Caitlin Clark is NOT Helping Women
Caitlin Clark, the Hawkeye that joined the Indiana Fever, has been the talk of the town for months. Her lights-out shooting and dazzling playmaking at the University of Iowa propelled her to the top of women’s sports. But her ascent coincides with a troubling backdrop for female athletes. The question of “what is a woman” is a hot-button issue, and the gender pay gap in basketball is a gaping chasm. Clark signed a contract with the Indiana Fever for a reported $76,000 a year — a figure that pales in comparison to the average NBA salary of roughly $9 million.
This disparity is often justified by citing lower viewership for the WNBA compared to the NBA. The narrative goes that the NBA subsidizes the WNBA, implying a sort of charitable hand extended by the men’s league. This framing conveniently ignores the fact that the NBA doesn’t own basketball — it’s simply a more established league. Both leagues deserve to stand on their own merits.
Enter Ice Cube and the Big 3, a new wrinkle in the basketball landscape. This innovative 3-on-3 league, featuring legends like Allen Iverson and Greg Monroe, made a groundbreaking offer to Clark: a whopping $5 million to join their ranks. The 3-on-3 format transcends gender; the focus is pure basketball skill on a smaller court. It’s a platform where questions of gender become irrelevant.
By choosing the WNBA, Caitlin Clark isn’t just joining a team — she’s making a statement. It’s a noble stance, a commitment to growing the women’s game from within. But is it the only path forward?
Some argue that Clark’s decision, while admirable, reinforces the very system it seeks to dismantle. The WNBA’s reliance on the NBA for financial support creates an unequal partnership. Joining the Big 3, a league specifically designed to disrupt the traditional model, could have been a bolder move. The $5 million contract would have been a significant financial win for Clark, but more importantly, it would have injected a jolt of star power and viewership into the Big 3. This, in turn, could have forced the hand of the NBA, pressuring them to re-evaluate the financial landscape of women’s basketball.
Clark’s talent transcends gender. In the Big 3, she would have competed on a level playing field, showcasing her skills against established veterans. This kind of cross-gender competition could have redefined basketball as a whole, pushing the boundaries of the sport and paving the way for a future where opportunities are based on skill, not gender.
Ultimately, Clark’s decision is a personal one, and there’s no denying the importance of strong role models in the WNBA. But her choice also raises a critical question: is the fight for equality best served by playing within the established system, or by challenging it from the outside? The future of women’s basketball may hinge on the answer.
