On a recent episode of A Touch More podcast, Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe discussed the WNBA’s struggle with racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination — as well as the media’s role in addressing it and responsibly covering it. It’s a nuanced conversation worth watching, and one that dives into a number of timely issues related to the WNBA.
Most recently, USA Today columnist Christine Brennan came under fire for a line of questioning that included asking Connecticut Sun guard DiJonai Carrington whether she intentionally hurt Caitlin Clark, and whether she and teammate Marina Mabrey were later laughing about the incident. That exchange came after Carrington had received an influx of online hate after seemingly inadvertently poking Clark in the eye in Game of the 1 first one of the playoffs — and the questions were positioned in a fashion that mean perceived as accusatory.
I asked DiJonai Carrington about that moment early in Sunday’s Indiana-Connecticut game when she caught Caitlin Clark in the eye. Here’s her answer: pic.twitter.com/DnQVYi0r6J
— Christine Brennan (@cbrennansports) September 24, 2024
In response, the WNBA Players Union put out a statement admonishing Brennan’s line of questioning:
“To unprofessional members of the media like Christine Brennan: You are not fooling anyone. That so-called interview in the name of journalism was a blatant attempt to bait a professional athlete into participating in a narrative that is false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol on social media.”
Bird and Rapinoe dove into the exchange between Brennan and Carrington, as well as a number of other issues, on their show, making a number of salient points, including:
Disputing the idea that WNBA players are intentionally targeting Caitlin Clark
Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe weighed in on the notion that WNBA players have been targeting and trying to hurt Caitlin Clark in her first year in the WNBA, noting that a handful of moments/comments have been used to generalize the entire league’s treatment of her.
Bird acknowledged that the same type of generalization wouldn’t be used in the men’s game — there have been many instances of NBA players committing hard or flagrant fouls that haven’t then influenced the way the the entire league’s treatment has been perceived.
“What you see in men’s sports at times, and I’ll use examples — like Dillon Brooks and Draymond Green,” Bird said. “It’s not to call them out in any specific way, other than, they’ve had moments with players.”
Rejecting the notion that it’s ‘Indiana Fever fans’ or ‘Caitlin Clark fans’ who are racist
In high-profile instances of Black players fouling Caitlin Clark — whether DiJonai Carrington, Chennedy Carter, or Diamond DeShields — they’ve been met with a lot of online vitriol and racism. In turn, some have maintained that Caitlin Clark fans, and Indiana Fever fans, are racist as a whole.
It’s a notion that Sun star Alyssa Thomas referenced after the Sun defeated the Fever in the first round of the WNBA playoffs, and it’s one that several players and many fans have expressed this season.
“I think in my 11-year career, I’ve never experienced the racial comments (like) from the Indiana Fever fanbase… it’s unacceptable, honestly, and there’s no place for it,” said Alyssa Thomas. “We’ve been professional throughout the whole entire thing, but I never been called the things that I’ve been called on social media, and there’s no place for it.”
Sue Bird expressed her belief that it’s not the entire Fever fanbase that behaves in such a fashion, rather individuals who have acted as fans in order to push racist agendas.
“That actually has to go,” Bird said the idea that Fever fans are largely viewed as racist. “I understand why, at times, it has been used. It’s kind of just when you’re in an interview and you get asked a question, it’s kind of easy to go, ‘Oh, the Fever fanbase. Oh, these Caitlin fans. Oh, these new fans.’ It has to go.
“Because it’s not the Fever fans. It’s not the Caitlin fans. It is a large group of people… and what we’re talking about, as we get into the meat of this, we’re talking about the faction of that group that is pushing racist agendas, and is pushing hate, and creating divisiveness online acting as fans, acting as Fever fans, acting as Caitlin fans.”
Criticizing the WNBA and League Office for a failure to protect players
WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert was asked last month about some of the online vitriol players have faced in the wake of the Caitlin Clark — Angel Reese rivalry, giving her a perfect opportunity to reject the racism and homophobia.
Instead, Engelbert celebrated the financial benefits that have accompanied the league’s growth, and in particular, the rivalry between Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark.
“But the one thing I know about sports, you need rivalry,” Englebert said in the CNBC interview. “That’s what makes people watch. They want to watch games of consequence between rivals. They don’t want everybody being nice to one another.”
The WNBPA called out Engelbert response (or lack thereof).
“Here is the answer that the Commissioner should have provided to the very clear question regarding the racism, misogyny, and harassment experienced by the Players,” read the statement by WNBPA executive director Terri Carmichael Jackson. “There is absolutely no place in sport — or in life — for the vile hate, racist language, homophobic comments, and the misogynistic attacks our players are facing on social media.”
On “A Touch More”, Bird weighed in on the league’s inaction this season.
“The WNBA and league office, and Cathy’s role specifically, is basically to protect and shepherd the league both from a business perspective, from a player welfare perspective, from a health and safety perspective, and from a growth and investment perspective. And this is where I feel like she failed.”
Besides for those, Bird and Rapinoe discussed a number of other issues in depth, including diving into whether players are responsible for speaking out on these issues, what the role of the media is, and more.
Sometimes, podcast episodes can be easily clipped and summarized in order to highlight their most salient points. But in this case, the issue is so complex and multi-layered, that the entire episode is worth watching in full.
