Two WNBA players were recently disqualified from a game after choosing to kneel during the national anthem, directly violating a newly implemented league policy that bans such demonstrations. The ejection, which has already sparked intense debate both within and outside the sports world, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing clash between personal expression and institutional regulations in professional athletics.

The new rule—informally dubbed the “No Anthem Kneeling” policy—was introduced by WNBA officials ahead of the current season. According to league representatives, the rule was designed to promote “respect, unity, and focus” during the national anthem, which is played before every game. The policy specifically states that all players must stand respectfully during the anthem, with any deviation subject to disciplinary action, including potential disqualification.

This regulation, while not without precedent in other professional leagues, has ignited particularly strong reactions in the WNBA—a league historically recognized for empowering its athletes to speak out on social justice issues. Over the past several years, many WNBA players have taken public stances on racial injustice, police reform, and gender equality. For many, kneeling during the national anthem has served as a peaceful, visible protest against systemic oppression, inspired in large part by former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s protest in 2016.

The ejected players, whose identities have not yet been officially confirmed by the league, reportedly chose to kneel in silent protest as the anthem played. Moments later, referees and team officials intervened, citing the new policy and instructing the players to leave the court. The crowd’s reaction was mixed, with some spectators standing and applauding the league’s enforcement of the rule, while others booed or remained silent in protest.

In a statement released following the incident, the WNBA emphasized that the players were not suspended but were “removed from the game in accordance with existing disciplinary procedures.” The league further reiterated its commitment to “ensuring a respectful game environment” and stated that continued violations of the policy may result in fines or further suspensions.

However, the backlash has been swift and intense. Civil rights organizations, players’ unions, and fans have condemned the policy as a blatant suppression of free speech and a betrayal of the WNBA’s longstanding support for athlete activism.

“Silencing peaceful protest is not unity—it’s control,” said a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The WNBA has built a reputation as a platform for courageous women to challenge injustice. This new rule undermines that legacy.”

Several WNBA players, both current and retired, took to social media to share their disapproval. “We’ve kneeled. We’ve marched. We’ve spoken,” tweeted one veteran player. “Now we’re being told we can’t express ourselves at all? That’s not unity. That’s censorship.”

Others within the league have defended the policy, asserting that sporting events should remain apolitical spaces that promote patriotism and national pride. “We all want to make a difference,” said one league executive, “but there’s a time and place. The anthem should be a moment of shared respect, not division.”

Still, the disqualification has left the league in uncharted territory. While professional sports leagues—including the NBA and NFL—have struggled with how to manage political demonstrations during games, the WNBA has largely been seen as a progressive outlier. Until now, it had allowed and, in some cases, supported athlete protests.

With tensions now mounting, league commissioner Cathy Engelbert is expected to address the issue in an upcoming press conference. Reports indicate that discussions are underway between the league and the players’ association to determine whether modifications to the policy are possible. Some players have reportedly called for a compromise, such as the introduction of an optional moment of silence before the anthem, or designated time before the game for individual or team-led demonstrations.

As of now, no additional players have been disqualified under the rule, but the specter of further disciplinary action looms. The incident has also prompted questions about how the league will handle similar protests going forward and whether a more nuanced policy could better balance respect for national symbols with athletes’ rights to expression.

Fans remain divided. While some believe the policy helps create a more unified and focused game atmosphere, others see it as a betrayal of the league’s identity. Season ticket holders and sponsors have reportedly contacted the league with mixed feedback—some praising the enforcement of the policy, others threatening to withdraw support if players are not allowed to protest freely.

For the two ejected players, the consequences go beyond one missed game. They’ve become the center of a national debate about what it means to take a stand—or a knee—in today’s WNBA. And for the league, the decision to penalize peaceful protest may ultimately prove more divisive than the protests themselves.

In an era where sports and social issues are increasingly intertwined, the WNBA now faces a defining question: Can it enforce unity without silencing the very voices that brought it to prominence?

Only time—and its response to this controversy—will tell.