State Farm’s recent ad highlights the problem that plagues women’s sports

State Farm has released another ad featuring Indiana Fever rookie Caitlin Clark, titled “Rookie Move.”

The 30-second ad begins like most State Farm spots. A mother and son stand outside a badly-damaged garage, the trunk of a car sticking out. It is revealed the the son was pulling out and forgot to open the door, the mother labelling the gaff a “rookie move.”

Clark is summoned by the word “rookie,” and she goes on to explain how she’s not a rookie anymore. She pokes fun at herself and acts almost like an over-confident veteran, seemingly trying to talk about herself however she can. When she realizes that she cannot help the situation, she summons Jake from State Farm.

Jake, as always, solves the problem and explains how State Farm can help “no matter how long you’ve been in the game.” Clark, shocked, realizes she’s got a game to play and disappears. Jake, the mother, and the son then say, in unison, “Rookie move.”

It’s a good ad— Funny, concise, and featuring a star. It’s everything you want in a commercial.

It’s the next part that’s concerning.

During the logo sequence, the screen tells the viewer to “Watch NBA on ESPN.” It’s such a small detail, something most people will overlook.

But intentional or not, it’s a reminder that women’s sports have a long way to go.

In the world of advertising, State Farm is one of the best. This is a not-so-subtle form of subliminal advertising. The message flashes on the screen for just a second, associating Clark to basketball and basketball to NBA. The problem, obviously, is that Clark is one of the WNBA’s biggest stars. Essentially, her image is being used to sell State Farm… and NBA ratings.

Now, I understand the WNBA is in its offseason. I understand this is a very minute thing, and that State Farm probably didn’t mean anything by this. But my opinion on the matter remains:

The NBA can’t have it both ways.

Sports Pro Media reported after the WNBA Finals that the WNBA had lost about $40 million in 2024, even after setting countless records for merchandise sales, attendance, and TV viewership. In the article, one unnamed NBA executive is quoted saying, “ won’t see any windfall for years.”

Why is that? Why is it that one of the fastest-growing leagues in America, with a couple of the nation's most popular young stars in Clark and Angel Reese, can't seem to figure out the final step?

No matter how good the league is, success is determined by one thing: Perception.

Social media is an unforgiving place, but the WNBA account on X sure does takes some heat. Sure, there’s always the “women’s basketball isn’t entertaining” angle, an argument that loses its impact when you see the ratings this season after the league was actually covered and promoted.

Recently, the trend is to bash the WNBA account admin. To say that they are not cutting it, some suggesting to hire the Fever's social media team (who do a tremendous job, by the way).

But my personal favorite is “WNBA players should be paid less because their league earns a net negative.”

It is an homage to the efforts of Kelsey Plum and others, who have argued that WNBA players should receive salaries comparable to NBA players. Not comparable in dollar amount, but comparable in percentage of revenue made by the league. The main argument is that the WNBA is not a profitable organization, and therefore the players cannot earn a percentage of profit that does not exist.

I absolutely agree that a league that does not bring in NBA-type revenue cannot pay its athletes NBA-type salaries. In order to pay it, you have to earn it. Not in a moral sense-- you quite literally must possess the money in order to dish it out. Basic economics, even this communications and journalism major can figure that out. But that's not the point I'm making.

The point is that the far-richer male counterpart is willing use the WNBA’s most polarizing star to sell NBA products, then complain when the WNBA does not deliver on its end of the bargain.

The NBA is double-dipping, just because it can, and it simply is not fair to the WNBA when the league is trying to grow itself.

Some of this problem lies in the media. ESPN's First Take has started to increase its WNBA coverage in the past few years, a step in the right direction. ESPN has started to treat women's college basketball better for College Gameday.

Some of the issue lies in the fans. Not those invested in the WNBA, I'm talking about the few that take every opportunity to tear it down. I'm talking about the few that will go out of their way to say that they don't want to see WNBA content.

But in the same light, the fans are the consumers and their opinions are the ones that matter. You cannot force a product that they do not want to buy.

It begins a viscous cycle. The WNBA will not grow without coverage. But more coverage means more of those comments, more of those comments mean less coverage, less coverage means less growth.

But we're getting off subject.

If Caitlin Clark can be used to convince people to watch the NBA, why can't NBA stars be used to attract attention to the W? Is it a one-way street? The WNBA is a subsidiary of the NBA, but wouldn't the NBA want both products to be successful? Wouldn't the investment that "won't see any windfall for years" be appreciated when it pays off?

This season is an indication that the WNBA explosion isn't a matter of if-- it's when. Now the question is how soon, and that depends on the collective efforts of executives on both sides to properly and positively promote their product-- with the stars that have proven to be marketable.

Maybe it falls on the WNBA. Maybe it falls on the NBA. Whatever the case may be, it's a problem. A problem that will continue to restrict the WNBA from reaching its true potential until a few great minds take a stand and solve it.