The WNBA’s “No Space for Hate” campaign, meant to foster unity and combat division, has been thrust into the spotlight following inflammatory comments from Atlanta Dream co-owner Renee Montgomery about Caitlin Clark. The remarks, which resurfaced recently, have triggered widespread backlash, exposing tensions within the league and raising questions about its commitment to fairness. As Clark continues to elevate women’s basketball, Montgomery’s statements and the WNBA’s silence have sparked a debate about inclusivity and the league’s future.

Montgomery, a former WNBA player and now a prominent executive, ignited controversy by labeling Clark’s fanbase as “they not like us,” a phrase perceived as an attempt to gatekeep the sport and alienate new supporters drawn by Clark’s meteoric rise. The situation escalated when Montgomery’s family members amplified the rhetoric, suggesting Clark’s popularity stems solely from her race. These racially charged comments sparked outrage across social media, with fans accusing Montgomery of undermining the league’s anti-hate initiative. The WNBA’s failure to respond—no investigation or public statement—has fueled accusations of selective enforcement, particularly when compared to swift reactions to other controversies.

Clark, a rookie sensation, has transformed the WNBA, driving record-breaking attendance, jersey sales, and viewership. Her exclusion from the Team USA Olympic roster, reportedly influenced by figures like Dawn Staley, has further intensified claims of bias among the league’s old guard. Critics argue that instead of embracing Clark’s impact, some insiders, including Montgomery, view her as a threat to established narratives. This tension peaked when CBS Sports included Montgomery in a Fever-Sky broadcast, a decision fans slammed as tone-deaf given her divisive stance.

The backlash underscores a broader issue: the WNBA’s struggle to welcome its growing fanbase. Clark’s supporters, spanning all ages and backgrounds, have revitalized the sport, yet Montgomery’s comments suggest resistance to this shift. Fans have called for neutral analysts like Candace Parker or Cheryl Miller to replace figures like Montgomery and Staley, who appeared alongside her on the broadcast, to focus on basketball rather than polarizing narratives. The league’s inaction risks alienating the very audience fueling its growth.

Montgomery’s reported emotional reaction to the criticism highlights the intensity of the fallout, but demands for accountability persist. The WNBA faces a pivotal moment: it can capitalize on Clark’s influence to unite fans or allow gatekeeping to fracture its potential. As one supporter noted, “Clark’s fans are kids in 22 jerseys, not divisive mobs.” The “No Space for Hate” campaign feels hollow if it overlooks remarks that exclude fans based on their support.

This controversy transcends Montgomery; it’s about the WNBA’s identity. Will it embrace talent and unity, or cling to outdated divisions? Clark’s impact is undeniable, but the league must decide whether to evolve with her or risk losing momentum. Fans demand fairness, and the WNBA’s response will shape its path forward.