When two of the league’s biggest stars publicly question their own union’s strategy, you know something deeper is brewing behind the scenes. And this is the part most people miss: this isn’t just about money or contract language — it’s about power, communication, and who really gets a say in shaping the future of the WNBA.
WNBPA executive committee members Kelsey Plum and Breanna Stewart recently sent a three-page letter to players’ union executive director Terri Jackson, laying out what they describe as “serious concerns” about how the Players Association is managing current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations — especially the limited involvement and input from players themselves. They stressed that, despite their positions in union leadership, they do not feel they have a meaningful “seat at the table” in these high-stakes talks, and they want a fundamental reset in how the union’s administrators and players interact.
The letter, which was sent on Monday and later circulated among WNBPA leaders, prompted the union to organize an all-player meeting on Tuesday night. That meeting was called in part to address the issues Plum and Stewart raised, though the union chose not to issue any public comment on the letter itself. What’s especially interesting — and potentially divisive — is that it’s not yet clear whether the rest of the seven-player executive committee agrees with Plum and Stewart’s concerns, or whether all members were even aware of the letter before it was sent. Some insiders have indicated that at least a portion of the committee is satisfied with how union leadership has handled negotiations so far, setting up a possible internal split in player leadership.
This letter arrives at a critical moment in the WNBA calendar. The league has given the WNBPA until March 10 to complete a term sheet for a new CBA, warning that missing that target could disrupt the 2026 season schedule. The regular season is slated to begin on May 8, but there’s a lot to accomplish before then: the annual college draft (currently set for April 13), an expansion draft for two new teams, and free agency movement for over 100 players. A delayed deal could compress or complicate all of these events, increasing pressure on both the league and the union.
Plum and Stewart begin their letter by emphasizing their “immense gratitude” for Terri Jackson’s decade-long leadership of the Players Association, noting the progress and gains she has helped secure for the players over the years. They make it clear that they believe Jackson is genuinely committed to what’s best for the players. But here’s where it gets controversial: they then pivot to say they are frustrated with the current pace of negotiations as the March 10 deadline approaches, and they attribute that lack of progress to what they see as a breakdown in communication — not only between Jackson and the executive committee, but also between union leadership and the broader player membership.
To understand the tension, it helps to remember the bigger picture. The WNBPA opted out of the previous CBA roughly 17 months ago, back in October 2024, which effectively kicked off a long, multi-stage bargaining process. Over the past eight months in particular, those talks have intensified, with both sides exchanging proposals and trying to hammer out foundational issues like revenue sharing, salary structure, and working conditions. On paper, you’d expect the executive committee — especially senior figures like Plum and Stewart — to be deeply involved in every step.
Instead, Plum and Stewart say they have only had real access to detailed information about the negotiations for less than two months. According to them, they didn’t even see a proposal until January, and despite repeatedly requesting more information from union staff, they still haven’t received what they need. In their words, “despite a year and a half of negotiations, we have not been meaningfully engaged.” For players who are supposed to help shape the union’s bargaining priorities, that’s a serious claim.
So what kind of information are they asking for? Their letter lays out a specific and wide-ranging list of items:
- A detailed breakdown of the WNBA’s revenues and expenses, as clearly and comprehensively as possible, so players can understand the financial realities behind the league’s offers.
- An analysis comparing what players might lose if the season is delayed or shortened due to a strike or work stoppage, versus what they stand to gain if they push negotiations further and secure better terms in a new CBA.
- The aggregated results of a recent Players Association survey that asked players what they think of the league’s latest proposal.
- A clear explanation of how rookie salaries would be structured, including how those salaries would escalate over the length of a rookie contract.
- Information about distributions from OneTeam Partners — the group that helps manage licensing deals related to player likenesses and merchandise.
- A clear, written description of the executive committee’s roles and responsibilities, so everyone knows who is supposed to do what in this process.
In the letter, Plum and Stewart explain that they understand the executive committee’s role as helping determine the overarching goals and priorities of the CBA and serving as a bridge between the union’s negotiating team and the wider membership. That includes helping secure player approval for any final deal. But they argue that without access to these key details, the executive committee simply can’t do its job — and players can’t be expected to participate meaningfully in a process from which they feel largely excluded.
Plum and Stewart initially asked for an executive committee meeting within 24 hours to talk through these information gaps. That request eventually evolved into the all-player meeting held on Tuesday night, suggesting that this isn’t just a quiet disagreement within a small group — it’s an issue that touches the entire player body. The two also express frustration with how their attempts to raise issues have been received by union leadership. According to the letter, when they and other players have voiced concerns, they’ve been made to feel like they’re acting against the union’s interests, rather than constructively questioning strategy. Even more striking, they say many players across the league share these frustrations but feel scared or unable to speak up.
