Heading into Game 1 of the 2025 WNBA Finals, the biggest anticipation wasn’t related to the court. It was everything happening beyond it. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert finally addressed Napheesa Collier’s comments, denying claims that she’d said Caitlin Clark should be “grateful” to the WNBA for her $16 million in off-court earnings. Engelbert also acknowledged ongoing concerns about officiating and promised improvements. However, as Game 1 of the league’s first 7-game finals series was about to tip off, every major publication was busy breaking Engelbert’s words, something which irked Rachel A. DeMita.

DeMita said on her ‘Courtside Club’ Podcast, “Game one of the WNBA finals is starting now. And the biggest news is not game one. The biggest news is the commissioner of the league. It shouldn’t be like that. It shouldn’t have gotten to this point. And now I do realize that the timing of when Napheesa came out with her statement was also poor timing. I mean, it was good timing for her because she’s out of the playoffs, so she doesn’t have to play anymore. But all of this stuff is such a huge distraction from the league.”

Still, it’s important to understand that Collier and Engelbert are operating from completely different positions. Sure, DeMita’s frustration reflects the sentiment of many fans and analysts who wanted the spotlight on the Finals. Collier, however, was speaking from her role as a players’ representative. Her focus was player welfare, not media optics.

In fact, her timing made strategic sense. Her injury in Game 3 against the Mercury had already stirred outrage. Coach Cheryl Reeve was ejected after confronting officials and later blasted league leadership in her postgame remarks. Fans, players, and coaches largely rallied behind Reeve. With anti-Engelbert sentiment at an all-time high, Collier’s comments landed with force.

Engelbert, on the flip side, chose to speak on the day of the finals despite having three full days to respond with the same remarks. The delay in issuing her statement is what angers many. Also, her response needed to be more than just reactive. This was a conversation she should’ve initiated long before Collier was compelled to do the exposé. Issues like officiating, physicality, and the upcoming CBA have been simmering for a long time now. As DeMita also said, “wish we would have heard all of these things from Cathy Engelbert sooner because we are 30 minutes ahead of game one“.

The host also spoke about how these conversations should have taken place behind the curtains. “But all of this stuff is such a huge distraction from the league. All of this stuff should be being taken care of behind the scenes, but how however the communication broke down behind the scenes, I just don’t know. However messy it got behind the scenes, I just don’t know,” DeMita added.

Now, yes, each of these problems cannot be solved immediately, but if enough assurance was given to Collier and Co., it might have never come to this. And once again, we circle back to what both Collier and the Sports Business Journal have noted. Engelbert’s leadership often lacks the “human” and “personality” elements the league desperately needs. Ironically, her statement designed to calm the storm only deepened the controversy.

Cathy Engelbert’s Reply Deemed Unsatisfactory

Cathy Engelbert’s pre-finals address was charged with corporate speech, much like her initial reply to Collier. When addressing the most controversial points from her conversation with Collier, she offered two different responses. She explicitly denied the Caitlin Clark statement by Collier, but did not dispute Collier’s assertion that Engelbert told her players should be “on their knees thanking their lucky stars for the media rights deal that I got them,” which has further fueled skepticism among fans and the media. 

“It was telling that Engelbert’s best defense when asked whether she’d said the players should be, “on their knees, thanking their lucky stars” for a new, $2 billion media rights deal was to claim “inaccuracy” about what she’d said. Yet Engelbert wouldn’t say what those inaccuracies were or where they occurred, instead deflecting to how tough the criticism has been on her and her family.”Nancy Armour wrote in her Opinion piece on USA Today. 

The gravity of the situation demanded clear answers from Engelbert. Just like she denied the Clark-related question, she could have done the same with the media rights statement (if both are false, of course). But the different answers to both questions don’t help Engelbert. She did vow to repair things: “If the players in the W don’t feel appreciated and valued by the League, then we have to do better, and I have to do better.” Only results on the court and off it might convince the public now.