Caitlin Clark is often referred to as the WNBA’s version of Steph Curry because of her deep range, fearless shooting, and jaw-dropping playmaking. Her rise has helped reshape the league’s style, and Curry has recognized that for years, staying in touch with her as her star grew. Now, her name has resurfaced unexpectedly, tied to Stephen Curry’s decision to leave Under Armour after 13 years.

The Curry brand remained with Steph in this split, leaving him an option to go out on his own. While rumours were flying regarding his next move, Bloomberg dropped a bomb regarding Caitlin Clark’s role in the breakup. 

“One sore point for Curry was the attempt last year to recruit Caitlin Clark to join his brand, according to people familiar with the matter. He and the company pursued the phenom, but Under Armour’s offer trailed the total value of Nike’s pitch, the people said. Clark, now a star in the WNBA, opted to sign with Nike,” reported Bloomberg.

Under Armour’s reported bid for Caitlin Clark was approximately $16 million for 4 years, including a signature shoe. That was topped by Nike, where Clark signed a reported 8-year $28 million deal.

Many outlets and popular social media accounts reported this with clickbait titles. They inferred that Clark was the only reason behind Stephen Curry’s departure from Under Armour. Even if the posts and the articles stated this report as the source, a popular interpretation that Clark was the only reason has emerged. 

Fact Check: What Was Caitlin Clark’s Role In Stephen Curry’s Under Armour Decision?

First of all, the original reporting never indicated that Caitlin Clark was the ‘only’ reason for Stephen Curry’s decision. “Clickbait Debunked: Multiple sources very close to the situation tell Soul Retriever it’s ‘absolutely insane’ to suggest that not signing Caitlin Clark was the reason Steph Curry left Under Armour,” Soul Retriever wrote. “The source also mentioned, “While not signing Caitlin was a point of frustration, it was NOT at all the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Under Armour even pushed back on the report that Caitlin Clark did not have any part in the decision. “The story is unfortunate and untrue. Both parties have rejected the premise that Caitlin Clark was a contributing factor to the separation,” an Under Armour spokesperson told Complex.

Bloomberg had reported that failing to land Clark only magnified Curry’s concerns about the brand’s investment strategy. Multiple reports say Curry and his advisers became frustrated by what they saw as “underinvestment” in his Curry Brand, with marketing and product investment not matching his stature.

“Just in the best interest of both parties, the sneaker industry is difficult, and like I said, things change over time. A little disappointing on how it turned out based on where the Curry brand has been for the last five years, the announcement we had two years ago, but I think it’s the right thing for everybody,” Curry said after the announcement. 

There was a host of reasons why Steph left the company. According to reports, Under Armour was restructuring financially. It was putting its core products as the primary focus while cutting down on major athlete deals.

The two sides mutually agreed to separate in November 2025. Under Armour and Curry announced the split on November 12. “For Under Armour, this moment is about discipline and focus on the core UA brand during a critical stage of our turnaround,” Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank said in a statement. “And for Stephen, it’s the right moment to let what we created evolve on his terms. We’ll always be grateful for what he’s brought to the UA team.”

It was a decision shaped by company strategy as much as athlete preference. Because of the reporting by multiple outlets suggests that the Clark pursuit reflected Curry’s frustration with UA’s investment in basketball. Whether that translated into a direct deciding factor remains disputed and unconfirmed without Curry explicitly saying so.