After 10 months and 20 bargaining sessions—not to mention almost a decade of fighting for its members’ living wages—it seemed the National Women’s Soccer League Players Association had reached an agreement with the league that placed player agency front and center. But when international demand for a superstar put pressure on the collectively bargained salary cap, the league didn’t return to the bargaining table. It moved the goalposts, unilaterally implementing a new rule that gave itself control over superstar compensation. The players pushed back hard and, in a settlement announced this week, secured a second victory for player agency. This victory extends beyond individual players’ control over their careers and to their say in shaping the league itself.

A New CBA

On July 30, 2024, the National Women’s Soccer League (“NWSL”) and its players’ association (“NWSLPA”) ratified a new CBA hailed as “one of the most progressive, pro-player labor pacts in the history of U.S. women’s sports.” The deal’s provisions are sweeping: higher minimum salaries; revenue sharing; benefits ranging from mental-health care to family-building support; and increased investment in staffing and facilities.

But what set the CBA apart is its emphasis on player agency. Upon its ratification, the NWSL became the first major American professional sports league to abolish a hallmark of professional sports: the draft. Rather than being selected by teams, young players can now choose among teams willing to sign them. Player empowerment doesn’t stop at league entrance: unrestricted free agency allows players to negotiate with any team when their contract expires, and teams may no longer trade players without their consent.

It’s hard to overstate the leap this represented from the plenary power NWSL clubs previously exercised over players’ careers. As Gotham FC forward Ella Stevens put it: “more power in the player’s hands and the ability to have more say about where you’re going to be in your future, . . .  it’s huge.”

The Rodman Test

Unfortunately, the course of player agency never did run smooth. Enter Trinity Rodman. Drafted by the Washington Spirit in 2021, Rodman promptly became the youngest player to score in NWSL history and led the Spirit to their first championship. The next year, she signed a contract making her the league’s highest-paid player.

Rodman quickly became the face of the Spirit franchise and, increasingly, the NWSL itself. With her contract expiring in 2025, Spirit owner Michelle Kang vowed the team “w[ould] do everything in our power” to keep Rodman. This was no small ask: offers from European clubs allegedly exceeded the NWSL’s 2025 team salary cap of $3.5 million. But the new CBA provided for annual cap increases to $4.9 million by 2029, which the Spirit harnessed to offer Rodman a backloaded four-year deal with annual compensation averaging an NWSL-record $1 million, all within the terms of the CBA.

Or so the Spirit thought. In a shocking turn of events, the NWSL vetoed the offer, claiming it violated the “spirit” of the league’s competition rules and constituted “salary cap circumvention.” The NWSLPA filed a grievance on Rodman’s behalf, arguing the veto constituted a “flagrant violation” of her free agency rights and of five CBA sections.

Then the plot thickened. Less than a month after the grievance, the league announced the creation of the High Impact Player Rule (“HIPR”). Under the so-dubbed “Rodman Rule,” teams could spend up to $1 million over the salary cap—but only on players who met one of the commercial and sporting criteria established by the NWSL board. The NWSLPA, maintaining the rule exceeded the league’s authority, filed a second grievance.

Much of the dispute centered on Section 8.16 of the CBA, which provides: “NWSL may in its discretion, after consultation with the NWSLPA, reduce or eliminate the Salary Cap charge against the Team Salary Cap for certain roster classifications.” In announcing the HIPR, the NWSL deemed it a “roster classification” (which the CBA does not define) and thus as an open-and-shut exercise of its discretion.

The NWSLPA disagreed. “The HIPR is not a roster classification,” said Meghann Burke, its Executive Director; “it is a rule about player compensation . . . this is all about wages.” And as a player compensation rule, the argument goes, it is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under both the CBA and federal labor law, not a matter of “unilateral discretion.”

Who Decides?

Beneath such formalistic arguments lays an evergreen question in sports labor law: how to handle superstars. Sports are team enterprises, but “stars sell tickets.” Athletes like Rodman wield extraordinary individual bargaining power—her threatened departure prompted a league-wide restructuring—and may need collective bargaining least. Yet the union’s bargaining power is greatly augmented by retaining these stars. Indeed, the NWSLPA’s counterproposal to the HIPR was a universal $1 million salary cap increase: a rising Rodman tide would have raised all ships. The league, too, benefits from keeping the stars, but also from separating them from the collective, achieved by exploiting the distinction between star and rank-and-file interests.

Professional women’s sports leagues have handled the star-power question differently. The Professional Women’s Hockey League, for example, imposes no individual salary cap, whereas the Women’s National Basketball Association has both individual and team caps, with higher salary levels available to elite performers and veterans. These configurations have advantages and drawbacks, and can be debated at length. But the more important point is that they were debated: they are enshrined in their respective CBAs, reflecting compromises to which unions agreed. The HIPR, by contrast, is what Burke described as an end run around the CBA: “a parallel pay system outside the salary cap that was never negotiated.”

Importantly, the HIPR is more than a compensation system: it is a rule about the definition and direction of the league. And in filing its second grievance, the NWSLPA joined a chorus of unions and workers seeking a greater voice in decisions determining the direction of the enterprises to which they contribute—a demand they argue falls within their employers’ duty to bargain, and benefits workers and employers alike.

A Settlement

On October 23, 2026, the NWSL and NWSLPA announced a wide-ranging settlement resolving both HIPR-related grievances and four others. The headlines make clear who came out on top: “NWSL dropping ‘Rodman rule’ restrictions.” Starting in 2027, any player earning at least 12% of the base salary cap can now qualify as a HIP.

True, the league retains the power to limit the number of HIPs per club. But Burke was unequivocal in framing the settlement as a vindication of player agency, calling it “evidence of the NWSLPA’s strength and commitment to enforcing the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.” And it is clear why: the NWSLPA’s central demand for equal eligibility was vindicated, with every player now eligible for a seven-figure salary. Thus, having secured greater control over their individual careers in 2024, the union and its players have again demonstrated their power, this time to shape the league as a whole. The saga is a powerful reminder that players will not be sidelined when it comes to deciding the future of their sport in the U.S.