Keeping the W in the WNBA

This author has never seen a WNBA game and probably never will, even though her city, Houston, had one of the original eight WNBA teams in 1997. The Houston Comets won the first four Championships before they were sold, and it all went downhill. Now, decades later, there is enough drama to bring The Guardian into the arena. That is curious — why does a British newspaper care about a sports franchise in another country? Do they not have enough excitement with their own sports that they have to look elsewhere for copy?

Reading further, it’s not a Brit writing an article that disparages specific players in the WNBA; it’s an American, a man by the name of Howard Bryant. Next question: Why is an American writing for a British paper? This author might think it’s because no one in the U.S. will pay for his columns, but more research reveals that he works for ESPN and has written several books. Someone somewhere in the U.S. is paying him. Why? That is an entirely different article.

If leaping to conclusions ever becomes an Olympic sport, Bryant would certainly win the gold medal. In his article, "Sophie Cunningham isn’t rejecting politics. She’s cashing in on them," Bryant, who is black, takes Cunningham’s stand against transgender men competing with women and concludes that she’s anti-black and anti-transgender. So, to follow his logic, all transgender men must be black, because that is the only way his conclusion makes sense. Have I lost anyone?

After reading the entire article, I can say that Bryant has a huge chip on his shoulder about race and that, being the leftist that he probably is, he’s also a very angry man. He’s probably also a frustrated historian. This can be seen in statements such as “Just as the Black body has always out valued the Black brain as its main asset in America whether it be the cotton field or the playing field, so too it is with women – sex is always near.”

His article drips with disdain for Cunningham and those who support her, but why? Does Bryant have a specific problem with Cunningham or is it just general ‘hate all the white folk’? Further on in the article, Bryant states, “With mainstream money comes the mainstream language – and its accompanying racism and misogyny. Her whiteness sells. Her whiteness and straightness in a time of nationwide anti-blackness and homophobia sell even more. Cunningham doesn’t fight it. She bathes in it.” The audacity! How dare a skinny white girl make a living playing basketball? Just who does she think she is? Shouldn’t she recognize and bow to her superiors?

What set Bryant and a whole host of other writers off was an interview Cunningham gave to Bryant’s employer, ESPN, in which she discussed her thoughts on transgender athletes. Not once has she ever said that she hates transgender athletes. Not once. “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest.” Cunningham says in the interview. “And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

Apparently, because she will not bow to the altar of transgenderism, she is now a transphobe and, if you listen to Bryant, anti-black as well. I'm still trying to absorb that leap of logic there. Bryant goes on, at length, about how sex sells and how the Ladies Pro Golf Association got a boost when it started in 1977 by putting an attractive woman on the cover of Sport magazine. That was supposed to attract the men and boys. No idea if it worked; probably not.

Bryant also sounds bitter in his article when he states, “If the Title IX revolution sought equality and respect, Cunningham has reminded it that nothing builds bank accounts faster than long legs and pandering to the boys.” He sounds like the boy who got turned down by all the pretty girls for the dance. That’s a shame if that happened to him, but he’s an adult now, physically, anyway. He needs to grow up and join the rest of the adults.

If his logic is that sex sells and pretty women will get boys and men to watch WNBA, his math went haywire somewhere along the way. The average viewership of the WNBA was 1.3 million in 2025-2026, and that was a 6% increase. Just how many men and boys does he think are watching? Did he count all of the transgender men? Maybe the basketball uniforms need to be a little skimpier. Apparently, “sex sells” isn’t working to increase the viewership. Maybe better play would do that? Nah, that’s too obvious a solution.

Bryant ends his screed with, “Cunningham needed the culture war to get on the map, needing it as much as it needed her, and all it took was a silly finger-point and being in opposition to someone Black.” Well, where has he been? The WNBA is 64% black. Cunningham has played in the WNBA for eight years. Is Bryant trying to say that it took her eight years to point a finger at another player? He completely leaves out why she pointed out the other player. In his world, Bryant apparently has no problem with a black player throat-punching a white player. That throat punch is what made Cunningham point at the other player. That’s what put her in the public eye, not some desperate need for attention.

Had the opposite player been white, Bryant wouldn’t have said a word. Had Cunningham been black, he would be singing her praises about how brave she was. It’s sad, really. It must be exhausting being that angry and bitter all the time. Some of the biggest racists in the world love to point fingers but ignore the three pointing back at them. It’s projection at its finest. Liberals love to project. They have to, otherwise they would have to accept that they really are that angry and spiteful. My applause to Sophie Cunningham — may she have a long and successful career. For Howard Bryant, I would suggest an extremely long look in the mirror.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.