The omission of Caitlin Clark from Team USA, for the Olympics, infuriated Stephen A. Smith. The sports analyst consequently called out the management, alongside the WNBA, for overlooking the 22-year-old sensation. He highlighted Clark’s impact in drawing more eyes to the WNBA to justify his reasoning. However, his narrative didn’t sit right with Andraya Carter, prompting her to raise a few questions.
Advertisement
Carter rejected Smith’s notion outright, pointing out how it would have been unfair to the rest of the players. Furthermore, she discussed how the current roster remained better positioned to increase the game’s global popularity,
“There is not a basketball reason for Caitlin to be on this team…Women’s teams around the world are also catching up. What’s a worse marketing tool [than] to lose gold?…Winning gold is the ultimate marketing tool”.
The 30-year-old’s argument devalued Smith’s stance to a large extent. He reiterated his take about tapping Clark’s popularity by saying,
“Knowing what a global platform the Olympics provide and what that could ultimately do to the WNBA if you had her participating, I think they missed the boat on passing that up”. And this is not the first time the analyst has supported Clark for Team USA.
Stephen A. Smith called out the WNBA for being “idiotic”
Earlier, on ESPN’s First Take, Smith adopted a hyper-critical stance to Clark’s exclusion, mentioning,
“It compromises what your ultimate goal is, which is to elevate the WNBA brand…How could you be that idiotic and not make that call, when throughout history, Team USA has been, in part, about marketing? It’s dumb, period”.
Stephen A. Smith on Caitlin Clark being left off Team USA: "This is about what I will personally label 'The Idiocy of Team USA Women's Basketball.' How dare you make this decision. It's stupid.
"Caitlin Clark does not deserve a spot ahead of any of the players on this roster –… pic.twitter.com/BqM0AWdMZ6
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) June 10, 2024
Despite his outspoken approach to the instance, Smith frequently failed to rationalize his thoughts. As a result, his comments perhaps came across as biased in the viewers’ minds.
On the contrary, Carter provided a more ambitious outlook on the matter. Her impartial stance to ensure the grandest prize undoubtedly resonated more with the audience.
Dismissing any of these viewpoints seems impossible as both expressed their beliefs keeping the betterment of the WNBA in mind. In any case, with the growing popularity of the league and conversations around such a subject, it will only boost the women’s league.
