There is no denying Caitlin Clark’s influence on the game of basketball. From record breaking college performances to transforming television ratings and arena attendance, her presence has reshaped how women’s basketball is viewed worldwide. Even casual sports fans recognize her name, her shooting range, and her competitive fire. For many supporters, popularity and cultural impact alone should guarantee her a place among the top women athletes of any year.
However, the controversy surrounding Clark’s omission is rooted in more than popularity. The Indiana Fever guard endured an injury plagued 2025 season that limited her to just thirteen WNBA appearances. Lower body injuries sidelined her during crucial stretches of the season and ultimately kept her out of the playoffs entirely. For critics of her inclusion, availability and on court production matter more than star power when evaluating yearly rankings.
Supporters argue that Clark’s shortened season does not erase her overall value to women’s sports. They point out that her jersey sales, social media engagement, and television ratings remained among the highest in the league despite her limited minutes. Many fans believe that the list failed to account for impact beyond box scores. To them, excluding Clark feels like ignoring the athlete who continues to bring unprecedented attention to women’s basketball.
On the other side of the debate are those who emphasize performance based recognition. Aja Wilson dominated the WNBA throughout 2025, capturing another MVP award while leading the Las Vegas Aces to a championship. Paige Bueckers also delivered a remarkable year, winning a national title and transitioning seamlessly into professional success. For analysts supporting the list, consistency and full season excellence were the deciding factors.
This clash of viewpoints highlights a broader question within sports media. Should athlete rankings focus strictly on performance during a calendar year, or should influence and visibility carry weight as well. Caitlin Clark’s case sits directly at the center of this dilemma. Her fans argue that no other women athlete commands her level of global attention, while critics insist that rankings must reward availability and results first.
What makes the debate even more compelling is the emotional connection fans feel toward Clark. Many see her as a generational talent whose presence accelerated the growth of the WNBA. They believe her injuries should be viewed as setbacks rather than disqualifiers. At the same time, others caution against placing any athlete above objective evaluation standards, no matter how popular they are.
Looking ahead, the discussion may soon resolve itself. A healthy Caitlin Clark in 2026 would likely silence critics and reclaim her place among the elite through performance alone. History suggests that she thrives when doubted, and expectations remain sky high for her return. Whether this snub becomes fuel or frustration, one thing is clear. Caitlin Clark remains one of the most talked about athletes in women’s sports, with or without a ranking to validate it.
Comment Section Prompt
Do you think Caitlin Clark deserved a spot on the top women athletes list despite her injuries, or should full season performance matter more? Share your thoughts below.
About the Author
