The rivalry between Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark has never just been about basketball.
It’s been about narratives. About framing. About how America chooses who to cheer for—and who to question.
So when Emmy-winning journalist and cultural commentator Jemele Hill recently said on her podcast Spolitics that Angel Reese could be “the Michael Jordan of the WNBA” and, more provocatively, that she’s “already playing better than Caitlin Clark,” the internet didn’t just react. It exploded.
But the real story isn’t whether Hill’s take is right or wrong.
It’s why she said it.
And what it reveals about the uneasy crossroads where race, gender, media, and athletic excellence continue to collide.
What Jemele Hill Actually Said
On her most recent podcast episode, Hill tackled the season-long media obsession with Clark and Reese, offering a deeper critique of how narratives are built—not just through box scores, but through coded language and biased assumptions.
“We need to stop pretending this is just about basketball,” Hill said. “The way people talk about Reese versus Clark tells you everything about the racialized lens we still apply to women in sports.”
She pushed back hard against recent viral commentary from Robert Griffin III, who suggested that Angel Reese “hates” Clark—insinuating a personal grudge rather than competitive intensity.
“RGIII’s comment wasn’t a sports take,” Hill noted. “It was a projection. Reese doesn’t owe anyone emotional softness just because Clark is the media favorite.”
Then came the part that set the internet on fire:
“In terms of presence, personality, and impact on both ends of the floor? Angel is already playing better basketball. If she keeps this up, she’s MJ in the making.”
Context Matters — And So Does History
To understand Hill’s claim, you have to go back—not just to the 2023 NCAA Championship game, but to how that moment was received.
Clark’s viral three-point bombs and confident trash talk made her a national hero. Reese’s equally confident rebuttal—most famously her “You Can’t See Me” celebration—sparked a tidal wave of criticism.
