Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool Sports and one of Caitlin Clark’s most prominent and vocal fans, has built an empire on unfiltered opinions. Now, he’s aiming his critique at one of the biggest deals in modern sports history, and he isn’t mincing words. In a recent podcast appearance, Portnoy torched the Indiana Fever superstar’s landmark endorsement contract with Nike, calling it “the dumbest” deal he’s seen and bluntly stating that the biggest name in basketball “got screwed.”
Speaking on Rachel DeMita’s “Courtside Club” podcast, Portnoy, who has transitioned from a casual observer to a dedicated follower of the WNBA largely due to Clark, analyzed the deal through the cold, hard lens of a businessman. His conclusion was scathing. “I wrote an article when Caitlin signed her Nike deal. Like instantly, I’m like, ‘This is the dumbest [contract],'” he recounted. “I wish I was her agent.”
Portnoy’s central argument hinges on a jaw-dropping comparison. He pointed to NBA superstar Devin Booker, who reportedly earns $40 million a year from Nike. He then contrasted that with Clark’s deal, widely reported to be in the ballpark of $8 million annually. “In what universe is Devin Booker worth $40 million per year, and Caitlin is worth $8 [million]?” Portnoy questioned, audibly frustrated. For him, the math is simple: Clark’s cultural impact, media presence, and merchandise-moving power are arguably greater than Booker’s at this moment. The massive discrepancy in their compensation, therefore, makes no logical business sense.
This isn’t just a fan complaining. It’s a seasoned entrepreneur who recognizes market value, and he believes Clark’s team failed to cash in on a revolutionary moment. His critique suggests that her agents and Nike negotiated a deal based on the historical, and much smaller, market for women’s sports endorsements, rather than the explosive new reality that Clark herself created.
Portnoy’s criticism of the Nike deal is part of a broader frustration he has with how the WNBA and its corporate partners are managing the “Caitlin Clark effect.” He believes they are failing to capitalize on the present, unprecedented boom in popularity. “I don’t care what the league did 10 years ago, or five years ago. That doesn’t matter, and that doesn’t matter in any negotiation,” he insisted. “[The WNBA is making money] now, and you have to take advantage of it now, and that’s how it works.”
His comments echo a growing sentiment from others in the sports world, including Clark’s own coach, who recently suggested that league leadership is stuck in the past. This public condemnation from a media powerhouse like Portnoy adds a significant voice to the chorus demanding that the business of women’s basketball catches up to the on-court product. He sees a generational talent generating immense value, but he doesn’t see that value being reflected in her contracts.
While it’s too late for Clark to renegotiate her current deal, Portnoy’s public outcry serves a greater purpose. It puts a massive spotlight on the negotiation process and the perceived inequities that still exist at the highest levels of sports marketing. It forces fans, agents, and brands to ask a tough question: When a female athlete becomes the single most talked-about figure in her sport, surpassing her male counterparts in cultural relevance, why isn’t her paycheck reflecting that?
As the world awaits the release of Clark’s first signature shoe, Portnoy’s challenge hangs in the air. “When her shoe comes out, we’ll see what the sales are,” he noted, implying that the market will prove his point. For now, one of the biggest deals in women’s sports history is being publicly framed as one of its biggest fumbles, a cautionary tale of what happens when a revolution is undervalued.
