Want to get more Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account here.
The WNBA has never had more star power, but not all stars drive attention equally.
With two new franchises, a revamped CBA pushing top players into seven-figure earnings, and a rookie class loaded with high-profile talent, the spotlight is no longer just on performance. From viral moments to endorsement deals, certain players are driving attention at a different level.
That shift is already showing up in real terms — all 44 Indiana Fever games are set to be nationally televised or streamed this season, a clear signal of where league-wide attention is being driven.
To measure that impact, Covers built a Marketability Index that ranks the most influential players in the WNBA based on a blend of social reach, search demand, brand strength, and on-court visibility.
And with the league’s latest national commercial already sparking debate, the timing of this ranking couldn’t be more relevant.
-
UPDATE: Paige Bueckers, A’ja Wilson, and Angel Reese appeared at the Met Gala, highlighting the WNBA’s growing crossover into mainstream culture.
-
🔑 Key Takeaways
-
Caitlin Clark ranks No. 1 overall (CMI 83), leading the league with perfect 100 scores in search, brand, and on-court visibility.
-
Angel Reese posts a perfect 100 social score and ranks No. 2 overall (CMI 80), highlighting the power of sustained online engagement.
-
Despite signing a record $5 million deal, A’ja Wilson ranks fourth overall (CMI 49), sitting outside the top three in marketability.
-
The next generation is entering the WNBA with built-in audiences, as Flau’jae Johnson (100 social score) and Azzi Fudd (100 search score) arrive with significantly higher visibility than typical rookies.
Why Caitlin Clark’s No. 1 ranking matters right now
During the league’s latest national TV push, a commercial aired featuring Sabrina Ionescu, A’ja Wilson, and Paige Bueckers — but not Caitlin Clark. That quickly became part of the conversation online, with fans questioning why the league’s biggest draw was missing from a major promotional spot.
That debate is exactly why this index matters.
Clark ranking No. 1 is not just a popularity contest. Her lead is driven by the same things brands, broadcasters, and leagues care about most: reach, search demand, endorsement power, and week-to-week visibility.
Angel Reese, sitting close behind at No. 2 also says a lot about where the WNBA is headed. The league is no longer built around one star, but Clark remains the clearest example of a player whose marketability extends beyond basketball.
Ranking the WNBA's most marketable players
Scores are relative within this dataset and weighted by category importance, meaning a perfect 100 is not required to rank No. 1 overall.
Player
🏆
CMI
(100)
📱
Social
(35)
🔍
Search
(30)
💰
Brand
(20)
🏀
On-Court
(15)
Caitlin Clark
83
46
100
100
100
Angel Reese
80
100
60
82
84
Paige Bueckers
67
57
40
90
90
A'ja Wilson
49
21
28
80
95
Sabrina Ionescu
44
22
15
78
89
Sophie Cunningham
38
25
10
59
77
Cameron Brink
35
25
2
65
66
Kelsey Plum
33
15
3
63
84
Breanna Stewart
33
10
2
70
88
Hailey Van Lith
32
19
9
67
54
The numbers tell one story, but here’s how the WNBA’s biggest stars actually stack up in terms of attention.
WNBA Marketability Index
Why Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese, and Paige Bueckers lead the rankings
Fever
Caitlin Clark (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 83
Caitlin Clark ranks No. 1 overall, leading the league in search demand, brand power, and on-court visibility.
Backed by partnerships with Nike, Gatorade, and State Farm, she sits in a tier of her own commercially.
On the court, she’s the league’s biggest draw. High usage, viral highlights, and sold-out arenas have made her the WNBA’s primary driver of attention — a reality now reflected in scheduling, with all 44 Indiana Fever games set to be nationally televised or streamed this season.
That level of visibility is already shaping award markets as well, with Clark emerging as the early favorite in MVP odds this season
Dream
Angel Reese (Forward)
-
CMI Score: 80
Angel Reese ranks second overall and leads the league with a perfect 100 social score.
She leads the field in reach and engagement, turning viral moments into a wide-ranging endorsement portfolio across fashion, tech, and food brands.
While she isn’t a primary offensive engine, her rebounding production and constant presence in high-discussion moments keep her firmly in the spotlight.
Clark may be the face of the league, but Reese owns the social conversation.
Wings
Paige Bueckers (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 67
Paige Bueckers ranks third overall, supported by 90 scores in both brand and on-court categories.
Bueckers entered the league with one of the strongest brand portfolios in women’s basketball, built through partnerships with Nike, Gatorade, and Bose.
That momentum has carried onto the court. Heavy minutes, strong usage, and a record-setting 44-point game highlight a player whose visibility is only trending up.
The established stars chasing the top tier
Aces
A'ja Wilson (Forward)
-
CMI Score: 49
A’ja Wilson ranks fourth overall despite a 95 on-court score.
