Yesterday, I made a video about Time Magazine’s Women of the Year list, which included A’ja Wilson. The list features 12 women who are considered to be influential and making a difference in society. However, what has me wondering is: Why isn’t Caitlin Clark on the list?
In terms of impact on women’s sports, Caitlin Clark is undoubtedly one of the most impactful people of the past year. She was instrumental in helping the WNBA attract record attendance, increase revenue, and increase public interest in women’s basketball.
Clark’s omission from the Women of the Year list is puzzling, especially since she was previously named Time Magazine’s “Athlete of the Year.” If an athlete is so influential that she deserves such a prestigious honor, why wouldn’t she be eligible for inclusion on Time Magazine’s list of the most influential women?
Time Magazine explains that its Women of the Year list honors individuals who demonstrate “visionary leadership” and “inspire global change.” If so, isn’t Caitlin Clark the perfect example of this? She helped elevate the status of women’s basketball, inspired millions of young girls to pursue their passion for the sport, and is a major reason why the WNBA is more popular than ever.
It seems Clark was left off the list for reasons unrelated to her athletic achievements. Did she not fit some of Time Magazine’s unofficial criteria? Meanwhile, A’ja Wilson—a great player but not as influential as Clark—was included. No one can deny Wilson’s talent, but in terms of the changes they brought to the WNBA, Clark was clearly the one who made the bigger impact.
The question is: If the WNBA didn’t have Caitlin Clark, would the league be as popular as it is today? Many basketball fans have started to care about the WNBA because of Clark.
The league’s significant increase in attendance, revenue, and media coverage can be largely attributed to her. Some even ask: If Caitlin Clark wasn’t there, would the public really know A’ja Wilson or Angel Reese as much as they do today?
Additionally, some fans believe that Clark was treated unfairly not only on this list, but also on the court. Throughout the season, she was subjected to more rough contact than she should have.
Many of Clark’s hard contact situations were even called “assault” rather than sports. From shoulder-butts to shoves to dangerous fouls, there seems to be a certain bias towards how she was treated on the field.
Ultimately, if Time truly wants to honor those who have had a major impact on women and women’s sports, then not including Caitlin Clark on this list is a huge omission. What do you think? Was she treated unfairly? Share your thoughts!
