Old Guard vs. New Stars: The Sophie Cunningham, Cheryl Swoops, and Caitlin Clark WNBA Controversy

The 2024 WNBA season has been one of the most highly scrutinized in years, energized in part by the electrifying arrival of Caitlin Clark, the former Iowa Hawkeye whose scoring and name recognition brought a fresh surge of attention to the Indiana Fever and the league as a whole. But alongside her impact has been a flurry of on-court physicality, league-wide debate, and a new rivalry between WNBA generations.

At the center of the latest storm: veteran forward Sophie Cunningham, WNBA legend Cheryl Swoops, and the broader question of who polices the league—its referees or its players.

Clark Becomes a Target

Much of the drama was born out of what seemed, at least to many, repeated rough treatment of Caitlin Clark by opposing defenders. Fans and some analysts have argued that officials were not adequately protecting the Fever guard from aggressive or outright dirty plays—highlighted by incidents such as the hard foul by Marina Mabrey, which was only ruled a flagrant foul upon league review, not in real time.

Clark’s stardom, with its unprecedented media attention, has made her not only a draw but a target. And, according to some, her teammates had not done enough to physically or emotionally stand up for her—something that flies in the face of unwritten rules in sports, where protecting your star is part of the team code.

Cunningham Steps In—And Sparks Outrage

That changed recently during an Indiana Fever vs. Connecticut Sun game, when Fever player Sophie Cunningham delivered a hard takedown on Sun guard JC Sheldon late in the fourth quarter—a move widely seen as retaliation for Sheldon poking Clark in the eye earlier in the contest. Social media and sports talk shows erupted: Was this just classic “enforcer” behavior, or did Cunningham cross the line into unsportsmanlike conduct?

Many older sports fans remember the NBA and NHL dynasties of decades past, where enforcers policed the floor and rink. Think Chicago Bulls players delivering payback for Michael Jordan, or hockey defensemen guarding Wayne Gretzky. To some, Cunningham’s move was a welcome return to old-school protection.

To others—including league legend Cheryl Swoops—it was dirty and dangerous.

Cheryl Swoops Weighs In

Swoops, a four-time WNBA champion and Hall of Famer, didn’t mince words. On her podcast, she called Cunningham’s play “dirty,” nothing short of unnecessary roughness that wasn’t about being physical but about being reckless. “That wasn’t a physical play, it was a dirty play. You grabbed her around the neck and you took her down.” Swoops also questioned the idea that Cunningham was acting as a needed enforcer, suggesting her actions had little to do with protecting a teammate and more to do with losing control.

Swoops’ criticism didn’t occur in a vacuum. She noted the larger pattern of physicality in the WNBA and the way certain stars—most notably Angel Reese—have themselves been praised for playing tough against Clark. As the transcript’s commentator points out, Reese herself was celebrated for “the clothesline from hell” against Clark in college, and then again, for celebrating Kennedy Carter’s hard foul on Clark in the pros. Swoops, defenders argue, didn’t openly criticize those actions with the same vigor, leading to accusations of hypocrisy.

Double Standards and Racial Undertones

This brings us to the heart of the controversy. Fans and pundits alike have suggested implicit double standards in how dirty or physical play is discussed, policed, and punished in the WNBA. When Angel Reese or other Black players have delivered hard fouls on Clark, there have been those—like Swoops—who’ve been less critical, sometimes praising the toughness or competitive fire. But when a white player like Cunningham responds or retaliates, she’s quickly called dirty and receives outsized calls for suspension or banning.

This discrepancy has fueled broader conversations not just about gender but also about race in sports, how narratives are shaped in media, and how past stars relate to the new faces of the league.

The Role of Referees

Underlying all of this is frustration over WNBA officiating. Many feel Caitlin Clark was, and is, being unfairly targeted with little intervention from referees. By the time the league upgraded Mabrey’s foul to a flagrant two days later, the moment had passed—and to fans and Cunningham apologists, too late to help Clark or the team. This failure, they argue, led directly to Cunningham’s retaliation: if referees won’t protect our star, the Fever will.

The Response and Fallout

The Cunningham incident instantly became a flashpoint online. Some fans praised her for finally “having Clark’s back,” while others demanded her removal from the league. The “old guard” represented by Swoops and others reacted strongly, not just against Cunningham but, implicitly, against a new WNBA culture that centers on Clark.

It’s not lost on observers that big names like Swoops didn’t call as loudly for bans or suspensions when the roles were reversed, exposing what many see as an internal schism within the league itself: between those who want to preserve WNBA traditions and those who see the Clark era as a necessary, even overdue, transition.

What’s Next for the WNBA?

The Fever have now shown they will protect their star, for better or worse. The league itself is at a crossroads, needing to balance its newfound visibility, protect the health of its stars, and ensure fairness and safety for all players—regardless of race, fame, or role.

For Clark, Cunningham, and the rest of the Indiana Fever, the message is clear: they’re fed up. And they’re willing to fight back.

For Swoops and the WNBA veterans, the challenge is to ensure the league’s future doesn’t come at the expense of its integrity—or safety. The conversation, at least, is wide open.