Is all publicity good publicity for the WNBA?

Credit: Jaime Valdez-Imagn Images

You might not know it if you’re just a general sports fan living in the age of the internet, but beyond the off-court drama involving Indiana Fever player Sophie Cunningham following comments she made about transgender athletes in an interview with ESPN nearly two weeks ago , the WNBA is hitting the home stretch of its season.

Yet, since the ESPN profile of Cunningham dropped on July 21, the vast majority of mainstream conversation about the WNBA has centered on a role player that averages 9.5 points and 2.4 rebounds per game for a fourth-place Fever team.

That’s not exactly typical of other professional sports leagues, even when a player is caught up in situations that aren’t directly related to anything happening on the court or field. Usually, it’s a story, but it’s far from the main focus.

But as so often happens with the WNBA, the sideshow is now the main event. The reasons why are obvious. As a league that over-indexes in Black and LGBTQ representation, and has a player base that is often unafraid to advocate for those groups, it is a prime target of the culture wars.

Plenty has already been written about that topic: the WNBA as political football . But perhaps something that hasn’t been as readily addressed is whether the WNBA’s centrality to these cultural conversations is net positive or negative for the league. Does the old adage that all publicity is good publicity apply here, at least from a commercial standpoint?

It’s fair to say that the Cunningham story has broken containment . WNBA outsiders — which can be defined as sports fans or non-sports fans that do not watch or rarely watch a WNBA game — are likely to have heard about Cunningham’s comments in some form or fashion. Cable news channels are covering the story. Social media is replete with reaction to her statement, reaction to the reaction, and the numerous offshoots of angles her quote to ESPN has created, from her teammate Caitlin Clark’s role in this saga to how various WNBA coaches have handled questions about it in press conferences.

Undoubtedly, hordes of people who wouldn’t typically be exposed to WNBA content have been exposed to this story. ESPN shows and sports and news podcasts are dedicating lengthy segments to Cunningham. But that attention is only valuable inasmuch as WNBA outsiders are converted to WNBA fans. The question becomes whether the WNBA’s biggest story being one of cultural, not athletic, significance does more to stunt or grow the league?

The answer is nuanced and difficult to discern.

On the one hand, Cunningham has given the WNBA a two-week news cycle, during which the league has been talked about at a volume it simply would not have if it weren’t for such a polarizing story. While it’d be nice to refocus that same volume of attention on the court, few leagues can drive this level of conversation purely through what’s happening in the games. As seems to be proven time and again, in sports, politics, entertainment, and beyond, attention of any kind is invaluable.

On the other hand, with the media so focused on the conversation spurred by Cunningham’s remarks, the overwhelming coverage risks souring people on the WNBA in the first place. Current WNBA fans could become fed up and less engaged. WNBA outsiders might choose to avoid the league entirely because it can seem more like a soap opera than a professional sport.

The little publicly available viewership data following the Cunningham profile has been positive for the WNBA. The league’s All-Star Game, which occurred four days following the publishing of Cunningham’s comments, surged by 44 percent versus last year , with 3.2 million viewers tuning in. The audience growth, however, is likely attributable primarily to Caitlin Clark’s participation in the game (she missed last year’s due to injury). Tuesday’s Fever-Storm game, which itself was a lightning rod , averaged 1.4 million viewers , making it the second-most-watched WNBA game on cable this season.

However, it’s impossible to judge the impact the Cunningham story has had on WNBA viewership based on just a couple of games. It’d be equally impossible to attribute any of that growth to the attention Cunningham has brought the league, when the WNBA is already on quite the upward trajectory independent of this story.

What we can say, however, is that the Cunningham story is far from the first non-basketball narrative from the WNBA to grip the cultural conscience. A lot of those stories have centered on the ascendance of Caitlin Clark, but plenty haven’t. Brittney Griner’s detainment in Russia and the subsequent prisoner swap to bring her home comes to mind. Or when Atlanta Dream players protested co-owner Kelly Loeffler during her Senate run. Or the “Pay Us What You Owe Us” shirts players wore during the 2025 All-Star Game. Sure, most of those stories haven’t risen to the level of attention that Cunningham’s comments have, but all of them seemed to garner more attention, at least in the broad sense, than the results of WNBA games being played at the same time.

This is what puts the league in such a unique position. There are a growing number of diehard WNBA fans that do live and breathe what’s happening on the court, but they’re often drowned out by the louder and broader audience interested in the cultural forces the WNBA and its players have put front and center. It’s easier to have an opinion on Sophie Cunningham than on the Washington Mystics’ rotation, after all.

The totality of this off-court coverage has coincided with record growth for the league. Attendance is up. Television ratings are sky high. The following top WNBA players have gained on social media in recent years is proof positive that the additional attention these athletes receive off the court has translated in some form or fashion to additional interest in the on-court product.

More people than ever are talking about the WNBA, and that’s good for business. But can the l...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Yahoo Sports. Open at source →