Remember last year how Indianapolis literally painted the town to welcome Caitlin Clark? Billboards, video displays, and a giant 20-foot banner at Gainbridge Coliseum—all in honor of a rookie who hadn’t played a single WNBA minute yet. Her No. 22 Fever jersey was already sold out. Indy wasn’t just hyped, they knew. They knew this wasn’t just some top draft pick. This was the one. The game-changer. And she was exactly that. Except, she didn’t just change the Fever. She changed the entire league.

Clark made the Fever the most-watched team in the WNBA by a mile. All 14 of the most-viewed games last season had Clark. She even broke the record for the most All-Star votes ever in WNBA history. That’s influence. That’s movement-making energy.

And it didn’t stop there. In early September, while an NFL Friday night game between the Eagles and Packers was going down, Clark’s Fever vs. the Lynx still pulled 1.26 million TV viewers. Most importantly, when the Fever’s season ended, WNBA playoff viewership dropped. You don’t need a genius to figure out what that means.

Her impact was that massive. So much so that TIME Magazine crowned her the Athlete of the Year. And she became the first WNBA player ever to hold that title. The only other individual woman to win it was Simone Biles in 2021. So naturally, you’d expect her to pop up on Time’s 100 Most Influential People of 2025 list, right? Well… she didn’t.

Yes. The same publication that put her on a pedestal just a few months ago straight-up left her out. Time did include Simone Biles, Serena Williams, Breanna Stewart, Napheesa Collier, Jalen Hurts, and Léon Marchand. Naturally, people aren’t taking it lightly. 

Sports media personality Colin Cowherd just about lost it. “How is Caitlin Clark not in this?” he asked on The Herd. “If Caitlin Clark is not in this, the list is nonsense.” He wasn’t done. “That’s idiotic. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen… In the history of American sports… If you talk about league-changing athletes in America, Tiger [Woods] in golf, Michael Jordan in basketball, Caitlin Clark,” he declared. 

“Time magazine, if you don’t have Caitlin Clark… that’s just dumb,” Cowherd added. “That’s a dumb media list. Dumb. Don’t know what they’re doing… You’ve got to be kidding me. She’s the most influential athlete, I would argue, man or woman in America in the last year.”

And obviously, he’s not the only one fuming. While he expressed it on his show, fans took to social media. 

Fans sound off on TIME’s Caitlin Clark snub

One fan pointed out, “Caitlin has the NFL, PGA, LPGA, NBA, & Goldman Sachs inviting her to help them grow!” And that is true. Even back in October 2024, Clark’s mere presence at an Indianapolis Colts game led to a major social media spike for the team. A video of her waving at the camera racked up over 6.9 million views and more than 36,000 likes, which far surpassed the Colts’ typical social media metrics.

Not to mention, her participation in “The Annika” drew massive crowds and caused the Golf Channel to tweak their programming to broadcast her final hole live. So, her influence is clearly reaching beyond basketball, too. Another fan was blunt, calling it a “wild move” and raising the possibility that her omission was intentional. Critics have long argued that such exclusions point to a larger issue in how women athletes are often sidelined despite their massive influence.

Some believe it’s rooted in deeper biases. But it’s hard to see how this could be the case when TIME magazine has already recognized Clark. Plus, it would have been a huge win for the organization to feature her, especially when no one is as marketable as she is right now. So, yes, this snub definitely raises more questions than answers.

Then there’s the whole Phee and Stewie situation. A fan noted, “Breanna Stewart and Napheesa Collier got included for their @Unrivaledwbb league founding (which lost money and had poor ratings in Year 1) — but it’s an innovative attempt.”  You know, it’s impossible to ignore the significant changes Unrivaled brought.

The league provided a much-needed alternative to playing overseas in the offseason and raised salaries. Plus, they raised $35 million capital and 11.9 million total viewers. However, there also have been rumors about Unrivaled losing a ton of money and even having to reimburse advertisers due to poor ratings. But the whole point here is not UConn greats’ inclusion, it’s Clark’s omission that feels off, especially given her monumental influence.

Speaking of influence, another fan chimed in bringing up Sheila Johnson’s comments. “Why couldn’t they have put the whole WNBA on that cover and said the WNBA is the league of the year.” Sheila is slowly getting her way,” they wrote. It was a direct attack. Sheila, owner of the Washington Mystics, suggested that the league’s resurgence had more to do with the influx of talent than Clark’s presence, stating,

“This year, something clicked with the WNBA, and it’s because of the draft of players that came in. It’s not just Caitlin Clark, it’s (Angel) Reese (as well).”  The jab didn’t go unnoticed by fans.

Lastly, fans are pointing out that the WNBA is already adjusting to Clark’s overwhelming popularity. “What other athlete “influences” rival teams to move their game to a bigger venue?” one said. Teams have been shifting their games to larger venues to accommodate the inevitable crowds. For example, the Dallas Wings moved their June 27 game against the Fever from the College Park Center to the American Airlines Center, expanding seating from 7,000 to 20,000.

Similarly, the Las Vegas Aces are relocating their July 2 game against Indiana from the Michelob Ultra Arena to T-Mobile Arena. Other teams like the Atlanta Dream, Chicago Sky, and Washington Mystics are following suit. The influence is clear, no doubt. But what’s done is done. While TIME’s this move will be talked about, Clark’s influence and impact are likely to be felt in a matter of weeks. Fans will tune in and pack stadiums around the country to see her play, and the effect will likely be felt once again around the entire league.