The Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) recently announced a sweeping expansion plan that will add three new teams—Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia—over the next five years, increasing its league size from 13 to 18 teams. At face value, this appears to be an exhilarating moment for women’s professional basketball, painted by Commissioner Cathy Engelbert as a "truly monumental day." However, beyond the celebratory rhetoric lies a complex tapestry of potential pitfalls and missed opportunities that warrant skepticism.
In sports expansions, rapid growth can cut both ways. The WNBA’s plan follows earlier announcements of teams in Toronto and Portland for 2026. The league, essentially doubling in size over a short period, aims to expand its geographic reach and tap into loyal basketball markets. The newly minted franchise fees—reportedly $250 million per team—are a record for the league and undoubtedly a sign of increased investor confidence. But this enthusiasm risks overshadowing the financial realities and historical challenges the league has faced in sustaining teams in comparable markets.
Revisiting Cleveland and Detroit: Lessons Ignored
Cleveland and Detroit are returning to the WNBA fold after extended absences, yet the league’s history in both cities should inject caution into these plans. Cleveland’s original franchise, the Rockers, folded in 2003 due to persistently low attendance and financial losses. Meanwhile, Detroit’s prior team—the Shock—enjoyed success on the court with multiple championships but eventually relocated because of broader organizational and market complications.
It is worth questioning whether the WNBA has addressed the structural issues that led to these past failures. Are these expansions predicated on genuine growth in local fanbases and grassroots support, or are they driven by the prestige of associating with established NBA ownership groups? Engaging owners linked to NBA teams can offer operational and marketing benefits, but it risks mirroring the male basketball model without cultivating truly independent momentum for women’s teams. Such an approach may perpetuate a dependency dynamic rather than fostering organic expansion driven by localized, authentic engagement with women’s sports.
The Franchise Fee Bubble and Market Oversaturation
The franchise fee of $250 million per team sets a new benchmark for WNBA ownership stakes, but it’s double-edged. Raising capital requirements might appear to enhance investor quality, but it also risks pricing out smaller, potentially more community-rooted ownership groups. The $250 million figure, coming from an anonymous source, hints at behind-the-scenes negotiations that likely favor wealthy conglomerates and billionaire owners over diverse ownership models.
Furthermore, expanding to 18 teams within five years could oversaturate the market. Women’s professional sports leagues consistently face challenges related to media exposure, broadcast rights, and audience engagement. Adding teams too quickly may dilute talent and reduce competitive balance, leading to a less compelling product. It remains unclear whether the league is prepared to provide enough strategic support—such as investment in player development, marketing infrastructure, and regional fan engagement—to ensure these new franchises thrive sustainably.
Missed Opportunities Beyond the Big Cities
The WNBA’s emphasis on cities with established NBA legacies—Philadelphia, Detroit, and Cleveland—signals a conservative growth strategy. While these markets offer a semblance of “ready-made” fanbases, it simultaneously ignores the potential of emerging basketball hubs and less traditional markets. Cities like Austin, Kansas City, and St. Louis submitted bids but were ultimately passed over. These locales often bring fresh energy, innovative fan culture, and lower operational costs—ingredients crucial for building new sports identities.
Houston, notably, was highlighted as a future candidate for expansion, which is telling. The city has a growing and diverse demographic, plus a strong women’s sports culture. Why not seize this moment to diversify geographically and culturally rather than sticking with what’s familiar? The league’s reluctance to take bolder chances outside established NBA markets feels like a missed opportunity to lead the women’s sports movement with truly revolutionary growth.
Ownership and Its Complex Role
Ownership in this expansion phase is dominated by existing NBA franchise holders or wealthy entertainment groups. Detroit’s WNBA team will be overseen by Tom and Holly Gores, owners of the Detroit Pistons, while Philadelphia’s franchise will be part of Harris Blitzer Sports & Entertainment, which owns the 76ers. This ties women’s teams closely to male-dominated operations, which can bring stability but also risks limiting the autonomy and unique identity of women’s basketball.
This arrangement reinforces concerns about whether the WNBA is developing its own ecosystem or simply extending the NBA’s shadow. For genuine growth, the league needs ownership models that champion the unique narratives and needs of women’s professional sports, including representation from women owners and investors who deeply understand the cultural and financial dynamics of female sports leagues.
The WNBA’s expansion reflects exciting ambivalence—a desire to grow quickly and confidently paired with a cautious approach that sometimes looks to the past rather than boldly charting new territory. Whether this ambitious plan marks a real step forward for women’s basketball or a miscalculated gamble will depend entirely on the league’s willingness to confront its structural challenges head-on and redefine what sustainable growth looks like in women’s professional sports.
