The debate over whether WNBA players are underpaid has lingered for years, resurfacing with each new season, major contract, or cultural moment that shines a spotlight on women’s sports. While it’s undeniable that there is a dramatic salary gap between the WNBA and NBA, the conversation isn’t as simple as comparing raw numbers.

To really understand the question of underpayment, we need to look at league revenue, revenue sharing structures, international opportunities, and the broader landscape of women’s basketball.

At first glance, the salary differences seem outrageous. The average WNBA player in 2024 earns around $147,000 a season, while the league maximum sits at about $242,000. Contrast that with the NBA, where rookies on minimum contracts make over $1.1 million and stars like Stephen Curry or Nikola Jokić can earn $40 to $60 million annually. From this perspective, it looks like WNBA athletes are grossly underpaid compared to their male counterparts.

But using raw figures without context can be misleading. Salaries in professional sports are tied directly to the revenue a league generates, and this is where the disparity starts to make more sense.

The NBA is a financial juggernaut, producing nearly $10 billion in revenue each year, powered by massive TV contracts, global merchandising, and long-standing mainstream popularity. By comparison, the WNBA brings in roughly $200 million annually.

That’s a fifty-to-one difference in revenue streams, which naturally translates into far smaller salary pools for its athletes. If the WNBA were to pay players NBA-level salaries without generating the income to sustain it, the league would collapse financially. This fact is often overlooked in the broader conversation, yet it is crucial in understanding why WNBA salaries are where they are.

Even when acknowledging the revenue gap, there is still an important critique to be made: the percentage of revenue that players receive. NBA players take home roughly 50% of league revenue due to the collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and its players’ union.

WNBA players, on the other hand, reportedly receive closer to 20 to 25% of league revenue. That’s where many argue the issue of underpayment becomes clear. It’s not just that WNBA salaries are smaller because the league is smaller; it’s that the players aren’t getting the same proportionate cut of the pie as NBA players do. This inequity fuels frustration, especially among athletes who believe they are the driving force behind recent league growth.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that WNBA players are undervalued domestically is the fact that so many of them have historically chosen to play overseas in the offseason, often for salaries multiple times higher than what they make in the United States. Stars such as Diana Taurasi, Breanna Stewart, and Brittney Griner have earned over $1 million playing in countries like Russia, Turkey, or China.

The contrast is stark: why would teams abroad be willing to pay four or five times more for the same players if their value truly reflected their WNBA salary? This overseas exodus has also come with risks, as Griner’s 2022 detainment in Russia tragically highlighted. The reliance on international contracts underscores that the market values WNBA talent more highly than the league itself is currently able or willing to pay.

It’s also important to consider the cultural and historical context of women’s sports. The WNBA, founded in 1996, is still relatively young compared to the NBA’s decades of growth. Women’s basketball has fought for visibility in a sports ecosystem dominated by men’s leagues.

Only recently has it begun to gain mainstream traction, thanks to stars like A’ja Wilson, Sabrina Ionescu, Angel Reese, and Caitlin Clark, whose popularity has brought new fans, record-breaking attendance, and unprecedented TV ratings. The surge in visibility has translated to sponsorship deals and corporate partnerships, signaling that the league’s revenue could grow significantly in the coming years. As it does, the conversation around player salaries is sure to intensify, with calls for a larger revenue share becoming harder to ignore.

The issue of underpayment isn’t just about salaries, though. It extends to resources, benefits, and working conditions. In past years, players have spoken about inadequate travel accommodations, lack of charter flights, and insufficient facilities compared to the NBA.

While the 2020 collective bargaining agreement improved many of these areas, including maternity benefits, housing, and travel stipends, disparities still exist. When fans and critics argue that WNBA players are underpaid, they often include these quality-of-life issues in their definition of compensation. For many athletes, the fight for fairness is about dignity and respect as much as it is about dollar figures.

Another dimension to this debate is the league’s long-term sustainability. Some skeptics argue that increasing salaries too quickly could destabilize the WNBA financially, especially if revenue growth doesn’t keep pace.
Supporters counter that investment in players is essential for growth—higher pay could attract more talent, reduce the need for athletes to play overseas, and ultimately raise the quality of the game, which in turn could draw more fans and sponsors. This “chicken and egg” dynamic—does the league need higher pay to grow, or does it need to grow before it can afford higher pay?—remains central to the argument.

Public perception also plays a significant role. Social media amplifies comparisons between NBA and WNBA salaries, often without context. While those comparisons highlight the gender gap, they sometimes oversimplify the reality of league economics. Still, the optics of NBA benchwarmers making millions while WNBA stars struggle to hit six figures creates a perception problem that hurts the WNBA’s reputation.

This perception fuels fan sentiment that the players are undervalued, which in turn pressures the league and its partners to act.

Ultimately, the answer to whether WNBA players are underpaid depends on how you frame the question. If you’re comparing raw salaries to the NBA, the answer is obviously yes. If you measure salaries relative to league revenue, the situation becomes more complicated, though the inequitable revenue sharing arrangement makes a strong case that players deserve more

. If you look at the global market, the fact that overseas teams pay dramatically more suggests that WNBA salaries don’t reflect the true market value of these athletes. In all three cases, there’s a credible argument that WNBA players are indeed underpaid, even if the reasons vary.

What’s clear is that the conversation isn’t going away. As the league continues to grow, fueled by rising stars and expanding fan interest, calls for higher pay and better conditions will only get louder. Players are already pushing for changes in the next collective bargaining agreement, with revenue sharing at the heart of their demands.

For the WNBA to thrive in the long term, it must strike a balance between financial sustainability and fair compensation for the women who make the league possible. Underpaid or not, these athletes are shaping the future of women’s sports, and their fight for fairness will be a defining storyline in the years ahead.