WNBA: Don’t expect new draft eligibility rules any time soon—here’s why

Earlier this week, Josh Felton mapped out the best-case 2025 WNBA Draft scenarios for the four lottery teams. Well, those were the realistic best-case scenarios.

Would the opportunity to draft USC’s JuJu Watkins, Notre Dame’s Hannah Hidalgo or Texas’ Madison Booker, all of whom are sophomores, be the best-case scenario for some of those teams? For Los Angeles Sparks fans, the sting of missing out on the No. 1 pick for the second-straight season certainly would be alleviated if the LA-born Watkins was to wear purple and gold. Likewise, Hidalgo would be the perfect solve for the Sky’s needs at No. 3: a point guard who is scoring and shooting threat.

Such scenarios are, of course, impossible, as the WNBA requires US-born prospects to turn 22 before Dec. 31 of the year of the draft, graduate from a four-year college within three months of the draft or be four years removed from their high school graduation. So while some older juniors have entered the draft early, such as Jewell Loyd in 2015 or Jackie Young in 2019, most prospects participate in four seasons (or more) of college basketball before entering the draft.

With a new CBA set to be negotiated after the 2025 season, could the WNBA and WNBPA agree to new draft eligibility rules? Don’t count on it. The incentives of the various stakeholders—the WNBPA, WNBA and NCAA players themselves—suggest a one-and-done rule, or something of that sort, is unlikely to come to the WNBA. Here are the reasons why:

The WNBPA wants to protect vets’ jobs

The priority of a union is to protect its members’ interests, and college prospects not only are not members, but they’re also likely to take members’ jobs. And even as the league is set to expand from 144 to 156, and, soon after that, to 168 and 180, WNBA opportunities will remain scarce. The union has no interest in seeing an invasion of youngsters (although they’ll be happy to fight for all of them once they join the league on the traditional timeline).

How bad does the WNBA want more “iconic rivalries”?

Compared to the union, the league stakeholders, consisting of the Commissioner’s office and team owners, are more likely to be interested in lowering the barrier for entry for college prospects, whether that means requiring one or two years of college, or even permitting players to jump straight to the league from high school.

WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert got the job because of her background in business and throughout her tenure, she has focused on what she has deemed good for the league’s growth, from attracting investors to increasing marketing partnerships to helping the league tick off other traditional markers of corporate success. An influx of young players with already-devoted fan bases certainly could cultivate the kind of “iconic rivalries” the Commissioner craves, while also appealing to increasingly-competitive ownership groups interested in seeing their teams sell out arenas and receive more national television games.

However, even as social media increasingly allows prep ballers to establish individual brands, college basketball serves as a stronger incubator for and indicator of future success, both on and off the court. While young players always intrigue, teams, and the league, want guarantees. The college ranks are where promising, young phenoms who may garner thousands of likes on social media posts prove that they are bona fide box-office stars who can attract millions of eyeballs.

Furthermore, even as player evaluation remains an imperfect science, four years of college-based evidence gives teams the sense of confidence they want when investing significant organizational capital—developmental, marketing, emotional and more—into a prospect.

College basketball is for brand building

The brand-building function of college basketball isn’t just valuable for WNBA organizations evaluating prospects. It’s also essential for the prospects themselves. American sports culture increasingly is defined by transactions and transiency, where (mostly male) athletes at the college and pro levels jump from team to team, seeking to maximize their earning and/or winning potentials.

In this landscape, the relative stability of women’s college basketball stands out. Despite the lure of the transfer portal, most top players have opted to spend their college tenure at one institution, allowing them, in turn, to become familiar faces who inspire the devotion of fans. This dynamic, in part, helped to fuel the Caitlin Clark Effect. And it’s fueling the love for Watkins, Paige Bueckers and other transcendent talents. Even Angel Reese’s two seasons at LSU offered a greater sense of familiarity than is now the norm in the men’s game.

And while its misguided to suggest players’ earning power will be reduced when they jump to the WNBA, four years in college basketball provides them an opportunity to establish a portfolio, which they then can build on in the WNBA. It’s a four-year process, where a patient path to the pros promises a greater payoff.

Watkins, for example, has accumulated a collection of high-profile endorsements, which should only expand in number and increase in value as she completes her career at USC and then enters the WNBA in 2027. Even though it would be fun to see her jump from the Galen Center to Crypto.com Arena before then, continuing to tear up the record books and, quite possibly, bring a title to Southern Cal for the first time since 1984, will only increase her popularity and marketability, creating a JuJu Effect that’s ready to explode by the time she eventually enters the W.