This internal tension, they warn, is creating unnecessary divisions between union administrators and players at the exact moment when unity and shared purpose are most crucial. During high-stakes negotiations, a unified, well-informed player group can increase leverage and help the union push for better terms. But if players feel shut out or intimidated, that unity becomes harder to maintain — and that’s where the letter hints at a deeper, potentially controversial question: Is the union truly representing its members’ voices if some of those members feel silenced?
These concerns don’t exist in a vacuum. Recent reporting has already highlighted strong debate within the executive committee about how aggressive the union should be. Some leaders have been open to the possibility of a strike or a more confrontational stance if that’s what it takes to secure a favorable deal. Others, including Plum and Stewart, have signaled they believe there’s a way to secure meaningful gains without risking a work stoppage. In a recent player call, more than half of player leaders reportedly reaffirmed their desire to keep a potential strike on the table. The full player body even voted in December to authorize the executive committee to call a strike “when necessary,” underscoring that labor action remains a real possibility if talks break down.
At the same time, there have been tangible financial wins emerging from the negotiation process. For example, it has been reported that players are set to receive revenue-sharing payments for the first time in the league’s history, marking a major milestone in how the WNBA distributes income. The union is also expected to distribute an additional 9.25 million dollars from licensing revenue generated since 2020, stemming from jerseys, trading cards, video games, and other merchandise. These developments help explain why some players — including Plum and Stewart — see the league’s latest offer as a significant step forward, particularly when it comes to revenue sharing.
On Monday, ahead of the Unrivaled semifinals, Plum told reporters that while the union should absolutely keep negotiating, she believes the WNBA’s current offer already represents a “significant win” because of its revenue-sharing element. She also said bluntly that a strike “would be the worst thing for both sides.” Stewart later publicly agreed. This perspective might surprise some fans who assume that a combative stance is the only way to push for better conditions. Instead, Plum and Stewart are effectively arguing that there’s another path: recognize the progress that’s been made, use it as a foundation, and negotiate strategically from there — without jeopardizing the entire season.
In their letter, they reinforce that position, saying they’re deeply concerned about the potential financial damage a prolonged standoff or work stoppage could inflict on the league as a whole. They suggest that instead of fixating solely on whether to strike, it’s time to begin working from the league’s most recent proposals on revenue sharing and refine or build on them. From their point of view, that could mean locking in gains now and continuing to push for improvements in other areas, rather than risking everything on an all-or-nothing showdown.
That doesn’t mean they think the current offer is perfect or that negotiations should stop. In fact, both players have been clear that substantial work remains. In the letter, they urge the league to take a hard look at its expenses and find meaningful ways to reduce the extent to which those costs are effectively passed on to players, at both the team and league levels. For a newer fan, this essentially means they want the financial burden — whether it’s travel, housing, or other operational costs — not to fall disproportionately on players’ shoulders.
Plum and Stewart also highlight several key priorities they believe should be central to any final agreement:
- A salary cap structure that grows alongside revenue, designed so that teams can build sustainable rosters without forcing top players to take pay cuts just to maintain a healthy “middle class” of players.
- Guaranteed housing for every player in the league, ensuring that basic living stability isn’t something players have to fight for individually.
- The elimination of the “core” rule, which currently allows teams to restrict a designated player’s free agency in ways that many players see as limiting mobility and bargaining power.
- Stronger, more meaningful benefits for retired players, recognizing the contributions of past generations and providing better support once their playing careers end.
Their underlying message is that negotiations need to become more pragmatic and transparent. They argue for decision-making grounded in clear information, realistic assessments of risk and reward, and open communication between leadership and the full player body. In simple terms, they’re saying: let’s be smart, informed, and honest about what we’re asking for, what we’re risking, and what we’re actually getting.
It’s also worth noting that players aren’t the only ones calling for more transparency. Just last week, nearly a dozen player agents sent their own letter to Terri Jackson. In that letter, they emphasized a desire for clearer communication and better coordination as talks move forward, and they requested the opportunity to review the league’s current proposal directly. When agents — whose job is to protect players’ individual interests — and star players are both pushing for more information, it raises the stakes on how the union handles internal communication and decision-making.
All of this raises some tough, and potentially divisive, questions. Is it more “pro-player” to push negotiations to the brink of a strike in hopes of squeezing out every possible gain, or to secure a robust deal now to protect the league’s long-term health? Is it acceptable for any union leadership, in any sport, to keep parts of the membership at arm’s length from key details, even if they argue it streamlines negotiations? And when high-profile leaders like Plum and Stewart challenge their own union from the inside, does that weaken the players’ stance — or actually make it stronger by forcing greater accountability and openness?
What do you think? Should the WNBPA continue to keep a strike firmly on the table to maximize leverage, even if it risks disrupting the 2026 season? Or do you side more with Plum and Stewart’s view that the current offer is a big enough win to build on without going to war with the league? Do you believe union leadership has a responsibility to share every major detail with players, or is some level of closed-door strategy necessary? Share your thoughts — especially if you disagree with Plum, Stewart, or the union — and explain why. This is exactly the kind of debate that will shape the future of women’s professional basketball.
