When Outsports dropped its annual Power 100 list celebrating LGBTQ+ figures in sports, it should’ve been a moment of pure celebration. The Outsports Power 100 rank included Breanna Stewart, Alyssa Thomas, and Paige Bueckers all in the top 50, recognizing their influence both on and off the court. But instead of just applause, the list sparked an unexpected heated debate about what influence really means. The numbers didn’t sit right with fans. Thomas landed at 17th while Stewart came in at 27th, despite the write-up specifically praising Stewart’s activism work. One confused fan posted an image highlighting the discrepancy and wrote, “Okay, I actually read this Outsports Power 100 rank list and I’m…confused. Do the ranking matters? Why are these people influential? AT is 17th out but there’s nothing in her blurb about any work or outreach for the community, yet Stewie is 27th, highlighting her recognition for her activism?” So what gives?
The Criteria That’s Got Everyone Scratching Their Heads
Outsports laid out their method pretty clearly. They used 6 specific criteria: job title, league or media connections, social media reach, LGBTQ advocacy, whether someone’s currently active or retired, and championship wins. On paper? Makes sense. In practice? Fans aren’t buying it.
Here’s the thing. The same fan who questioned the Outsports Power 100 rank pulled the actual quote from Outsports: “We used a system that assigned points based on criteria such as job title; league, conference or media affiliation; social media influence; LGBTQ advocacy; whether they are current or former; and for athletes coaches and team executives, how many championships they have won.” Then they dropped this truth bomb: “I am an AT fan but using their own criteria, she shouldn’t be spots ahead of Stewie.”
Even supporters of Thomas found the Outsports Power 100 rank placement strange. Stewart has been vocal about issues affecting the LGBTQ community for years. She’s married to former WNBA star Marta Xargay. She speaks up. She shows up. Thomas is brilliant on the court, absolutely. But if advocacy is part of the formula, why the gap?
What Fans Really Think About These Numbers
This wasn’t just one person being picky. Comments poured in from all over the internet questioning the logic. People who actually follow these athletes closely couldn’t make sense of it.
“I am an AT fan but using their own criteria, she shouldn’t be spots ahead of Stewie.” – A Fan Commented.
Another fan spotted an even stranger placement. Paige Bueckers at number 35? She hasn’t played a single WNBA game yet. Someone wrote, “Paige being number 35 lol,” and another shot back, “Ain’t no way that wasn’t deliberate.”
Then there’s the StudBudz situation. Courtney Williams and Natisha Hiedeman created a cultural movement with their podcast and authentic presence. One fan asked, “No Courtney Williams or Natisha Heideman???? Is there something I am missing here by me being a straight man, because I really feel like the StudBudz should be on here for their cultural influence?” Valid question, honestly.
Why This Matters More Than You Think
The debate cuts deeper than just arguing about who deserves what spot. It exposes how messy things get when you try to measure influence with a points system. Championships? Easy to count. Social media followers? There’s a number. But activism and real community impact? That stuff lives in moments you can’t capture in a database. It’s in the conversations these athletes start, the young people they inspire, the spaces they make safer just by being themselves.
Maybe that’s why fans are pushing back so hard. They see the work these women do every single day. When the Outsports Power 100 rank numbers don’t match reality, it stings. Lists like this matter because visibility matters. Getting the rankings right? That’s how you show you’re actually paying attention.
