Caitlin Clark: Why Is the WNBA Trying to Hold Back Its Brightest Star?
What if Caitlin Clark was never meant to shine in the WNBA? What if her challenges extended beyond defenders on the court, to powerful forces behind the scenes determined to dim her spotlight? Now, the truth is coming to light—and it all begins with a familiar name: Sue Bird.
In the June 27th episode of her podcast Bird’s Eye View, the WNBA legend—two-time Olympic gold medalist and four-time league champion—suddenly shifted from insightful veteran commentary to a full-on exposé.
Instead of merely praising Clark’s phenomenal achievements—like averaging 31 points per game, her record-breaking 36-point performance on June 5th, and singlehandedly boosting WNBA viewership by 240%—Bird focused on how the league was managing Clark’s image behind closed doors.
She cited internal PR memos from the WNBA that described Clark’s supporters as “overzealous troublemakers” and urged broadcasters to reduce airtime about her. Phrases like “limit Caitlin segments,” “focus on broader league storylines,” and “avoid excessive rookie hype” revealed a calculated effort to downplay Clark’s rising stardom.
But Bird didn’t stop there. She revealed that during an off-camera meeting, a high-ranking league executive bluntly asked:
“Can we use the race angle to boost mid-season ratings?”
Bird said she was speechless at the suggestion.
This bias became even clearer when comparing Clark’s treatment to veterans like Diana Taurasi. On May 18th, Clark received a technical foul merely for slapping the backboard in frustration after a missed shot—without any prior warning or preliminary whistle. Meanwhile, Taurasi had once screamed at a referee, hurled her warmup jacket across the court, and unleashed a torrent of expletives, only to receive a simple verbal warning.
Social media quickly exploded with video clips showing Clark getting hacked on drives to the basket—no whistle blown—while other star players either benefited from leniency or saw similar plays called as flagrant fouls.
A league memo dated May 10th, circulated to referees, instructed officials to:
“Increase enforcement of unsportsmanlike conduct among rookies to maintain professional decorum.”
Then came the bombshell. During a June 10th CNBC interview, WNBA Commissioner Kathy Engelbert openly praised the “white versus Black” contrast between Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, highlighting Clark’s precision shooting and Reese’s relentless rebounding—and explicitly citing skin tone as a marketing hook. A leaked internal document revealed plans to “craft subtle racial tension” to drive media engagement.
The public reaction was swift and furious. Players, former NBA stars, and social justice groups condemned the WNBA for reducing two incredible athletes to racial pawns. Both Clark and Reese pushed back, stating:
“We’re athletes first. Our skin color isn’t the storyline.”
The scrutiny quickly shifted to Clark’s fans, labeled as “toxic.” Any time racist or misogynistic comments were directed at Clark online, WNBA spokespeople were quick to blame “overzealous fans” and advised players to simply avoid social media.
Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe strongly criticized that stance as a cowardly evasion of responsibility:
“You can’t wish racism away. You have to confront it directly.”
Meanwhile, Clark’s supporters kept showing up in droves. Ticket revenue rose 85% year-over-year, average attendance per game surged from 7,500 to over 13,800, and Clark’s No. 22 jersey was selling out nationwide. ESPN and Amazon signed a record-shattering $2 billion broadcast deal, citing Clark as the primary driver of the WNBA’s exploding popularity.
Yet behind closed doors, the league was torn between two strategies. A leaked May 2nd memo outlined two options:
- Option A: Go all-in on Clark with exclusive interviews, social media campaigns, and prominent pregame features.
- Option B: Return to tried-and-true tactics—emphasize drama, technical fouls, rivalries, and veteran comebacks.
A May 15th executive meeting revealed deep division:
“We can’t ignore the cash cow,” said one VP.
“But fans won’t stick around long-term for drama alone,” countered another.
The result was a season marred by questionable technicals, racially charged promos, and sensational headlines overshadowing Clark’s authentic brilliance. According to a poll, 42% of WNBA season-ticket holders felt the league was exploiting controversy instead of celebrating its players.
Then, Sue Bird spoke up. She wasn’t just speaking about Clark—she was speaking for an entire generation of young athletes who risk being sacrificed for short-term marketing gains. The pressing question now is:
Will we accept a WNBA afraid of its own stars? Or will we demand leadership that celebrates talent, confronts bias, and builds a future where every athlete, regardless of tenure or background, can shine on her own terms?
