WNBA’s Media-Rights Deal Could Surge to $3 Billion with New Partners

The WNBA’s historic media-rights deal may end up much larger than previously announced if the league is able to add additional partners.

The signed deal between the NBA and Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon is worth $77 billion for 11 years, with $2.2 billion of the deal, or about $200 million per year, assigned to the WNBA. But the WNBA could end up with as much as $3 billion in rights fees by the end of the 11-year term, according to ESPN. 

A source confirmed to Front Office Sports that the league is expecting to extract more than $260 million per year from its broadcasting fees—greater than four times its previous deal—due to additional partners. CBS and Scripps Sports are the likely newcomers, as both currently have deals with the WNBA. Both companies signed deals with the league that expire in 2025, just as the WNBA’s next deal kicks in. 

“Scripps Sports is proud of our involvement, investment, and commitment to the WNBA and its growth,” the company’s president, Brian Lawlor, tells Front Office Sports. “We believe we are an important part of the visibility of the league and hope to be able to continue serving WNBA audiences with appointment TV on Friday nights on Ion for many years to come.” CBS Sports did not respond to a request for comment when asked by FOS.

The addition of more partners would follow the WNBA’s previous deal, which began as a partnership with ESPN valued at around $40 million per year, then added Amazon, CBS, and Scripps over the last few years to bring its yearly media-rights revenue to $60 million. 

The $260 million annual price tag is more than double the valuation Endeavor’s media consulting group gave to the WNBA. While this speaks to the league’s unprecedented growth since the arrival of rookies Caitlin Clark (above, right) and Angel Reese, the WNBA also has the opportunity to sell more games to its rights holders.

The league is expanding to 13 teams next season, and then to 14 by 2026. It’s also expecting to see its regular-season schedule grow from 40 games to 44. More teams and games means more content to sell to broadcast partners, particularly those hoping to jump on the WNBA’s rise in popularity.

Going Solo

The WNBA’s rise has brought up the question of whether it can fully detach itself from the NBA.

While the WNBA is growing, it can’t decide its independence on a whim. The NBA has invested—and lost—significantly on the WNBA over the last few years, so it wouldn’t make much sense to let go of the WNBA as it begins its ascent. Moreover, five of the 12 WNBA teams are owned by their NBA counterparts.

There are still benefits to the WNBA partnering with the NBA. The media-rights deal is proof of that, as there’s no assurance that it would have received a deal this large if not for its attachment to the NBA.

“I don’t like how we’re somehow confusing the WNBA’s increase as though it’s merit-based versus being on the tail of the NBA,” former MLB executive David Samson said on Pablo Torre Finds Out.

Though former ESPN president John Skipper, who helped negotiate the network’s past NBA and WNBA media deals, said on the same show that the WNBA sees the benefit of staying tied to the NBA.

“Certainly [the WNBA] could do it on their own,” Skipper said. “They, together with the NBA, decided that they had the likelihood of getting more money this way, and they did.” 

WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert has suggested staying tied to the NBA is the league’s best option for now.

“There’s no other set of two sports leagues that can offer that live programming and sports to a streamer like that,” Engelbert said in April. “I would say probably in that case we need the NBA because we have a smaller footprint with only 40 games, and it’s nice to go to market together.”

But whether that’s the best option for the WNBA moving forward is a contentious question. In October, Larry Gottesdiener, managing partner of the Atlanta Dream, one of the franchises not owned by an NBA governor, told FOS that while he thinks WNBA teams having shared NBA owners was “necessary” in the beginning, it may not be what’s best for the league anymore.

“But now, for the long-term health and viability of the players and the league … there needs to be more independent, dedicated ownership,” Gottesdiener said.