I really thought the Sydney Sweeney thing would blow over by now, but oddly, it hasn't. She's still being complained about relentlessly, and not just by internet denizens. Members of the legacy media and their cohorts are still clamoring to get their say in.
Jen Psaki, that bastion of integrity, weighed in recently and said basically the same thing many leftists have said about the Sweeney ad where the blonde bombshell showed up buck naked to promote a gambling website.
To paraphrase, Psaki said, "*BOCK* Sweeney is ruining women's sports! *BOCK*"
Jen Psaki is an absolutely deranged sociopathic liar. She thought Doug Emhoff "redfined masculnity." pic.twitter.com/LkJE7uvAmm
— J.D. Haltigan, PhD 🏒👨💻 (@JDHaltigan) September 19, 2026
If you've seen one Psaki clip, you've seen all the leftist clips on a subject. If she's good for anything, it's being a spokesperson for the hivemind.
The truth is, Sydney Sweeney isn't ruining women's sports. She never was. In fact, her appearance in the buff to promote a sports gambling website has very little to do with women's sports at all. There are too many degrees of separation.
But they are correct. Women's sports are being ruined, but not by Sweeney. Women in women's sports and the media itself are ruining women's sports.
First, let's look at two women in women's sports everyone likes: Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham. Two women who are unapologetically hated by so many within the organization that even the officials will overlook obvious wrongs done to them.
Caitlin Clark got punched in the throat & stepped on by Alyssa Thomas.
— Jon Root (@JonnyRoot_) June 25, 2026
No foul, of course 🙄 pic.twitter.com/peBy5K3kfi
Clark and Cunningham are two white girls with traditional values outclassing everyone in an organization where the body politic leans woke, and so the rage and anger taken out on them is done to the sound of silence. This particular issue has caused the drama around the two to overtake the actual sport, and most people who tune into sports don't watch for the social aspects, unless they're watching professional wrestling.
In fact, this obvious socio-political nonsense that's infected the WNBA has turned a lot of people off to the point where they feel as if they're assisting it by tuning in. They just want to watch Clark and Cunningham play, but when they do, they have to endure watching the outrageous things done against them in the name of jealousy, and having to endure being enraged by unfairness isn't a good time.
The fact that the WNBA can't seem to breach a certain level of popularity isn't Sweeney's fault; it's the WNBA's.
But then there's also the fact that people just aren't tuning in to watch. Why? The aforementioned drama is one reason, but the other is that women's sports just aren't as exciting as men's sports.
The brutal truth (though this shouldn't be brutal, it just is in the modern day) is that men are more physically capable than women. They run faster, jump higher, throw farther, and endure more punishment than women do. This isn't bombastic to say. The entirety of human history has the numbers to back this up. You can go on YouTube right now and see innumerable videos of women athletes at the professional level getting smoked by regular Joes or even male youth teams. It's not insulting to point this out; it's just nature.
So, people end up watching the male sport, which then causes money to flood in, which then allows the league to subsidize women's sports. In truth, men aren't actually destroying women's sports either. If anything, the men are keeping women's sports alive by paying for it to exist despite the public's lack of involvement.
But let's get down to the most brutal truth of all.
Women just aren't interested in watching women's sports at the level men are interested in watching men's sports. Men are the primary consumers of sporting events by and large, and it's men who spend the most money on things like tickets, jerseys, paraphernalia, and television sports packages. Women do not spend nearly the same amount of money on sports that men do.
Ally Bank did a 2025 "Cost of Fandom" survey and found that men spend almost $2,000 a year on sports-related things, while women spend around $1,250. What should also be considered is that when women spend money on sports-related things, they tend to spend more on men's sports than women's sports, so much so that men actually outspend women when it comes to women's sports.
Now, let's also consider what women do consume more than women's sports. The numbers are pretty easy to find.
Before he became soft, Bill Burr once made a joke about women being mad about no one watching the WNBA and turned it around on them (*Language Warning*), pointing out that they aren't really watching the WNBA either, choosing instead to watch entertainment focused on interpersonal drama.
It gave me the idea that what women truly like watching is what equates to professional wrestling, but without the wrestling.
But his point is solid. Women overwhelmingly tune in to watch programs like Real Housewives or The Kardashians.
The numbers prove this. Episodes of shows like "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" rake in an average viewership of half a million per episode, with the vast majority of viewers being women. On season finales or reunion specials, those numbers often bump up to 2.4 to 2.8 million.
Now, to be fair, the WNBA is averaging anywhere from 740,000 to 1.3 million a game, usually depending on which network it's playing on. However, as the Sports Business Journal points out, the viewership is majority male:
Men are a “large and growing part of the WNBA’s TV audience,” making up 60% of ESPN networks’ WNBA viewers. They are about 55% of ION’s WNBA viewers, up from 50% last year. On CBS, male viewers aged 18 and older now make up 54% of WNBA viewers, up from 48%.
So, it's not Sweeney. It's not men. It's the WNBA's inability to create an environment where good sportsmanship comes before bigotry and jealousy, and pure market forces of women just not being as interested in it as many would like.
