​This WNBA season has been dominated by headlines centered on Indiana Fever star Caitlin Clark. The coverage has followed her emotional moments, on-court struggles, clutch game-winners, and the way she’s officiated and defended. Among the most talked-about takes was a former Fox Sports analyst’s assertion that the league would be better off without her. “The W, at this junction in time, would be better without Caitlin Clark, because she is a bigger distraction than she is an additive,” he said on his Speakeasy show. “Caitlin Clark has gotten the WNBA over the necessary threshold they needed. Now people are watching. Now we realize, oh, there’s talent in the W — talent that’s actually even greater than Caitlin Clark… Caitlin got the necessary eyes there. But now that the eyes are there, we don’t necessarily need her anymore.”
On Friday, Stephen A. Smith weighed in to dismiss the take, calling it “absolutely, positively insane.” He argued that Clark is “the cash cow” for the league, asserting that no matter what numbers are reported, they pale in comparison to the audience she draws for the WNBA. Smith noted the dramatic shift in travel logistics that accompanied her arrival, recalling that chartered flights became standard for the league soon after she joined, a sign, in his view, of the immense attention she generates.
Yet Smith also made a point to honor the women who paved the way before Clark, particularly women of color who laid the foundation for the WNBA. He cited legendary figures such as Cynthia Cooper, Sheryl Swoopes, Lisa Leslie, and Maya Moore, emphasizing that the league’s evolution was built on the work of many players who came before Clark. He acknowledged the contributions of white pioneers as well, including Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, and Breanna Stewart, while insisting on the broader historical context that has shaped the league.
Smith did not shy away from a candid reality, highlighting ongoing disparities in recognition and opportunity. He stated, consistently, that the experience of Black athletes has often lagged behind their white counterparts. He said that the inequities persist in ways that are “uncomfortable” to talk about but are necessary to acknowledge: when white athletes catch a cold, Black athletes tend to catch pneumonia, a reminder that the recognition and advancement of Black players have historically faced greater obstacles, even as the sport grows and gains visibility.
This discussion and the surrounding commentary have sparked conversations about how the WNBA’s visibility is tied to its brightest stars, how fans perceive the league’s progress, and how credit for the sport’s growth should be shared among all the players who have contributed to its development. The debate also underscores the enduring importance of honoring the league’s trailblazers, whose impact remains foundational even as new faces capture the national spotlight.
Overall, the discourse around Caitlin Clark’s influence on the WNBA, Stephen A. Smith’s response, and the broader acknowledgement of Black women’s contributions presents a multifaceted portrait of a league at a crossroads. It’s a reminder that the WNBA’s ascent has been built not only on the star power of today’s players but also on the rich, collective legacy of the women who helped establish the league’s presence, credibility, and enduring appeal. This ongoing narrative continues to shape how fans, analysts, and stakeholders understand the sport’s growth and the responsibilities that come with it. The Comeback will continue to follow these developments as the season unfolds and as audiences reflect on the past, present, and future of the WNBA.