With the WNBA set to begin its second season on June
11, its players "are wondering whether they need to ask for
more" and unionizing is one alternative that has "growing
appeal," according to Lena Williams in a front-page feature
in Sunday's N.Y. TIMES. Players and agents say that under
their WNBA deals, players "can be terminated at any time,
cannot endorse products that compete with the league's 15
sponsors, are not entitled to percentages from sales of team
merchandise and receive health benefits only when they
play." Some players add that the language of the WNBA's
contracts "is so ambiguous that it is unclear whether
players are entitled to be paid if injured." Others say
that WNBA players "are in certain ways worse off financially
than" ABL players, who receive a higher average salary and
"receive better benefits." So WNBA players are talking and
"trying to figure out who might represent them and how to
get what they want without hurting the league they fought so
hard to create." The NBPA said it would like to represent
the women and "many" players feel it would be the "logical
choice." The Women's Coaches Association is "also lobbying
for the job" along with a "handful" of sports agents. But
some players have "expressed reservations about joining
ranks with the men" and feel they aren't concerned about the
same issues. League execs are "wary of the impact of a
union." WNBA President Val Ackerman admits unionization "is
likely. We accept its possibility. But in some respects it
does seem premature" (N.Y. TIMES, 4/12).
