Aaron Rodgers, Sophie Cunningham speak out. Caitlin Clark doesn’t. Either way, they lose

In this week’s Sports People Weighing In On Social and Political Issues Countdown, the leaderboard is as follows:

1. Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Aaron Rodgers lighting up Dr. Anthony Fauci after the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a Senate hearing last week.

2. Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham making it clear she’s against transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. “I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans,” Cunningham said during an ESPN interview. “And I’m like, ‘never once said that.’ I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. 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.”

3. Caitlin Clark, Cunningham’s teammate, being asked on Sunday — this after the Fever’s 108-100 loss to the Minnesota Lynx — to comment on Cunningham’s stand on trans athletes. “I think, for us, it’s not really a discussion we really have in our locker room,” Clark said. “I think it’s for leagues and the governing bodies to work with their athletes to find solutions, but our focus is on basketball. That’s what we talk about and how we can get wins, and, obviously, we didn’t do that tonight.”

   Advertisement

Now you’re probably saying to yourself, hey, wait a minute, how can Clark land on the Sports People Weighing In On Social and Political Issues Countdown when she essentially did no talking? She offered a tricked-out “no comment” is what she did. There’s no point to what she said.

But we live in times when every sentence — every word, every comma — gets instantly dissected, instantly analyzed, instantly judged. And so it was when Rodgers went off on Fauci, and when Cunningham shared her concerns about “young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men,” and when Clark had no comment about Cunningham’s comments. It all gets tossed into the daily stew of social media commentary.

But excuse me for not getting too worked up over words not spoken. Excuse me for failing to join the crowd that’s terribly, terribly upset at Clark for not being who or what it wants her to be. Excuse me for not expecting Clark to play a role that has been assigned to her by people she doesn’t even know.

This is probably a good place to roll out the after-dinner speech about how there’s a long, glorious history in the United States of athletes taking a stand on social and political issues, the gold standard being Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists in a Black Power salute at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Or when Boston Red Sox legend Ted Williams devoted a portion of his Hall of Fame induction speech in 1966 to expressing the hope that the time comes when “the names of Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson in some way can be added as a symbol of the great Negro (Leagues) players that are not here only because they were not given a chance.” 

These are a couple of very public examples of athlete advocacy that have been passed down through the ages. Dig a little deeper and we learn that in the 1960s NFL coaching legend Vince Lombardi banned homophobic language in the locker room; this in an era when such talk was a basic ingredient in the culture. Lombardi had a younger brother who was gay.

Many of us never knew this about Lombardi when he was alive. I certainly didn’t. Just as I don’t know much about what’s on Caitlin Clark’s mind these days. In the absence of her thoughts, then, it doesn’t make much sense to sift through her every utterance, her every pause, in search of hidden meanings and innuendo. And then get hysterical about it online.

Sports people (and this includes sports media people) who weigh in on political and social issues can count on being inundated with anonymous directives that they should “stick to sports.” It’s a mystery who these people are who feel empowered to tell others to stick to sports. The mere utterance suggests somebody with a doctorate in government affairs, or who perhaps has served in Congress or the diplomatic corps.

The hypocrisy is at once comical and frightening. We like it when our athletes offer their opinions on this or that issue, except when we disagree with those opinions. (Stick to sports!) And athletes who choose not to play this silly parlor game are dismissed as cowards.

Coward. https://t.co/4ietxcRCj5

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) August 3, 2026

Athletes who visit the White House face similar traps. Participate in a White House visit in 2026 and you’re a hero to some, a villain to others. Turn down the visit and you’re a hero to the disenfranchised or someone who disrespects the office of the presidency.

At the risk of boring you with seventh-grade civics, but to use a kitschy sports term to make the point, this would be a good time to have a Turn Back the Clock event that teaches and celebrates the protections of the First Amendment. And if you happen to be a member of a championship team who’s been invited to the White House, go ahead and go. Or don’t go. Do that First Amendment thing and tell everyone else to screw off.

For sports people who want to take a stand on this or that issue and who are prepared to deal with the avalanche of positive and negative commentary that ensues, go right ahead. For athletes who choose to say nothing, allow them that right.

Why does everything have to be so complicated?

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Pittsburgh Steelers, Indiana Fever, NFL, WNBA, Opinion, Culture

2026 The Athletic Media Company