Wilson’s on-court dominance is unmatched, with MVPs, titles, and elite usage anchoring her visibility. Strong brand partnerships keep her near the top, but slightly lower social and search demand hold her just outside the top three.
Even after signing a record $5 million deal, Wilson highlights the gap between performance and attention.
A’ja Wilson might be the best player in the world, but she isn’t the most marketable.
Liberty
Sabrina Ionescu (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 44
Sabrina Ionescu blends high usage with consistent exposure on a marquee Liberty team. Her signature Nike shoe and steady presence in big games make her one of the league’s most reliable on-court and commercial stars.
The next tier of WNBA marketability
Fever
Sophie Cunningham (Guard)
CMI Score: 38
Sophie Cunningham benefits from playing on one of the league’s most-watched teams, with her physical style and viral moments boosting visibility. She’s not a primary scorer, but her presence consistently draws attention.
Sparks
Cameron Brink (Forward)
-
CMI Score: 35
Cameron Brink’s marketability is driven by crossover appeal and a wide-ranging endorsement portfolio. Injuries and a limited role have capped her on-court visibility, but the upside remains clear.
Liberty
Breanna Stewart (Forward)
-
CMI Score: 33
Breanna Stewart’s resume speaks for itself, with MVPs and championships driving her visibility. Her impact is more methodical than viral, which limits her reach compared to more highlight-driven players.
Sparks
Kelsey Plum (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 33
Kelsey Plum's scoring ability and emotional style translate well to highlights, but reduced team visibility has impacted her overall exposure. She remains a strong offensive presence with solid brand backing.
Biggest gap between hype and on-court visibility
Sky
Hailey Van Lith (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 32
Hailey Van Lith’s brand and social presence outpace her current on-court role. That gap became more pronounced following her release from the Chicago Sky, as limited minutes and usage never translated into sustained on-court visibility.
Top incoming WNBA rookies by marketability
Rookie scores are based on social reach and search demand entering the league, and are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Player
🏆
Score
(65)
📱
Social
(40)
🔍
Search
(25)
Flau'Jae Johnson
56
100
62
Azzi Fudd
44
44
100
Lauren Betts
14
6
45
Gabriela Jaquez
9
12
17
Olivia Miles
6
3
19
Kiki Rice
3
3
6
Awa Fam
1
1
0
Flau’jae Johnson enters the league with a bigger built-in audience than most established pros.
Flau’jae Johnson (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 56
Flau’jae Johnson leads incoming rookies with a CMI score of 56, powered by a perfect 100 social score.
Johnson enters the league with a massive built-in audience, driven by her crossover appeal in music, media, and basketball. Her combination of elite social reach and strong search demand puts her in a tier of her own among incoming rookies.
Azzi Fudd (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 44
Azzi Fudd follows with a perfect 100 search score, reflecting strong national interest entering the league.
Fudd’s search dominance reflects strong national interest following her college career, giving her one of the highest visibility profiles in the class. While her social following trails Johnson, she enters the league with clear star power and recognition.
Mystics
Lauren Betts (Center)
-
CMI Score: 14
Lauren Betts brings strong on-court expectations as a Top 5 pick and newly minted national champion, but her off-court visibility is still developing compared to the class leaders.
Sky
Gabriela Jaquez (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 9
Gabriela Jaquez enters the league with a stronger built-in audience than several higher-profile prospects, placing her just outside the top tier of incoming rookies in overall visibility.
Lynx
Olivia Miles (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 6
Olivia Miles has a growing presence, but her overall reach and search demand remain modest entering the league.
Toronto Tempo
Kiki Rice (Guard)
-
CMI Score: 3
Kiki Rice’s profile is still emerging, with limited social and search traction relative to other top prospects.
Storm
Awa Fam (Forward)
-
CMI Score: 1
Despite being selected No. 3 overall, Awa Fam enters the league with minimal social and search visibility, highlighting the gap between draft position and marketability.
How the Covers Marketability Index (CMI) works
The Covers Marketability Index (CMI) ranks players based on how much attention and commercial value they generate, combining four key categories into a single score.
Each player’s score is calculated using a weighted formula:
CMI Score = (Social × 0.35) + (Search × 0.30) + (Brand × 0.20) + (On-Court × 0.15)
📱Social Reach (35%)
Measures a player’s presence across major platforms, including follower totals and engagement on Instagram and TikTok.
🔍 Search Demand (30%)
Tracks how often a player is actively searched, using Google Trends data to capture overall interest and curiosity.
💰 Brand Power (20%)
Evaluates endorsement deals, sponsorship visibility, and presence in national marketing campaigns.
🏀 On-Court Visibility (15%)
Accounts for usage, minutes played, national TV exposure, and overall highlight frequency.
Scores are normalized within the player pool, meaning they reflect relative performance rather than raw totals.
The goal of the CMI is to capture how players drive attention across platforms — not just how they perform on the court.
This article originally appeared on Covers.com, read the full article here and view our best betting sites or check out our top sportsbook promos.
