Darren Rovell Caitlin Clark CNBC Screen grab: CNBC
By Ben Axelrod on

The start of Caitlin Clark’s WNBA career has included plenty of discussion regarding her salary in the league.

That has included comments from Darren Rovell, who can’t seem to let go of the idea that the two-time National Player of the Year would have made more money by staying at Iowa for another season.

For the uninitiated, Rovell took his initial stance after Clark first declared for the WNBA Draft in February, stating that the headline for the story should be “Caitlin Clark chooses a $750,000 paycut.” Rovell’s primary point seems to be that considering the WNBA’s relatively modest salaries, the 22-year-old would have made more money by staying at Iowa — which she could have done thanks to a COVID-19 waiver — and making money via NIL.

Many were quick to point out that NIL deals are merely endorsement deals, which Clark will continue to receive plenty of — in addition to her WNBA salary — throughout her professional career. That came to fruition after Clark signed an eight-figure shoe deal with Nike just days after being drafted by the Indiana Fever.

But lest you think the four-time All-American’s increase in fame and massive payday after being the #1 overall pick in the WNBA Draft did anything to change Rovell’s mind, the longtime sports business reporter is only doubling down.

“Say it with me now. Nike would have given her the same deal at Iowa!” Rovell wrote in response to the news of Clark’s massive new endorsement deal. “Do we not get it yet?”

I don’t think we do.

Considering that Clark had also signed an NIL deal with Nike during her Iowa days, we have a pretty good idea of what the company would have been willing to pay her as a college star vs. as a WNBA star. And while her profile has risen dramatically since Nike first signed her to an NIL deal in 2022, it’s not as if she was an unknown at the time. Clearly, Nike is confident enough in the exposure she’ll receive in the WNBA to make a significant financial commitment to her and there will surely be plenty of other brands that follow suit.

It’s also worth noting that most NIL regulations prevent athletes from signing with brands that compete against their schools. As such, Clark realistically only could have signed a shoe deal with Nike at Iowa, thus eliminating her negotiating leverage, while jumping to the WNBA allowed her to receive competing offers from the likes of Adidas and Under Armour.

Rovell’s primary thesis appears to be that because women’s college basketball is generally more popular than the WNBA, Clark would have received more exposure — and thus, more endorsement deals — by remaining at Iowa. That makes sense, in theory. But it also ignores that Clark is a unicorn whose A-list status transcends traditional exposure expectations. And it’s also worth wondering whether yet another year at the college level might have had diminishing returns.

Rovell’s argument has only gotten weaker since he first made it nearly two months ago, which makes it extra curious that he continues to double down. Perhaps the best response to Rovell actually came from Rovell, himself, as he replied to someone asking him why Nike didn’t offer Clark an eight-figure contract when she was still at Iowa.

“She’s a different level now,” Rovell replied. “Now they have to give her her own shoe.”

Exactly.

Do we not get it yet?

About Ben Axelrod

Ben Axelrod is a veteran of the sports media landscape, having most recently worked for NBC's Cleveland affiliate, WKYC. Prior to his time in Cleveland, he covered Ohio State football and the Big Ten for outlets including Cox Media Group, Bleacher Report, Scout and Rivals.

View all posts by Ben Axelrod