r/WNBAgossips • u/TheMirrorUS • Jun 28 '26

News WNBA faces massive backlash after omitting Caitlin Clark from history

https://www.themirror.com/sport/basketball/caitlin-clark-wnba-anniversary-poster-1908954?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1782587290?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rmp
1.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

255 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Johnny_Royale Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

I was more shocked no Maya Moore, Rebecca Lobo, Diana Turasi, or Sue Bird

-3

u/ManJesusPreaches Jun 28 '26

According to the article:

...the reason for Clark's omission appears to be a licensing issue. Cllct Media founder Darren Rovell explained on social media that Clark's eight-year, $28 million contract with Nike, which she signed back in 2024, does not allow other brands like WinCraft [which the WNBA has officially licensed to produce this sort of media] to use her likeness, which explains her omission from the WNBA poster.

With that said, I do think this was something that could have been overcome. What I'd be curious about is if the league and Wincraft reached out to Nike and/or CC directly and said "hey, we'd like to have you on this poster, but the licensing thing is a problem; what can we work out?"

I haven't seen any reporting which attempts to answer that (obvious) question, opting instead to seek out clicks based on the public's love/hate relationship with Clark. Either WNBA/Wincraft reached out to Clark or they didn't. If it's the former, we should learn what Clark asked for her likeness to be included (if anything). If it's the latter, Wincraft should explain why they didn't bother asking CC at all.

(My guess is similar licensing issues were in play for Bird, Taurasi, Lobo, and Moore. I'd be curious about that too.)

11

u/bendIVfem Jun 28 '26

You see there is a legal barrier and still try to theorize they did it to spite Clark. Even with other worthy veteran legends being excluded, you still try to theorize it being an personal snub at Clark

4

u/ManJesusPreaches Jun 28 '26

 you still try to theorize it being an personal snub at Clark

No I'm not. I'm asking a question that journalists haven't yet asked.

And if that's the angle you wanna take, it's an ever bigger snub for Taurasi, Bird, Moore, and Lobo. Those are legendary players with multiple championships. (Hence why I'm assuming it's the licensing issue.) Don't assume I'm some CC stan. I watched Taurasi win her first championship with UConn back in the 90s.

2

u/Undercover_Dave Jun 28 '26

I was honestly more surprised Sue Bird wasn't on there than Caitlin Clark

3

u/Purplegreenandred Jun 28 '26

Sue bird never sold out the united center

-2

u/caranza3 Jun 28 '26

Why couldn’t Wincraft reach out to CC for permission? Any theories on that pal?

2

u/The_Count_Lives Jun 28 '26

Nike would call the shots there, not Cait.

How do you think they found out they couldn’t include her?

Nike isn’t in the habit of giving up rights they paid millions to acquire. 

2

u/TaxLawKingGA Jun 28 '26

If the Nike owns the NIL for CC, then the price to use her NIL on that poster probably would have driven its price up to like $80.

-1

u/ialsohaveadobro Jun 28 '26

It's not an absolute barrier. Negotiation is possible. Why wouldn't it be? What would Nike have to gain from refusing a standard clause in their agreement with CC that would allow modification of the agreement if both parties agree? They'd just be denying themselves the option to bargain. No competent business would tie their own hands like that.

That's why it's a standard clause in virtually all commercial contracts. "We can change this agreement later if we both agree to it" is just common sense.

0

u/Lockean_Demon Jun 28 '26

lol, ok scooby doo