According to viral posts, the WNBA star rejected the offer because of Nike’s partnership with “that Kaepernick clown.”

In mid-June 2024, posts on Facebook, among other places, claimed that WNBA star Caitlin Clark had turned down a $400 million endorsement deal from Nike because of its partnership with former NFL quarterback and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick. The story appears to have originated on the website esspots.com, which wrote:

In a surprising and highly controversial move, rising basketball star Caitlin Clark has turned down a lucrative $400 million endorsement deal with sports giant Nike. The decision has sparked widespread debate, particularly because of Clark’s blunt and pointed reason for rejecting the offer: her disapproval of Nike’s ongoing partnership with Colin Kaepernick, whom she referred to as “that Kaepernick clown.”

However, this claim was not true. Esspots is a satirical website with a disclaimer explicitly stating that its stories are false:

Before you proceed to read our content, we would like to emphasize that nothing on this website is real. All of the articles, stories, and commentary found on Esspots.com are entirely fictitious and created for the purpose of entertainment only.

Some of the social media pages sharing the claim — like SpaceX Fanclub on Facebook — also carry a similar disclaimer. “Nothing on this page is real,” that page’s description states.

In reality, Clark already previously had an endorsement deal with Nike beginning in 2022 as a college athlete, and Kaepernick has been associated with Nike since 2018. At the time of this reporting, Clark is in negotiations for a new Nike contract as a professional athlete. In April, several outlets reported that she was on track to sign an eight-year, $28 million contract with Nike. Clark and Kaepernick are common targets of satire pages like essports.com whose content is sometimes confused with real news.

Because the claim that Caitlin Clark turned down a $400 million endorsement deal with Nike due to Kaepernick stems from a website whose output is explicitly described as satirical in nature, this claim is rated “Labeled Satire.”