I don’t like basketball, so keep that in mind as you read this — I am not the target demo for the NBA, let alone the WNBA. That being said, I will watch any sport in the playoffs — games that matter interest me in just about any sport, even if I’m not a fan. The WNBA games I’ve seen, at least in part, were tough to watch. There are a lot of missed shots, bad layups, and bricks from all over the court. It’s not entertaining as a game, but it’s even worse as an event. From the announcers to most of the players, it’s simply a propaganda vehicle for leftist politics.
First off, we have to recognize the reality that there are a lot of players in the league, and very few of them are known to any but the most diehard of fans. Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese (elevated as a foil to Clark), and Sophie Cunningham are names you know because they’re attractive women. Most of the league is not. If that sounds sexist, ask yourself how many women at male professional sports games opine about how “hot” this or that player is, and spare them the indignation; it’s how humans work.
The WNBA also prides itself on being very popular among lesbians, which conforms with my statement above. I don’t care what kind of sex anyone has, but what appeals to lesbians doesn’t appeal to straight women or more men, so their audience is limited.
Clark brought in a larger audience than the league was even capable of understanding, prepared to deal with, or accepting, as evidenced by the fact that the league seems very interested in alienating as much of it as possible. Not sure who decided turning off your new fans was a good idea, but they’re an idiot.
The anti-Clark backlash within the league and the media that cover the WNBA is so clearly based on the fact that she’s white in a majority-black league; it’s almost funny. Instead of laying down the hammer on the racism, the league justified it; brushed it off. When Cunningham, Clark’s teammate, stood up for her, she became a “problem,” too.
Cunningham is attractive and more interested in winning than winning points with the woke — you know, like every other champion athlete is. In a league more used to celebrating its existence more than its accomplishments, that kind of stuff is confusing. How can you both celebrate diversity and accomplishment when they are the opposites of each other?
You can’t, and the league has come down on the side of diversity — in this case, simple existence over merit.
Clark gets beaten on the court, and Cunningham gets beaten in the media. Coaches attack her for daring to state the obvious: men and women are different.
Cunningham makes her living in women’s sports, got her education paid for through her skills in women’s sports, formed her character and friendships through women’s sports; it only makes sense that she would like to see women’s sports continue. As the father of two young girls, so would I.
That’s not allowed when “diversity” is the priority; it’s too much like merit.
The coach of the Minnesota team gave what ESPN’s announcers described as “thoughtful” commentary on the idea that women’s sports should be for women when she said, “Number one, we need to protect trans kids. Every kid, to me, it’s a human rights issue. Every kid has a right to sports, regardless of…gender-diverse or transgender; every kid has a right to access. What gets nuanced is when you’re beyond puberty, when you’re Olympic sports, when you’re, you know, scholarships, and that sort of thing. That is where I say common-sense people get together, find common ground, to find a way to be inclusive. The answer isn’t ‘no.’”
On first blush, that seems accommodating, doesn’t it? But it’s not. Why is protecting certain kinds of kids more important than other kids? Because the Left cares about some people more than others? No. If that were the case, Democrats would be all in for treating gender dysphoria, as indulging it leads to more suicides and attempts than any leftist is willing to admit.
No, these kids are pawns — social contagion victims with leftist parents who see virtue signaling points of having a “trans kid” as a status symbol or have been scared into thinking indulgence is the only way to keep their kid alive. The WNBA is on that team. Perhaps they should change the name of the league to TWNBA before it becomes an issue.
Whatever they do, they will continue to alienate potential fans, including my daughters, because they are being shoved aside for a political agenda. Democrats put politics first, anything else a distant second. Since the league is subsidized by the NBA, they can afford to be a tool of the Left. But sooner or later, if they continue down this path, someone will form a league that is about competition among the best female athletes in the world and nothing else — maybe Elon Musk could start it, just for fun, and watch how the best players who simply want to play without the hate and preaching flock to it.
Whatever the case, the WNBA will continue to underperform and flounder as a league whose household names are players the league resents. No league can thrive when it holds its stars in contempt. Good thing the WNBA doesn’t deserve to thrive.
Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, "Outrage, INC.," which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F***ing Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on X at @DerekAHunter.