The WNBA’s 30th anniversary poster was supposed to be an ode to the league’s enduring legacy. Instead, Caitlin Clark’s absence from the anniversary poster sparked immediate backlash. Now, sportscaster Dan Patrick has shared a plausible assessment behind Clark’s snub from the poster.

“I mean, this caught fire yesterday,” Patrick said via the Dan Patrick Show. “We still don’t know about the 30th anniversary poster of the WNBA. It has to do with licensing, that maybe you don’t have the rights to Caitlin Clark. I don’t know if that includes Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, and Candace Parker.”

“I mean, it’s not white and black. There might have been licensing. Do you have the rights of Caitlin Clark to be able to put that in the poster? As silly as that may sound, there has to be a reason.”

A closer look at the poster shows top stars from the league, including A’ja Wilson, Breanna Stewart, Kelsey Plum, Paige Bueckers, and Angel Reese. Even Clark’s teammate, Sophie Cunningham, is on the poster.

Given the fandom and attention Clark has brought to the league, her absence on the poster started debates among basketball fans across social media. Many fans even considered this poster snub a sign of disrespect toward the Fever point guard, further categorizing it in the CC vs. league narrative.

In fact, Patrick himself also asked the asked the question on his show, questioning whether it was simply a licensing issue or whether leaving out certain stars was intentional.

In fact, USA Today’s senior reporter Mitchell Northam wrote, “a closer look shows a few things the WNBA is guilty of far too often: incompetence, a lack of oversight and a void of creativity.”

However, another veteran analyst agreed with Patrick’s initial assessment that the poster may be a victim of licensing issues.

Veteran Analysts’ Assessment Aligns With Dan Patrick’s Licensing Explanation

In her latest YouTube video, analyst Rachel DeMita explained the possible licensing issues that might have existed behind Caitlin Clark’s snub from the WNBA’s 30th anniversary poster. She stated that Wincraft might have the rights to Clark’s name and number but not her likeness to use her face in their products.

“I don’t think Caitlin Clark is allowing Wincraft, who is basically like the sponsor, they’re like the brand, the branding partner of this poster,” DeMita said. “Caitlin doesn’t allow this brand to use her likeness. Now, even if you look at Wincraft, like on their website, they do sell Caitlin Clark things, but they don’t sell any Caitlin Clark things with her face on it.”

“It’s only her number and name. So, there’s certain caveats when you talk about image and likeness. And obviously, as a star, Caitlin isn’t signing that stuff to any company. Obviously, Nike has premier rights to that.”

Analyst Darren Rovell also explained the same in an X post, remarking on the exclusiveness of Nike in Clark’s likeness licensing.

“The reason why Caitlin is not on this poster is… You ready? Caitlin Clark herself, Rovell wrote. “Other than Nike, Clark allows licensees like Wincraft, which makes this, to only use her name and number. Not her likeness. Moving on, the ‘disrespect’ card was fun for a day.”

Irrespective of this assessment, the uncomfortable noise around the snub of Caitlin Clark from the post is just growing. But at the end of the day, it needs to be understood that Clark is just too big a brand to be affected by a single poster snub.