When the WNBA’s biggest stars collide with the league’s biggest controversies, the fallout is as shocking as it is revealing. Napheesa Collier’s official exit from the WNBA has exposed a firestorm of hypocrisy, opportunism, and raw tension surrounding Caitlyn Clark, the player carrying the league on her back.
The WNBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations have long struggled to grab mainstream attention, overshadowed by the NBA’s gambling scandal that dominated headlines in 2024.
But when Collier decided to go public, she pulled out a name guaranteed to make waves: Caitlyn Clark. Suddenly, the conversation wasn’t just about contracts—it was about Clark’s unprecedented influence on the league, the money she generates, and the glaring pay disparity.
During her September exit interview, Collier dropped a bombshell: she claimed Commissioner Kathy Angelbert had told her earlier that Clark should be grateful for making $16 million off the court, implying the WNBA platform was her only source of income. The quote ignited controversy, though no recordings or witnesses exist to corroborate it. While Angelbert’s track record suggests tone-deaf decisions aren’t impossible, the timing and usage of the claim raised eyebrows about Collier’s motives.
Collier’s concerns weren’t just abstract. In an October Glamour magazine interview, she stated, “We are being so grossly almost taken advantage of, it should be illegal. The amount of money Caitlyn Clark has made for the league is insane, and she gets 0% because there’s no revenue share. She makes less than $80,000 while bringing in hundreds of millions
.” These statements underscore a shocking disparity: Clark is the driving engine behind massive TV deals, attendance spikes, merchandise sales, and social media engagement, yet her salary remains minuscule by comparison.
On the surface, Collier’s points are accurate and raise serious questions about league equity. But fans and insiders quickly noticed an uncomfortable hypocrisy.
Where was this advocacy during Clark’s brutal rookie season in 2024, when she was physically targeted night after night—elbows to the face, clotheslines, and body checks that would have led to suspensions for anyone else? Collier and many other players were silent, only surfacing once Clark’s fame became leverage in CBA negotiations.
The WNBA’s new media rights deal, valued at over $2 billion, is largely credited to Clark’s popularity. She has turned casual viewers into fans and made headline news in ways no other player has. Yet, resentment has simmered among other players, who spent the past season undermining her, justifying extreme physical play and a lack of protection by minimizing her value.
Now, those same voices invoke her name to push for better contracts—a move fans see as opportunistic rather than supportive.
This tension is amplified by Nfisa Kier’s role as vice president of the players’ union. Alongside Briana Stewart, she manages her own competing league, creating multiple, potentially conflicting interests.
The timing of her advocacy—quiet for years, suddenly vocal during CBA talks—has led to accusations of strategic manipulation: using Clark’s star power to generate public leverage, without acknowledging the harm done to her on the court.
Clark’s teammates, including Kelsey Mitchell, Aaliyah Boston, and Lexi Hull, have consistently defended her, highlighting a stark contrast between genuine solidarity and the transactional namedropping now surfacing. Even if the CBA negotiations secure increased salaries and revenue sharing, the underlying issues—physical abuse, lack of protection, and mistrust—remain unresolved.
Money cannot undo the mental and physical toll Clark endured, nor erase the silence from those who should have stood up for her.
The WNBA’s reality is clear: Clark is indispensable, carrying the league’s growth on her shoulders. Yet many players resent her influence, wanting the benefits without acknowledging the source.
Collier’s exit and public comments have exposed this fundamental hypocrisy, sparking debate about fairness, solidarity, and the true cost of stardom in women’s basketball.
Fans and analysts are left with a bitter truth: the league benefits massively from Clark’s talent and marketability, but the same players exploiting her name now contributed to her mistreatment yesterday. This is not solidarity—it’s opportunism.
And it may force the WNBA to confront uncomfortable questions about how it values and protects its stars in the future.
Leave a Reply