Being a fan of a women’s league means one wants better for that women’s league – and its players.
It means wanting those players to have the best possible accommodations so they can perform at their peak on a consistent basis. It means wanting those players to be paid what they are worth and it means unconditionally supporting said players regardless of if their pronouns are she/her or they/them.
Apparently – some did not get the memo following comments recently made by Angel Reese on her “Unapologetically Angel” podcast.
Reese and DiJonai Carrington are both competing in the Unrivaled League in Miami whose inaugural season is on its way to coming to a close. Carrington – who will wear Dallas Wings volt green and midnight blue this season – was a guest on a recent episode of the podcast. Reese expressed her thoughts on the collective bargaining agreement negotiations that are set to take place following this season.
The WNBPA, unsurprisingly, decided to opt out of the current CBA, meaning the deal will expire following the 2025 season. Reese telegraphed that the players are indeed willing to do what it takes to get what they want in the upcoming CBA talks.
Reese says that she is hearing from a number of players that if the WNBA does not give it what it wants that the players are considering a strike – ala what Major League Baseball players did in 1994 which canceled its World Series. The WNBPA knows it is in a strong position given 2026 is when two new franchises – Toronto and Portland – are set to enter the W’s ranks. If Cathy Engelbert and the WNBA do not want to stunt the momentum in those two markets around those franchises, it will ensure the players get what they want in the CBA negotiations.
One would think that the legion of new fans that have followed a certain former Iowa Hawkeye-turned-Indiana Fever into the W that they would be all in with the idea of a player strike, right?
Right?
Not so much. So many of them have defaulted to the idea of the WNBA being “irrelevant” and that it supposedly hasn’t “turned a profit” in the entire history of the league.
First – let us begin with the obvious. A big reason as to why so many of these individuals are using this framing has nothing to do with the message – but the messenger.
Reese has been unfairly portrayed as a “villain” to the “hero” that is Caitlin Clark – even though Reese, nor Clark, is neither hero nor villain. If Clark were to have said the exact same words on the exact same pod, they would have given No. 22 an “atta-girl.”
Think about this for a second, Reese is indirectly advocating for Clark to get paid more in terms of WNBA salary – and so many who claim to be backers of Clark say it is a problem.
The cold, hard reality of the situation is that this, once again, exposes how the fandom of many of these new folks is more astroturf than the playing surfaces used by several baseball (and football) teams back in the 1980s and 1990s. This is a conversation that many within WNBA circles do not want to truly have because it wants to believe that the wave of new fans are actually fans of the entire sport.
The belief that many of these individuals have is that Clark – and only Clark – is the one who should get paid big bucks and enjoy the spoils of being a world-class professional. This is a view that even Clark herself does not believe. Must we re-up her comments to Time Magazine?
I want to say I’ve earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege.
–Caitlin Clark, Indiana Fever (Time Magazine)
A lot of those players in the league that have been really good have been Black players. This league has been built on them. The more we can appreciate that, highlight that, talk about that, and then continue to have brands and companies invest in those players that have made this league incredible, I think it’s very important. I have to continue to try to change that. The more we can elevate Black women, that’s going to be a beautiful thing.
–Caitlin Clark, Indiana Fever (Time Magazine)
Either they only want Clark to be paid – or they still secretly believe the WNBA is irrelevant and they oppose better conditions for anyone – Clark, Reese, A’ja Wilson, Breanna Stewart, etc. Our guess is that it is some combination of the two – and it does not speak highly on these new supposed “backers” of the women’s game.
The reality is many of these new “backers” of the women’s game have only done so for two reasons – the elevating of white players (which they believe has to occur in tandem with the humbling of Black players) and discrimination against transgender athletes. That, to us, does not sound like fandom. That sounds like a political agenda which goes against the entire concept of women playing sports in the first place.
The same energy that these individuals give in response to players like Reese advocating for better conditions is no different from the energy that used to be given prior to the 1990s to the idea of women even competing in sports to begin with. Women competing in sports was seen as not “ladylike.” It defied gender norms that said women are supposed to be “feminine” and “demure.” In fact, Title IX was even lambasted during the Reagan 1980s as the “Lesbians’ Bill of Rights.”
The message may be different, but the energy is the same – the impeding of real progress within women’s sports along with the idea that women can play sports as long as they still submit to gender norms (put in place by men in the first place).
To them – the ideal women’s athlete fits the mold of an Olivia Dunne, Riley Gaines or Katie Ledecky. They “look” like women in their eyes. Not so much a Courtney Vandersloot or Layshia Clarendon because they do not possess long, flowing hair that looks picturesque in the wind.
The backlash to Reese’s comments has once again revealed an uncomfortable truth about the WNBA’s “surge” in fandom. It revealed, for many, real reasons as to why many only learned that the WNBA existed the nanosecond Clark was drafted into the W.
And that they may have followed Clark into the WNBA sphere reasons that have zero to do with her as a basketball player.
