Potential WNBA Strike: Why Angel Reese’s Boycott Threat Could Spell Disaster for Women’s Basketball

As the WNBA enters a period of unprecedented attention and growth, storm clouds are gathering on the horizon. Recent threats of a player boycott, led by high-profile stars like Angel Reese, have sparked heated debate about the league’s future. While the NBA’s hypothetical work stoppage would send shockwaves through the sports world, a cancelled WNBA season risks far more than lost games—it could threaten the very existence of women’s professional basketball in America.

The WNBA, founded in 1996, has operated at a financial deficit since its inception. Despite recent surges in popularity, largely fueled by rookie sensation Caitlin Clark and record-breaking attendance at select games, the league’s overall economic foundation remains shaky. Many fans are unaware that the NBA owns 60% of the WNBA and has subsidized its losses for nearly three decades. Without this financial lifeline, the league simply would not exist.

This year, tensions are running high. While Caitlin Clark’s arrival has brought unprecedented media attention and packed arenas, other players—including Reese—are threatening a work stoppage if their demands for higher pay and better working conditions are not met. The WNBA Players Association continues to push for increased salaries and enhanced benefits, but the harsh economic reality is that the league’s revenues cannot support significant raises. For example, Angel Reese, as a rookie, earns around $75,000 per year—a figure she and others argue should be higher. Yet, the league as a whole has never turned a profit, and its total media rights deal is dwarfed by the NBA’s: $2.2 billion over ten years for the WNBA compared to the NBA’s $70 billion over the same period.

The financial gap is staggering. While NBA players command eight-figure salaries, WNBA salaries remain modest by comparison, and for good reason. The business of professional sports depends not just on hard work and talent, but on fan engagement, ticket sales, and lucrative television contracts. The WNBA’s recent uptick in attention is almost entirely attributable to Caitlin Clark, whose presence has driven up television ratings and ticket prices by as much as 400% for games she plays in. Other games, however, continue to struggle to draw crowds, and average viewership for non-Clark games hovers well below half a million.

Despite these challenges, some WNBA players believe they hold the leverage to force change. Union leaders and outspoken stars have publicly floated the idea of a strike, believing that the league cannot afford to lose its most visible players. However, in the cold calculus of sports economics, the power dynamics are not so simple. If WNBA players refuse to play, NBA owners—who bankroll the league—would actually save money by not having to cover ongoing losses. Meanwhile, players would lose their salaries and benefits, with few viable alternatives outside of playing overseas for equal or lesser pay in more difficult conditions.

The threat of a work stoppage comes at a particularly precarious moment. The WNBA is just starting to gain traction with mainstream sports fans, in large part due to the “Caitlin Clark Effect.” Television networks are clamoring for Indiana Fever games, and the league’s new media rights deal, set to begin in 2026, promises a much-needed infusion of cash. However, this deal is contingent on games being played. A cancelled season could void the agreement, wiping out the league’s primary source of future revenue and undermining any hope for higher salaries or improved working conditions.

The risks extend far beyond the players’ paychecks. Corporate sponsors, who have only recently begun investing in women’s basketball at meaningful levels, would likely pull their support if the league cannot guarantee a stable product. New fans, drawn in by Clark’s historic performances, could disappear just as quickly as they arrived—momentum that took years to build could be lost overnight. The historical precedent is not encouraging: Major League Baseball’s 1994 strike cancelled the World Series and set the sport back for years, despite its century-old legacy and deep fan base. The WNBA, still fighting for relevance after 27 years, does not have the luxury of such resilience.

The uncomfortable truth is that the WNBA’s economic model is not yet self-sustaining. For all the hard work and advocacy of its players, the league’s survival depends on outside support and the continued generosity of NBA owners and private equity investors. The notion that players can force the league’s hand through a strike ignores the reality that, in this high-stakes game, the owners hold all the cards: the money, the infrastructure, the media deals, and the arenas. Players, for all their talent and dedication, generate far less revenue than their NBA counterparts and have little leverage in negotiations.

If Angel Reese and others follow through on their boycott threats, the consequences could be catastrophic. Players would lose their primary source of income, while league owners could simply redirect their investments elsewhere. The league’s new media rights deal would be jeopardized, sponsors would flee, and the fragile gains in fan interest would evaporate. In the worst-case scenario, the WNBA could become the next casualty of a labor dispute, joining the ranks of sports leagues that never recovered from a work stoppage.

The irony is that the players threatening to walk out are endangering the very thing they claim to be fighting for. The WNBA needs to build profitability before it can offer significant salary increases. Demanding NBA-level pay in a league that has never turned a profit is not just unrealistic—it is potentially self-destructive. The focus must remain on growing the game, attracting fans, and building a sustainable business model that can support higher salaries in the future.

The next few months will be critical for the WNBA. As the league negotiates its future, players and owners alike must recognize the delicate balance between ambition and reality. Angel Reese’s boycott threat may be intended as a call to action, but it could ultimately hasten the league’s demise if cooler heads do not prevail. The lesson from sports history is clear: progress is fragile, and the price of overplaying one’s hand can be the loss of everything built so far.