A major issue with the discussions of Caitlin Clark’s WNBA rookie season and some of the controversies that have popped up there has been around people viewing those without context of the league as a whole or women’s sports as a whole. That’s led to some of the most absurd takes, such as the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune likening Chennedy Carter’s foul on Clark to “assault” (and getting that take mocked by members of their sports staff).
Clark herself discussed some of that after Sunday’s game. There, her Indiana Fever beat the Carter- and Angel Reese-led Chicago Sky 91-83 in a highly-anticipated matchup nationally televised on ABC. And afterwards, Clark had a thoughtful comment on why there’s been so much interest in her facing off against her old college adversary, Reese. Here’s that, via Talia Goodman:
Caitlin Clark on what draws viewers to herself + Angel Reese:
“I think it’s just the emotion and the passion that we play with. I think people love to see that and I think that’s maybe not something that was always appreciated in womens sports.” pic.twitter.com/bIJqBIsLKA
— Talia Goodman (@TaliaGoodmanWBB) June 16, 2024
There are a few notable things there. One is Clark recognizing that there’s absolutely been emotion and passion in the WNBA before her, but that it hasn’t maybe necessarily been recognized, discussed, or appreciated the same way it currently is. Another is the overall discussion of emotion and passion in women’s sports. Filmmaker Kristen Lappas, who helmed the Full Court Press docuseries following Clark, Kamilla Cardoso (now also with the Sky, and facing Clark for the first time in the WNBA ranks Sunday), and Kiki Rice, spoke to AA about that last month:
“I think women’s sports is kind of painted always as female empowerment, like we’re all friends, and we’re all content, and nothing goes wrong, and there’s zero conflict.
“That’s just kind of my guiding light in all of the storytelling that I do personally. I do a lot of documentary filmmaking on women’s sports, and it’s just pushing to make sure that people understand that it’s as intense. They are cursing in the locker room, their coaches are reaming them out when they do something wrong, there’s conflicting personalities, teammates are not always best friends.”
And that speaks to some of the larger current discourse around Clark in particular, including the decision to not pick her for the U.S. Olympic women’s basketball team. A lot of the folly there has been in incorporating discussions of “marketing” when that’s something the selection committee specifically said they didn’t consider (and nor should they have).
There’s been a large desire to treat Clark as bigger than the sport. And while that’s true from a viewership perspective to date, national organizations or leagues making decisions based on that would create more problems than it would solve.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with viewers wanting to tune in to see Clark against Reese, or Clark against established WNBA veterans. Clark moves the viewership needle in a way no one else does for now. And while her on-court impact is far from the top in the WNBA at the moment, she’s been an effective star for the Fever. And she may yet grow into an uncontested overall WNBA star. And yes, absolutely, some of that “emotion and passion” with her and Reese is a reason people are watching these games in particular.
But Clark is also right to spotlight that none of that is new or exclusive to her. Her debut in the WNBA after a record-shattering NCAA career has many more people looking at the league. But it doesn’t wipe out the history of the league before her.
And there’s also an element to note here with “not something that was always appreciated in women’s sports.” That ties into Lappas’ comments above. There’s long been a sense amongst some that women’s sports don’t deserve to be covered with the fervor of men’s sports coverage, or that it’s somehow diminishing for women to have the same kinds of personality conflicts and on-court rivalries we’ve long seen with men. And that’s just not accurate, and it’s refreshing to see Clark take some of that on.
There’s also a worthwhile discussion to be had in why the media world can’t let Clark-WNBA stories just stay where they are. The microscope on Clark’s clashes with the Sky in particular feels too strong. And comments like Reese’s referee criticism after this game would be fine as a comment from male athletes complaining about officiating in a particular game, but seem likely to blow up beyond that given the ongoing state of WNBA discussion.
At the moment, the Clark discourse has absolutely broken out of containment. With anything she says or does, there are a million people eager to weigh in on overall implications that are only vaguely connected to her. But it is good to note that Clark herself both recognizes some of what’s going on here, and also recognizes that it’s perhaps unfortunate that there wasn’t this much attention paid to WNBA “emotion and passion” before her. And it is also positive that some of that “emotion and passion” is now recognized, even if we got there in a strange way.
[Talia Goodman on X/Twitter]
