Kelsey Mitchell’s Caitlin Clark comments deserve context, including the benefits of all that attention

Indiana Fever guard Kelsey Mitchell spent part of her season-ending press conference explaining what it’s like to play alongside Caitlin Clark. She talked about nasty online messages, the attention that follows the Fever and how difficult some days have become.

"I don’t think people really understand how much we endure, man," Mitchell said Saturday. Later, she asked people to give the players "grace."

Some coverage quickly turned that into Mitchell taking a shot at the Fever fanbase. I don’t think that’s an accurate reading of what she said.

Mitchell has publicly praised Clark in the past and acknowledged the opportunities she helped create. She’s also allowed to explain what’s difficult about being her teammate. Neither makes her an enemy of the woman playing beside her.

WNBA FIGHT OVER MALES IN WOMEN'S SPORTS EXPOSES HOW THE LEFT KEEPS ANSWERING A QUESTION NOBODY ASKED

But the benefits of all that attention still belong in this discussion. Mitchell’s salary went from under $60,000 in 2020 to $206,000 in the season before Clark arrived in the WNBA to $1.4 million in 2026.

That’s a pretty substantial part of the Caitlin Clark experience, too.

Mitchell discussed getting "a lot of flak" for "being on her team," referring to Clark. She also referenced people throughout the basketball world and spoke positively about the Fever organization, praising it as "unbelievable."

I read that as a broader description of the scrutiny that comes with playing alongside Clark. Her answer didn’t establish whether the criticism came from Fever fans, Clark’s detractors or some combination of the two. Those people exist, obviously, and being associated with the league’s biggest star makes Mitchell a target for their criticism, too.

That’s different from declaring that Indiana’s own fans are the problem. Mitchell didn’t identify everyone sending her messages, and we shouldn’t fill in those blanks just because one interpretation makes for a more inflammatory headline.

For example, The New York Times-owned Athletic ran the headline: "Kelsey Mitchell counters Fever GM’s defense of fans, vows to ‘be selfish’ in free agency." There’s one problem: None of Mitchell’s quotes in the story identifies Fever fans as the people she’s criticizing.

Mitchell played six WNBA seasons before Clark arrived; her professional career didn’t begin when the rest of the country started watching the Fever.

She’s experienced a version of this franchise that most of its current audience never saw. So, yes, I’m interested in hearing her describe what changed. That’s a worthwhile subject for reporters to explore.

THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!

And Mitchell has described the positive changes.

In a recent SLAM interview, she credited Clark and Angel Reese with creating opportunities for players throughout the league.

"When Angel Reese and CC came in, it opened up so many doors for us: resources, financial, all of it," Mitchell said.

ANGEL REESE’S LATEST WNBA CONTROVERSY SHOWS HOW VICTIMHOOD BECAME CENTRAL TO HER BRAND

Mitchell explicitly recognized the financial benefits, and portraying her as someone who refuses to acknowledge them would be wrong.

Jason Whitlock raised a worthwhile point on X while discussing Mitchell and teammate Aliyah Boston.

"Their complaint is the media only covers one aspect of the Caitlin Clark experience," Whitlock wrote. He also argued the two Fever players "have every right to explain their experience playing in the shadow of Caitlin Clark."

Mitchell’s perspective belongs in the coverage, and reporters should be interested in what she says, particularly given how long she’s been in Indiana.

Where I’d push back is the idea that discussing the benefits amounts to telling her to shut up. Asking players to keep the upside in perspective doesn’t prevent them from explaining the downside. And explaining the downside doesn’t mean the rest of us have to agree with every conclusion they draw from it.

For example, Mitchell described the difficulty of competing for fans who might not like her. But having fans dislike you is a fairly standard part of the athlete experience. They don’t have to appreciate your effort or acknowledge that you’re doing your best because they want you to fail.

My main complaint with many WNBA players is that they often act like the unpleasant parts of being a public figure are something uniquely unfair to them. They aren't. I'm not a professional athlete, nor am I a very recognizable figure. But even I've received plenty of online hate for doing my job.

It comes with the territory, and the same attention that helps drive bigger paychecks also brings more criticism.

That's the tradeoff and most people happily make that deal.

Spotrac lists Kelsey Mitchell's WNBA cash earnings from 2018 through 2025 at $1,122,442. Her $1.4 million salary this season exceeded what she earned over those first eight seasons combined, and she's in position for another seven-figure contract in free agency this offseason.

Mitchell’s performance earned her a maximum contract. The new collective bargaining agreement made that maximum much more valuable, raising it to $1.4 million as part of an enormous increase in player compensation. The previous maximum was around $250,000 per year.

Clark’s ability to attract viewers is central to the league’s growing business. ESPN and ABC aired five WNBA regular-season games that averaged more than 2 million viewers this year, and all five featured Indiana.

CBS, NBC, ION and Prime Video also drew their biggest regular-season WNBA audiences for Fever games.

PRIME VIDEO WNBA BROADCAST CREW EMBARRASSES ITSELF WITH COVERAGE OF A'JA WILSON FAN INCIDENT

Then Thursday’s season-ending game against Las Vegas averaged 2.25 million viewers across USA Network and CNBC, making it the second-most-watched WNBA first-round playoff game ever. Can you guess who played in the most-watched first-round game ever? Yeah, it was Clark and the Fever against the Connecticut Sun in 2024.

The point is simple: Clark's massive audience has value, and the players are benefiting from it.

And that’s where I still have a problem with the way this subject gets discussed around the league. The negative attention regularly becomes the main story, while the benefits get left out. I think that’s often because those benefits point to a story many WNBA players and media members don’t want to tell: a White girl from Iowa is driving the league’s popularity spike.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

Getting obnoxious DMs from online trolls is part of the experience. But so is earning more in one season than you earned in the previous eight. Letting the first part dominate how you describe the whole thing gives the trolls an awful lot of influence.

Mitchell isn’t nearly the worst example of that attitude. But Saturday’s answer still fit a familiar pattern of emphasizing what players have to endure without spending much time on what they’ve gained.

Last year, Minnesota Lynx guard Courtney Williams gave what I thought was perfect advice for dealing with online hate.

"Press the block button, bro. Press the block button and then move on," Williams said.

Then came her most important comment: "We wanted more eyes on the game... So let’s embrace it."

Credit to Williams for having the guts to say it. It's unfortunate that many of her colleagues didn't seem to heed her advice.

Mitchell has acknowledged the good that came with Clark’s arrival, and she deserves credit for that. But Saturday, she spent a lot of time explaining what she has to endure as Clark’s teammate. If we’re going to tell the full story of Mitchell’s experience, what she’s gained from all that attention belongs in it, too.

That includes the $1.4 million paycheck.