The WNBA Is At War With Its Biggest Stars
Via The Daily Signal,
This is a lightly edited transcript of an Aug. 6 segment of the Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words podcast...
Jack Fowler: And the whole trans issue is coming up in the WNBA, and various coaches are like, “I don’t know. Should a she - I can’t say who should be playing.” They will not say that a biological woman should be playing in the WNBA. It’s this absurdity.
Victor Davis Hanson: But they know.
I think Clay Travis said he was going to buy a franchise ...and have only trans players. Would they let him do that? No, because they would win every game.
Fowler: Yeah. It was funny what he put up there.
Hanson: And the Minnesota coach who wore a jacket... with advertisements or a message about trans issues.
She was also whining that there are still too many men in women’s coaching and that women don’t get a chance to dominate the field as they should, given that they’re women.
So, obviously, she was walking into a logical inconsistency because she had this jacket on that she would want biological men in women’s sports, where they would dominate, and then she was angry that, in her own coaching aspect, she was being dominated by men.
So, why wouldn’t she have the same concern about women who are players that she does about biological men? Aside from the fact that—I don’t think we’re ever going to—correct me if I’m wrong—but I don’t think in my lifetime, or anyone’s lifetime, we’re ever going to see a woman transition to a man and play in the NBA.
Does anybody believe that? I don’t. I just don’t think that’s going to happen.
I do think you will continue to see trans athletes in women’s sports because they were biological males at birth, and nobody wants it.
The other thing—and I talked a little bit with Sami [Winc] about it—is that I went and looked at about six AI estimates. If you ask them how much money and media attention Caitlin Clark has brought to the Women’s National Basketball Association—which is owned by the men’s league and ran at a deficit until about three years ago—most of them estimate that, through increased attendance, merchandising, advertising packages based on ratings, and the fact that the Indiana Fever and any team she plays sells out, they think she has generated about $1 billion in added revenue, value, and free publicity.
The teams that had been perennially losing money are now starting to break even, if not show a profit. They’re upgrading their travel arrangements, so women are flying privately now. They’re not like a college basketball team on United or American Airlines. They have their own chartered jets. They’ve got upgraded salaries, and they’re getting bonuses.
And what has the reaction been?
The one woman who’s doing all of this—it’s not any white woman; it’s one white woman who is a superb athlete: Caitlin Clark, probably the best natural shooter and passer we’ve seen in women’s basketball in two or three generations. She’s magnificent.
Now she has a sidekick who is also a very good blocker and shooter herself, Sophie Cunningham. She’s beautiful, and like Caitlin, she’s white and heterosexual.
In a league that we didn’t know much about because nobody watched it, the more we watched, the more we were told by various sportscasters—sometimes joking, sometimes bragging, sometimes hinting they didn’t approve—who knows? But they all agree on one thing. The WNBA, like the NBA, “doesn’t look like America,” to quote the Left. It’s not diverse.
It’s about 60–65 percent Black and roughly 30–40 percent gay.
Now you have these two women. When Sophie Cunningham made that [22-second viral point at an opponent], it became a social media phenomenon. Everybody was talking about it. Now her name is everywhere, and she’s making a lot of money.
I saw a clip the other day someone sent me. She’s doing bikini photo shoots. She must be about 6’2″ or something. She’s lean, muscular, beautiful—stunning, actually.
You can see what this is doing for the league.
A logical, rational person would say, “We’ve got to make sure we don’t gratuitously foul these two girls because they’re our meal ticket. They’re bringing us more money than we ever imagined. The crowds are bigger. We’re getting better exposure. We’re getting our own media contracts.”
Or would the reaction be, “I don’t like white people. I don’t like heterosexual people. I’m going to try to injure these people”?
That’s what they’re doing.
Sophie Cunningham got hit really hard in the face, and they called a foul on her.
Fowler: Yeah. She got elbowed in the jaw.
Hanson: Yes, just like what happened to Caitlin Clark.
Then you look at everything else and say, “Well, maybe it’s just the players.”
No, because you see the coach wearing a propaganda jacket. You see a co-owner going over and yelling at two little girls.
You get the impression what?
The more you see of the WNBA, the more you don’t want anything to do with it. It’s just too toxic.
Everything about it is toxic. It brings together the worst in American society. It is tribal. It is racialist. It has a sexual-orientation chauvinism about it. It’s driven by projection. Everything about it.
The irony is that it would rather destroy itself than benefit if it meant having to allow two white, heterosexual women to continue being stars in the league and the biggest breadwinners for everybody.
They would rather destroy it.
Fowler: Or simply say this is a league for biological women.
There’s something about that, Victor. I could be totally wrong—I have no data on this—but my gut tells me it’s the lesbians in the league, and perhaps lesbians more generally, who seem to favor trans participation in women’s sports more than, say, your wife, my wife, or other heterosexual women.
Hanson: I think they see it as adding numbers. I think about 2 percent of the population is lesbian, and .001 is trans, but they’ll include them because they see them as another victimized tribal group that can join their coalition.
But it’s not going to work.
At some point, Sophie Cunningham, Caitlin Clark, and some smart investors are going to say, “You know what? I want to start a league—or go somewhere else—where race is incidental, we don’t obsess over it, we don’t constantly talk about sexual orientation, and we try to be good leftists and try to represent America.”
Quoting, ”Who are we? We’re America. We’re diverse. We’re proportionally representative.”
Use all of the left-wing boilerplate.
Of course, when you do that you’re ”racist.” When they do that, they’re ”inclusive.”
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2026 - 19:15