The league and the union failed to agree to a new collective bargaining agreement or another extension on January 9. Yet, they agreed to a crucial decision.

As a next step in the negotiating process, they’ve agreed to a moratorium on the upcoming free agency. Now, no free agency will take place until the two parties agree to a new transformative deal.

The idea of CBA negotiations had been floating since Friday. The league even told front offices to prepare to extend qualifying offers and core designations under the current contract.

The teams, under U.S. labor laws, would have been obligated to carry out these procedural events. But understandably, the players wouldn’t have accepted the offers. Now, the moratorium extends to all free agency activities, including the qualifying period of January 21 and the signing period of February 1.

Teams like Indiana will be waiting until a new CBA deal is reached to send out any qualifying offers or negotiate with free agents. However, they can still strategize certain processes. They can send offers to restricted free agents and core qualifying offers to players like Kelsey Mitchell, assuming the core rules won’t change.

Teams would also have to prepare for the expansion draft for Toronto Tempo and Portland Fire, as it would affect the remaining 13 teams. However, no one knows the rules of the expansion draft yet, as these are largely governed by the CBA.

Will a New CBA Be Done Before the Delayed Season?

Both the league and the union are negotiating in good faith to get a deal done soon. Despite the previous deal having expired, both parties have entered a status quo period. Now, the working conditions of the current CBA will be maintained while the two parties continue negotiations.

However, the league can still call a lockout, and players can still call a strike without any prior notice. So far, the league has proposed a system where players receive 70% of the net revenues over the course of the agreement. They’ve also increased maximum salaries above $1.3 million, growing to $2 million.

The players’ association, however, has proposed a salary cap closer to $10.5 million and a revenue share of 30% of gross revenue. According to the league, agreeing to this offer would put the league at a $700 million loss over the course of the agreement.

The union has pushed back, arguing that these are inaccurate estimates and that meeting their demands would still put the league in a stronger position. So here’s where both parties are stuck. What do you think? Will they be able to come up with common ground?

Written by

Yashika Dutta

Edited by

Joyita Das