Sophie Cunningham Defends Caitlin Clark Over Claims She Should Be ‘Grateful’ to WNBA, Calls Commissioner ‘Delusional’.

Sophie Cunningham Defends Caitlin Clark Over Claims She Should Be ‘Grateful’ to WNBA, Calls Commissioner ‘Delusional’.

 

 

When Minnesota Lynx star Napheesa Collier revealed in her exit interview that WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert allegedly told her that Caitlin Clark “should be grateful she makes $16 million off the court … because without the platform that the WNBA gives her, she wouldn’t make anything,” it touched off a firestorm of backlash from players. One of the sharpest reactions came from Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham, who moved quickly to defend her teammate and call out the commissioner.

Cunningham’s response came via social media, where she did not mince words. Under a post quoting the exchange, Cunningham wrote, “people only know Cathy because of C… She’s the most delusional leader our league has seen.” She followed up with, “AND IT SHOULDN’T EVER BE ABOUT OUR COMMISSIONER IN THE FIRST PLACE.” These comments underscore a broader sentiment among many WNBA players—that Engelbert’s leadership has failed to keep pace with the league’s evolving star power and growing demands.

The broader context is important. The WNBA has enjoyed a surge in viewership, attendance, and revenue, largely attributed to breakout stars like Clark, Angel Reese, and Paige Bueckers. Yet, many players feel the league’s financial and structural rewards have not yet caught up to the momentum. In her exit interview, Collier framed Engelbert’s alleged remarks—including telling players they should “be on their knees” grateful for a media rights deal—as emblematic of a top-down mentality that dismisses player concerns about pay, officiating, and respect.

Sophie Cunningham herself has been outspoken about league officiating and how it affects Clark. In earlier instances this season, she has criticized referees for failing to protect Clark from hard fouls or rough play, and she said such protective inconsistency builds over time. Her staunch loyalty to Clark and her refusal to quietly accept disparaging comments reflect her role as not only a teammate but a vocal defender.

Cunningham’s comments may come with consequences—fines are a frequent response by the league when players criticize leadership or officiating. But many see such fines as part of the problem: penalizing dissent rather than solving systemic issues. The clash highlights tensions as the WNBA nears the expiration of its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) this October, a moment when players are especially attuned to league governance and leverage.

Whether or not Clark herself responds publicly, Cunningham’s stand deepens the fault lines in the WNBA over power, voice, and recognition. Her willingness to call the commissioner “delusional” and refuse to let the spotlight stay on Engelbert is a signal: many players no longer see the league’s leadership as a neutral arbiter, but as a contested institution they intend to hold accountable.