The idea that Caitlin Clark adds value to the WNBA is “a false narrative,” according to analyst: “They’re talking about HER and Angel Reese, not the WNBA.”

In the world of sports, narratives often take on a life of their own, and the case of Caitlin Clark’s impact on the WNBA is no different. Steve Hartman and Veejay Huskey, two well-known sports analysts, recently engaged in a heated debate about whether Caitlin Clark’s value to the WNBA is overrated.

Hartman believes Clark is the most valuable player in league history, while Huskey argues her influence is limited to her brand and her team, the Indiana Fever. This debate raises the larger question of how the power of individual stars translates into league-wide growth. Check it out for yourself.

The case for Caitlin Clark’s value

According to Fox Studio Radio, “Steve Hartman firmly believes Caitlin Clark is the WNBA’s most valuable player. His argument centers on her ability to draw crowds and generate revenue, which he believes are the critical measures of a player’s value to the league.”

“If you’re actually talking about who the ‘most valuable’ player in the WNBA is, it should be unanimously Caitlin Clark because she brings in crowds,” Hartman claims. He acknowledges that the most valuable player may not necessarily be the best player, but emphasizes how much money and viewership she brings.

ALSO READ: LeBron James reveals unexpected reason why he decided to play for Team USA at the 2024 Paris Olympics

As proof, Hartman cites the remarkable ratings and attendance at Fever games. Clark’s games regularly break attendance records and fill stadiums, something that was rare before her arrival. Hartman argues that Clark’s mere presence has given the WNBA an unprecedented opportunity for exposure and growth. He believes Clark’s popularity has created a hype around the league that didn’t exist before, making her the WNBA’s most valuable asset.

The counterargument: limited league-wide impact

However, Veejay Huskey disagrees with Hartman. He argues that Caitlin Clark’s perceived league-wide value is a “false narrative.” According to Huskey, the hype surrounding Clark is limited to her team, the Indiana Fever, and her personal brand, and does not benefit the WNBA as a whole. He points out that while the Fever’s games have high ratings and viewership, other WNBA games do not garner the same level of interest.

“I take issue with the ‘value to the league’ thing,” Huskey explains. “She’s ‘valuable’ to the Fever, but not to the league.” He points to the disparity in viewership between Fever games and other WNBA games and argues that the league as a whole does not benefit from Clark’s fame.

Huskey believes the fascination is more about Clark and her rivalry with Angel Reese than the league itself.

Huskey also questions the sustainability of Clark’s influence. He suspects the current narrative is driven by the media’s need for a compelling storyline, and compares it to a classic “good guy versus bad guy” scenario with Angel Reese playing the foil to Clark. He warns that this manufactured rivalry may not have a lasting impact on the league’s popularity once the novelty wears off.

The debate over Caitlin Clark’s value to the WNBA is a microcosm of the larger discussion about the influence of individual stars in team sports.

ALSO READ: Shaquille O’Neal reveals THIS NBA star is the reason he has to ‘curse so many little kids’