The ESPN awards show, or ESPYs, is often a celebration of athletic excellence, a night where the biggest names in sports gather to honor the outstanding achievements of the past year.

But sometimes, the spotlight, and the choices made during it, can stir up controversy. This was certainly the case for some viewers after the recent ceremony, particularly concerning the women’s basketball categories.

Specifically, a segment featuring Stephanie White, a former WNBA player and current analyst, ignited a firestorm of debate online when her commentary seemed to deliberately sidestep, or “snub,” the rising star Caitlin Clark, while showering praise on other established players.

The online chatter was immediate and intense. Social media platforms were flooded with opinions, some accusing White of bias and others defending her perspective. The crux of the issue lay in the framing of the conversation surrounding the awards.

While acknowledging the undeniable impact of Clark on the sport, White appeared to focus her accolades on veterans Breanna Stewart and A’ja Wilson. Both are undoubtedly accomplished players, with multiple WNBA championships, MVP awards, and Olympic gold medals under their belts.

However, Clark’s name, and the unprecedented attention she had brought to women’s college basketball, were noticeably absent from the accolades White chose to highlight.

This perceived slight led to the immediate observation that White seemingly ignored the historical significance of Clark’s college career. Clark, through her incredible scoring feats and her ability to draw massive television viewership, had revitalized interest in the sport.

People were talking about women’s basketball in a way they hadn’t in years. Her impact went beyond the court, generating substantial revenue for the NCAA and attracting new sponsors and audiences.

It was an undeniable narrative that many felt deserved explicit recognition during the ESPYs. The perception was that White, consciously or unconsciously, minimized this narrative, choosing instead to emphasize the established dominance of the two veterans.

Instead, the focus was squarely on Stewart and Wilson, and the conversation highlighted their long-standing excellence. White celebrated their individual achievements, their leadership qualities, and their influence on the WNBA.

She referenced their championship runs, their international success, and their commitment to the sport. Again, these were all valid points, celebrating the established pillars of the league.

The problem, according to many observers, was the contrast. By focusing exclusively on these established stars, White arguably downplayed Clark’s considerable contributions to the overall narrative of the season and her unique position in the history of women’s basketball, particularly in that moment.

The contrast between the accolades and the general expectation was stark. Given the impact Clark had on the sport this past year, many expected her to be mentioned prominently, at least. Some even expected a direct recognition of her accomplishments.

But, instead, the conversation went in a different direction. This gave the impression, accurate or not, that White was intentionally avoiding the discussion around Clark and the significance of the moment.

The underlying tensions may also stem from the different roles and career stages of the athletes involved. Stewart and Wilson represent the established guard, the seasoned veterans who have consistently proven themselves at the highest levels. Clark, on the other hand, is the young, up-and-coming talent, the fresh face who is reshaping the landscape of the game.

It’s possible that this generational shift, and the different levels of accomplishment, played a role in shaping White’s commentary. The WNBA, and the sport as a whole, has always been conscious of its roots, and White’s commentary may have attempted to highlight the legacy of the veterans.

The reactions also revealed a deeper, and sometimes more complex, conversation about how to best represent the sport. Some viewers likely wanted to see Clark given her due, while others were loyal to the veterans who had paved the way.

This difference of opinion reflected the evolving nature of women’s basketball and its growing fan base. As the sport continues to grow, these sorts of debates about how to celebrate and represent the athletes will become increasingly common.

Perhaps what also contributed to the reaction to White’s commentary was the lack of context, or the failure to acknowledge the broader narrative of the season. In any sport, there are dominant forces, established champions, and up-and-coming contenders.

But the context of Clark’s rise was unique. Her impact was not limited to the court. She brought media attention, sponsorship dollars, and renewed excitement to women’s basketball. Ignoring the larger picture did a disservice to the overall story.

The debate around the ESPY segment also speaks to the complex dynamics of media coverage. Athletes are often portrayed with varying degrees of favoritism, and those dynamics can be influenced by a multitude of factors.

This is an issue in sports, and it has a bearing on a viewer’s perception of the narrative. White’s choice of words, and what she chose to emphasize, certainly seemed to reinforce this perception.

Finally, the controversy surrounding White’s commentary served as a reminder of the power of sports to generate passion and debate. While the ESPYs are primarily a celebration, they can also spark heated discussions.

The discussion about who deserves recognition, and how to best represent the sport, will undoubtedly continue. This particular segment highlighted the complex interplay of legacy, achievement, and the ever-evolving story of women’s basketball.