‚Bad for Business‘: Natasha Cloud’s Comments on Kirk’s Death Ignite Firestorm Around WNBA’s Culture of Division
In the raw, grief-stricken days following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an eerie silence fell over one of America’s most vocal professional sports leagues. While figures from across the sports world offered condolences and calls for unity, the WNBA—a league known for its players’ quick and passionate engagement with social and political issues—was conspicuously quiet. That silence was shattered on Friday, when New York Liberty star Natasha Cloud broke ranks with a statement about Kirk that was so inflammatory it has ignited a new and furious firestorm, fueling long-held criticisms that the league is a hotbed of political division that is fundamentally „bad for business.“
While most of the country was focused on mourning a 31-year-old father of two, Cloud took to social media to offer a different perspective. In a series of posts, she allegedly insinuated that Kirk, a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, was somehow responsible for his own murder. The commentary was immediately met with a tidal wave of outrage. Critics and fans alike condemned the remarks as shockingly tone-deaf and cruel, a clear case of prioritizing a political point over basic human decency in a moment of tragedy.
The backlash has been swift and severe, with many calling for WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert to suspend Cloud for the playoffs, or even kick her out of the league entirely. For critics of the WNBA, Cloud’s comments are not an isolated incident, but rather the latest and most egregious example of a divisive culture they say has plagued the league for years and alienated the vast majority of the American public.
This controversy has brought the league to a critical inflection point. For years, the WNBA has proudly positioned itself as the most socially progressive sports league in the nation. Its players were at the forefront of the Black Lives Matter movement, dedicating their 2020 season to the cause and consistently using their platform to advocate for social justice. This unapologetic activism has been celebrated by its core fanbase and media allies. However, critics argue that this same activism is precisely what has kept the league from achieving mainstream success.
They point to a history of actions they deem alienating to a broader audience: the league’s perceived anti-police sentiment, its full-throated embrace of „woke“ ideology, and the player-led movement that effectively forced former Atlanta Dream co-owner Kelly Loeffler to sell her stake in the team after she criticized the BLM movement. The argument is simple: you cannot build a profitable, mainstream sports league while actively antagonizing more than half of your potential audience.
The arrival of Caitlin Clark this season has thrown this dynamic into stark relief. Clark brought with her an entirely new, massive, and more politically diverse fanbase. For the first time, millions of casual fans and even conservative viewers were tuning into WNBA games. But instead of welcoming this new audience, critics say, many of the league’s veteran players greeted Clark and her fans with hostility, from on-court aggression to accusations of racism.
Now, Cloud’s comments about Kirk are seen as the ultimate test of the league’s direction. Critics are highlighting what they call a glaring double standard. They argue that if a conservative commentator had made similar remarks about the death of George Floyd, the WNBA and its players would have led the charge to have that person fired and de-platformed. They are now demanding that the league apply its own standards of accountability to one of its own.
The comparison to the NFL’s handling of Colin Kaepernick is also being made. While the two situations are different, the core question is the same: where is the line between free speech and conduct that is detrimental to the league? The NFL, a multi-billion dollar business, ultimately decided that Kaepernick’s protests, while supported by many, were bad for business. The WNBA, which has long been financially subsidized by the NBA, has never been forced to make such a cold, market-driven calculation. Natasha Cloud, who sat out the entire 2020 season to focus on social justice activism, has prioritized her role as an advocate. But in the new, high-stakes era of the Caitlin Clark boom, critics are asking: can the WNBA afford to be a platform for radical activism if it wants to be a profitable and popular sports league?
As the WNBA playoffs begin, the league finds itself at a crossroads, with a firestorm of its own making. The controversy surrounding Natasha Cloud is no longer just about one player’s insensitive comments. It is a referendum on the league’s identity, its values, and its future.
