Nancy Armour’s opinion piece in USA Today comparing Caitlin Clark’s fouls complaints to the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till has become one of the most controversial takes in sports media this year. The columnist argued that Clark’s actions put Black lesbian WNBA players at risk by perpetuating a historical pattern of weaponizing threats to white women against African Americans. While the WNBA does face serious issues with online abuse and death threats targeting Black players, the comparison immediately drew backlash from sports commentators who called it one of the dumbest paragraphs ever written.
The fallout was swift and severe. Armour issued a statement defending her broader point about protecting players while acknowledging her comparison was“inartful.”She then locked her X account, a move that seemed to confirm what critics were saying about the whole situation. This isn’t the first controversial take from Armour—she also faced backlash in June over comments about transgender athletes—raising questions about editorial standards at USA Today and whether her perspective should continue having a platform.
The real issue here isn’t whether Black WNBA players deserve protection from online abuse. They absolutely do. The question is whether comparing basketball fouls to historical atrocities is the right way to have that conversation. Good journalism brings people together to solve problems; this approach did the opposite. What do you think USA Today should have done differently?
About the Author
Local Lawton
Local Lawton is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.