The silence is over. After days of backlash and viral outrage, the WNBA has finally suspended Jacy Sheldon and Marina Mabrey for their roles in what fans are calling a targeted assault against Caitlin Clark. But why did it take so long, and what message is the league really sending? With sponsors uneasy, fans furious, and Clark carrying the WNBA’s momentum, this decision could be too little, too late. Here’s what it means for the league’s future and its credibility.

The WNBA has finally acted. Following intense public pressure and growing outrage on social media, Jacy Sheldon and Marina Mabrey have been officially suspended for their roles in what many fans have described as a direct assault on Indiana Fever superstar Caitlin Clark. The suspensions come after a Commissioner’s Cup game that became a showcase of both Clark’s brilliance and the league’s disciplinary dysfunction.

The June 18 game between the Indiana Fever and the Connecticut Sun should have been a celebration of elite basketball. Clark, fresh off an injury, led her team to a resounding victory that drew more than 2.2 million viewers, the third-most in WNBA history. However, the game descended into chaos, and that attention quickly turned to scrutiny.

Sheldon’s eye poke in the second quarter, an action many considered reckless and dangerous, earned him only a common foul on review. Then came Mabrey’s now-infamous full-body shove during a set piece, which left Clark sprawling on the ground. Surprisingly, it only earned him a technical foul at the time, despite video clearly showing deliberate aggression.

For days, the league remained silent as the videos went viral, commentators harshly criticized the officiating, and fans demanded accountability. That silence was broken when the WNBA finally issued its statement: Sheldon and Mabrey would be suspended.

The decision, while welcomed by many, raises deeper questions about the league’s priorities. Why did it take public outrage to prompt action? And why wasn’t Clark, the league’s biggest ratings driver, better protected at the time?

Caitlin Clark’s impact on the WNBA is undeniable. Since her arrival in the league, she has drawn record crowds, increased television ratings by more than 50%, and turned the Fever into a must-see team. Her return from a quadriceps injury marked a sharp rebound in both the team’s performance and the league’s visibility. However, time and again, she has been the target of what fans increasingly perceive as deliberate aggression.
“She’s the reason we’re watching,” read one viral post. “And the league treats her like she’s the problem.”

It’s not just about Clark. The more important issue is consistency and fairness. In a sport where physical demands are part of the game, there’s a fine line between hard play and targeted abuse. The WNBA has long prided itself on its determination, intensity, and elite competition, but without clear disciplinary standards, the league risks sending the wrong message.

That message became clearer when, despite the brutality of Mabrey’s hit and the context of Clark’s recent injury, there was no immediate ejection. Instead, everything continued as usual, until social media made it impossible to ignore.

Even more troubling is the league’s apparent pattern regarding Clark. In addition to being attacked on the court, Clark has been subjected to 11 drug tests this season, far more than any other player. This pattern raises questions about whether the WNBA is treating its most bankable star with the respect and protection she deserves, or whether she is being held to an entirely different standard.

The backlash isn’t just digital. Fans have flocked to stadiums, signs in hand, demanding justice. Sponsors have begun to express concern about the league’s handling of its star players. And Clark herself has remained calm and professional in public, even in the face of continued criticism.

Sophie Cunningham’s role in the game also drew attention. Known for her aggressive play, Cunningham appeared to stand up for Clark when no one else would. While her actions bordered on excessive force, many fans hailed her as a much-needed enforcer: a player willing to defend the league’s image when the referees wouldn’t.

Still, Cunningham’s exploits are a symptom of a broader problem. Star players shouldn’t need bodyguards. The WNBA must create an environment where all athletes, especially those who drive the league’s growth, are protected by the rules and its officials.

The league’s response this time may be a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. If the WNBA hopes to maintain its momentum and grow its fan base, it needs to treat situations like these with the seriousness they deserve.

This involves more than simply suspending players after the fact. It requires real-time accountability, authoritative referees, and a commitment from leaders to uphold the integrity of the game. The idea that a player can be caught during a set piece—on national television—without immediate consequences undermines everything the league claims to stand for.

And make no mistake: the world is watching. From fans in Hong Kong to those watching her for the first time in the United States, Caitlin Clark has become a global ambassador for the sport. If she retires, or worse, is permanently injured due to the league’s inaction, the WNBA’s recent rise could crumble as quickly as it emerged.

It’s time for the WNBA to learn from this moment. Physicality may be part of basketball, but so is responsibility. Protecting players like Clark is not only ethical, but also business-related.

The suspensions of Sheldon and Mabrey send a message. But whether that message carries weight depends entirely on what the WNBA does next.