WNBA Roster Size Issues

The WNBA season started tonight, but not every team has a full 12-player roster.  What's worse, players who were just drafted were cut at the end of training camp by the teams that drafted them...and those teams aren't carrying 12 players!  The league proudly touts that it offers 144 players the chance to play professional basketball.  Except that number isn't actually 144.  And that's a problem!

I must admit, I didn't even know about this until the other day, when I saw an ESPN.com article where Breana Stewart was talking about it.  And the problem, in fact, is Stewart and the other star players who command higher salaries, and their teams' choice to pay more players higher salaries by sacrificing a roster spot.

It seems as if the root of the problem is the WNBA salary cap.  More specifically that the WNBA salary cap, unlike the NBA's is a "hard" cap, meaning teams can't go above that number.  So, they have to make up the salaries of veteran stars like Stewart, Sue Bird, A'ja Wilson, etc., somewhere.  And the easiest way to do that is to cut low-priced rookies (which sometimes even means leaving yourselves short-handed).

Now imagine something like this happening in one of the men's leagues.  You can't!  Because it never would!  And that, frankly, is the biggest problem of all.  Because as wonderful as the WNBA has been for women, it's still treated like a little sister.  This is just the latest example.

Of course, there's also an easy solution.  There are several easy solutions, in fact.  The WNBA could go from a hard cap to a "soft" cap, which would allow teams to carry an extra player at league-minimum salary, even if it means going over the upper limit.  They could also require teams to maintain a full roster while leaving it up to them to figure out how to pay all 12 players.

Or, as Stewart suggested, the WNBA could adopt a practice squad and allow teams to sign players off of it.  Which, frankly, is something that WNBA teams need regardless.  At home, they're able to have a team of male practice players.  On the road, they're not.  So, without a practice squad and without full rosters, it's very tough (if not impossible) to go 5-on-5 in practice....which doesn't even account for players who are being held out or limited due to injury!

Even if those practice squad players don't ever make it onto a gameday roster, just think about how many more opportunities that would create!  And, the WNBA doesn't have a built-in feeder system like the G League, so, if someone goes down with an injury, it's not anywhere near as easy to get a player who's ready to go and in game shape.  If every team was allowed to sign a handful of practice players, though, that problem would be solved.

Doing that would also allow teams to keep players they don't have room for on the active roster, but don't necessarily want to cut either.  Like all of those second-round picks in this year's draft who were the victims of the roster crunches.  It, frankly, would be a win-win.  Those players, while not actively participating in games, would still gain valuable experience practicing with and being around WNBA players, while their teams would be able to continue evaluating them and have players already under contract, who'll be available on short notice if the need arises.

There's another major issue with the WNBA's current system.  It's not a level playing field.  Some teams have 12 players, while others have 11.  Yes, that's by choice.  I understand that.  Seven of the WNBA's 12 teams have made that choice.  But it still puts those seven teams at a tremendous disadvantage, especially compared to the other five.  

Whether it's a cost thing or a quality think, frankly, isn't even relevant.  The point is seven teams are voluntarily carrying less than a full roster.  It's not like when baseball had the 40-man roster expansion in September and teams could carry any number they wanted between 25 and 40.  Here, we've got more than half the league playing with fewer players than the roster allows, not more!  (Eleven is the WNBA roster minimum.)

Having a hard cap helps the WNBA remain sound financially, but it's also probably the biggest reason for this current situation.  Let's not forget, too, that salaries in the WNBA, even for star players, are low by comparison.  That's why so many WNBA veterans play overseas in the offseason (which contributed to the unfortunate situation involving Brittney Griner right now).

This is an issue that should be at the forefront of the next CBA negotiations between the WNBA and WNBPA.  It's obviously important to the players, which is a good start.  And they'll certainly do what they can to make sure it's addressed, along with any other tweaks that would benefit the players as a whole.

Can it wait that long, though?  They're only in the third year of the current CBA, which runs until 2027.  The current CBA has a number of provisions that have been tremendously positive.  It also, unfortunately, helped create the current model that needs to be fixed.  And they need to figure out a way to fix it before 2027!

Hopefully there is a way.  Because with big names like Breana Stewart and Chiney Ogumwike (among others) behind it, you'd have to think change is on the horizon.  Which it needs to be.  Because the 144 players the WNBA proudly proclaims should actually be 144 players.  Not 137.