slap a core designation on a player (think of it like the NFL’s franchise tag). This completely strips away their ability to test free agency. The player is forced to choose: take a one-year supermax offer or sit out—or push for a sign-and-trade, which requires both club cooperation and player agreement. This tag can be used up to four times in a career (it was five before the 2020 CBA changes).

And here’s the kicker: while $249,244 sounds impressive in WNBA terms, it’s still dwarfed by the money available overseas in markets like Russia, China, and Turkey. So, the supermax deal just highlights how far WNBA salaries still lag behind global opportunities. Plus, these supermax contracts have no long-term leverage as they are one-year only, requiring players to re-enter negotiations annually. So, one might think that coring a player is teams’ way of saying “you are gold,” however, with no job security, that does not really seem the case.

The contrast to the NBA’s format

The NBA’s supermax contracts operate on a completely different financial scale. We’re talking $50+ million per year deals, like Stephen Curry’s $55.8 million salary for the 2024-25 season. The NBA’s CBA actually gives players real power. They can outright reject a supermax offer to become unrestricted free agents, with full control over their next destination.

NBA stars also benefit from several key contract features that WNBA players can only dream about. For example, there are player options that let them choose whether to extend their deal like sign-and-trade flexibility that creates better salary opportunities, rare but powerful no-trade clauses (like Bradley Beal’s), and and shorter-term max contracts that allow for quicker re-negotiation.

And we talked about how WNBA’s supermax leaves players in an annual limbo. However, NBA “supermax” deals can last up to five years and include built-in growth escalators and full guarantees. Clearly, there is a stark contrast and the WNBA’s “supermax” functions more like a golden handcuff.

Some famous case studies

1. Breanna Stewart’s 2023 free agency: In February 2023, Stewart turned down Seattle’s one-year core “supermax” offer and signed a non-guaranteed deal below the maximum with the New York Liberty instead.
2. Skylar Smith’s 2020 Dallas Wings situation: Early in 2020, Dallas used the core tag on Smith, blocking her from unrestricted free agency. This led to a sign-and-trade sending her to Phoenix in exchange for three draft picks.
3. Elena Delle Donne’s failed deal: Washington made Delle Donne a core player for 2024, automatically tendering a $241,984 supermax offer. She simply rejected it and sat out the season.

Market value v/s League limits

Caitlin Clark’s situation highlights the WNBA’s unfair compensation in relation to a player’s real value. CC’s record-breaking jersey sales (topping all WNBA players ever) and instant sellouts contrast sharply with her $78,000 rookie salary. On top of that, she has driven 26.5% of WNBA’s activity in 2024, including everything under the sun: attendance, merchandise sales, and television numbers.

Clark’s arrival alone triggered a 300% spike in WNBA TV viewership, with 45% of the league’s broadcast value tied to Fever games during her rookie season, as per valuation expert Dr. Ryan Brewer. Also, thanks to her, merchandise sales skyrocketed by roughly 500%. In just her second season, Clark’s estimated net worth sits at $5 million, however, her WNBA salary barely contributes to that. 

Similarly, A’ja Wilson earns approximately $200,000 in WNBA salary despite her two MVP awards and status as the Aces’ franchise player. All this while pulling seven-figure deals from Nike and Gatorade. The league’s financial growth makes its salary structure increasingly frustrating for players. Here, even the supermax players earn just 16% of team cap space versus the NBA’s 30-35% range. Not to forget that they don’t help anyone on the roster.

Finally, what would true player empowerment look like in the WNBA? First, players need real mobility. Think of NBA-style contract options, partial guarantees, and sign-and-trade flexibility. WNBA could implement mechanisms like Bird Rights or a mid-level exception to help teams retain stars without sacrificing depth. It should definitely eliminate (or at least restrict) core designations that artificially limit free agency.

Moreover, performance bonuses tied directly to merchandise sales and ticket revenue should be considered, following MLS’s model. Even introducing shorter contracts with opt-out clauses would give athletes more control. The framework for fairer compensation exists in other leagues. Now the WNBA must decide: will it adapt quickly enough to properly reward the stars driving its growth?