WNBA LUNACY: Cathy Engelbert and the league can’t define what the ‘W’ in WNBA stands for | Don’t @Dan Dakich and me
Recently, Indiana Fever player Sophie Cunningham made headlines by defending women’s sports. Meanwhile, former NBA players Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White have declared for the 2027 WNBA Draft. In response, the WNBA’s official task committee convened to address fundamental questions surrounding the definition of “woman.” Unfortunately, they failed to reach a consensus. The league, led by Commissioner Cathy Engelbert, attributed their inability to outside “hatred and vitriol” and opted to schedule another meeting instead. In a recent episode of “Don’t @ Me,” Dan Dakich pointed out the absurdity of the situation while the WNBA seems to be on its own path.
For anyone hoping the WNBA would provide a clear definition of “woman” this week, I’m afraid there’s bad news. It looks like this story will continue to unfold over the weekend.
The league has really hit a wall in addressing what is arguably the most challenging issue they’ve faced…
What is a woman?
Last week, a task force was set up to delve into this topic, but after several days of discussions, no conclusions were reached. Surprising, right?
During this time, Engelbert expressed concern about the divisions within the sport, condemning “malicious” motives and alleging that players were being used as political pawns. To me, that seems a bit hypocritical from a league that heavily promoted Black Lives Matter last summer. But what do I know?
Moving on to Engelbert’s background—she’s been rather quiet lately concerning the prevailing culture wars in the league.
Appointed commissioner in 2019, she seemed quite knowledgeable about women’s issues, emphasizing “women’s empowerment” during games. In her inaugural press conference, she even highlighted the importance of leadership in sports for women and girls, linking her personal experiences to her passion for the game. She expressed hopes of elevating the visibility of women’s basketball and enhancing player and fan experiences.
Engelbert had stated, “This role combines my extensive business experience with my love for basketball, particularly in promoting women’s involvement.”
Kathy Engelbart didn’t have the same problem six years ago.
I did some digging into Engelbert’s first press conference and found it unsettling, especially amid the current “transgender in women’s sports” controversies surrounding the league.
Interestingly, she used the word “women” 33 times, frequently referencing terms like “women’s leadership” and “women’s initiatives” throughout that event.
Sam Ponder criticized the WNBA’s recent actions, urging them to be brave and defend women.
Engelbert shared her upbringing with five brothers and a father, all basketball players, and discussed breaking barriers in a male-dominated industry. She spoke passionately about women’s advancement, emphasizing the challenges she faced as a female leader.
I think it’s hard to imagine many people welcoming a biological male into their spaces, but that’s just me.
Engelbert recently locked her social media account and spoke about her prior role as the first female CEO of a Big Four accounting firm, which she was justifiably proud of.
She remarked, “After such a lengthy career with one company, I was eager for something new, and leading in women’s initiatives aligns with my passions.”
Engelbert had voiced her enthusiasm about having transitioned into the WNBA, describing it as an exciting time for women’s sports. But, I can’t help but wonder what has shifted since then. How does she go from having such conviction about womanhood to being unable to define it?
Recent statements have become vague, especially concerning the inclusion of transgender players—a memo last week suggested the issue would continue to garner significant attention.
This seems like a convoluted response from someone whose career has been built on promoting women’s issues.
