The WNBA has finally acted. After the intense public pressure and the growing indignation in social networks, Jacy Sheldon and Marina Mabrey have been officially suspended for their participation in what many fans have described as a direct aggression against the superstar of the Indiana Fever, Caitlin Clark. The suspensions occur after a party of the Copa del Commissioner that became a sample of both Clark’s brilliance and the disciplinary dysfunction of the league.

The June 18 match between the Indiana Fever and the Connecticut Sun should have been a celebration of elite basketball. Clark, recently recovered from an injury, led his team in a resounding victory that attracted more than 2.2 million viewers, the third most in the history of the WNBA. However, the game plunged into chaos, and that attention quickly became scrutiny.

The Sheldon’s touch in the eye in the second quarter, an action that many considered reckless and dangerous, only earned him a common lack in the review. Then came the now infamy of Mabrey’s entire body during a stopped ball play, which left Clark dispatched on the ground. Surprisingly, only a technical foul earned him at that time, although the video clearly showed a deliberate aggression.

For days, the league was silent while the videos went viral, the commentators criticized hard to arbitration and the fans demanded responsibilities. That silence broke when the WNBA finally issued its statement: Sheldon and Mabrey would be suspended.

The decision, although it was well received by many, raises deeper questions about the priorities of the League. Why was public indignation needed to boost action? And why Clark, the greatest promoter of League audiences, was not better protected at that time?

Caitlin Clark’s impact on WNBA is undeniable. Since his arrival in the League, he has attracted record crowds, television ratings has increased by more than 50% and has turned the Faver into an essential team. His return after an injury to the quadriceps marked a strong rebound both in the performance of the team and in the visibility of the league. However, again and again, it has been target of what fans are increasingly perceived as deliberate aggression.

“She is the reason we are seeing it,” said a viral publication. “And the League treats her as if it were the problem.”

It’s not just Clark. The most important issue is consistency and equity. In a sport where physical demand is part of the game, there is a thin line between hard game and selective abuse. The WNBA has been proud for a long time of its determination, intensity and elite competition, but without clear disciplinary standards, the League runs the risk of transmitting a wrong message.

That message became clearer when, despite the brutality of Mabrey’s blow and the context of Clark’s recent injury, there was no immediate expulsion. Instead, everything remained the same, until social networks made it impossible to ignore.

Even more worrying is the apparent pattern of the league with respect to Clark. In addition to being attacked on the court, Clark has been subjected to 11 anti -doping controls this season, much more than any other player. This pattern raises doubts about whether the WNBA is treating its most profitable star with the respect and protection it deserves, or if a completely different standard is being applied.

The negative reaction is not only digital. Fans have come to the stadiums, with posters in hand, demanding justice. The sponsors have begun to express their concern for the management of the league with their star players. And Clark herself has remained serene and professional in public, even before the continuous criticism.

The role of Sophie Cunningham in the game also caught attention. Known for his aggressive game, Cunningham seemed to defend Clark when no one else did. While her actions brushed the limit of excessive use of force, many fans acclaimed her as a very necessary executor: a player willing to defend the image of the league when the referees did not do it.

Even so, Cunningham’s exploits are a symptom of a broader problem. Star players should not need bodyguards. WNBA must create an environment where all athletes, especially those that drive the growth of the league, are protected by the rules and their referees.

The league’s response this time can be a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. If the WNBA hopes to maintain its impulse and increase its fans base, you need to deal with situations like these with the seriousness they deserve.

This implies more than simply suspending the players after the fact. It requires real -time accountability, referees with authority and the commitment of leaders to defend the integrity of the game. The idea that a player can be caught during a stopped ball play – in national television – without immediate consequences, undermines everything the league claims to defend.

And do not be wrong: the world is observing. From fans in Hong Kong to those who see her for the first time in the United States, Caitlin Clark has become a global sports ambassador. If it retires, or worse, it is permanently injured due to the inaction of the league, the recent boom of the WNBA could crumble as fast as it arose.

It’s time for WNBA to learn from this moment. The physical game can be part of the basketball, but so is responsibility. Protecting players like Clark is not only ethical, but also commercial.

Sheldon and Mabrey suspensions transmit a message. But that message has weight depends entirely on what the WNBA does below.