BREAKING: Monica McNutt fires back at Caitlin Clark’s massive endorsement deals, arguing that Angel Reese should be earning “ten times more — if only this country knew how to value her properly.”

BREAKING: Monica McNutt fires back at Caitlin Clark’s massive endorsement deals, arguing that Angel Reese should be earning “ten times more — if only this country knew how to value her properly.”

 

 

 

 

On a recent broadcast discussing the swelling media and sponsorship frenzy around Caitlin Clark, McNutt didn’t mince words. She argued that while Clark “is great” and has clearly benefited from her breakout popularity, too often the narrative sidelines stars like Angel Reese — despite their skill, marketability, and influence on the sport’s growth. Some online versions of her commentary go as far as claiming Reese deserves “at least ten times more,” lamenting that if “this country” recognized her value properly, her endorsements would reflect that.

Though these more provocative versions — often seen on social media — are difficult to verify independently, they reflect the general sentiment McNutt voiced: that Reese’s value is being undervalued relative to Clark’s, and that racial and media biases may be playing a role.

The context: Pay, endorsements, and WNBA economics

Caitlin Clark reportedly pulls in roughly $11 million in endorsement income from deals with major brands (Nike, Gatorade, etc.), a figure that has become a benchmark for the money women’s basketball superstars can make off the court.

Meanwhile, Angel Reese — a major draw in her own right — earns a modest WNBA salary: about $73,439 in 2024, rising to roughly $74,909 in 2025.

Reese has spoken frankly about the disparity: she admitted her WNBA pay doesn’t even cover basic expenses like rent.

That said, Reese has her fair share of off-court deals: a signature shoe with Reebok, plus partnerships with other brands — yet by many reckonings, still far below what top-tier players could command based solely on visibility, cultural impact, and performance.

McNutt’s argument taps directly into that — suggesting the discrepancy isn’t about talent or marketability, but about perception, bias, and which narratives get amplified.

Why this matters for women’s basketball

McNutt’s stance — and the conversations it sparks — is emblematic of a larger reckoning in women’s sports: what value really means, and who gets to benefit from it.

The rising tension between Clark and Reese isn’t just about stats or on-court rivalry; it’s about culture, identity, and representation. The fact that Clark is white, and Reese is Black, adds layers to the debate about who becomes the “face” of the league — and who gets the lucrative deals.

As the league’s popularity — and its commercial potential — grows, the gap between what players generate for the league and what they are paid continues to draw scrutiny. McNutt’s call suggests a push for equity in recognition and compensation: players like Reese deserve endorsements and paychecks that reflect their contribution.

What McNutt underscores is that visibility doesn’t always equal value — and often, decisions on who gets paid what are shaped by media narratives, racial bias, and marketing optics, rather than purely athletic merit.

The backlash and controversy

Unsurprisingly, McNutt’s comments stirred controversy: some critics say she’s “fueling a rivalry” that’s already fraught, while others argue she’s bringing needed attention to systemic problems — not just for Reese, but for many women players whose contributions are often overshadowed by a single “superstar” narrative.

For fans and stakeholders, the conversation raises hard questions: should endorsements be awarded strictly on performance and popularity — or should we consider broader cultural impact, visibility for under-represented athletes, and fairness?

Final thoughts

Monica McNutt’s critique is less about discrediting Caitlin Clark’s success — and more about demanding fairness and a broader recognition of value in women’s basketball. By spotlighting Angel Reese and others who arguably elevate the sport as much, she’s asking: what if we deliberately invested in — and monetarily rewarded — the players who often get overlooked?

Whether or not Reese will end up getting “ten times more” is hard to predict. But McNutt’s point is clear: as the WNBA evolves, so too should how we define and reward its stars.