By Mark Ricci
June 26th, 2026
There are a lot of stories in the world about characters flying too close to the sun and getting burned, and many about amazing people who slowly get corrupted by fame or popularity, leading them down a self-destructive path. There are also stories of people who have managed to evolve and change themselves, for better or worse, depending on the moment.
These stories seem to appear often in modern times, but sometimes they twist and turn into new storylines. Either way, the NBA and WNBA are full of players who seem to go along with the idea that they can play the stories this way as long as no one calls them out on it. Is it that they were able to get away with it in the past, and they think they are allowed to do it now? Maybe they think they have moved past their brutal playstyle, and now that they are professionals, whenever someone does it, they're the bad players. Their viewpoint vs their ideals and morals vs their past vs their present vs how the people view them vs how they view themselves. How do these things affect the players, and does it actually matter in the long run?
From the Arc to the Audience
There are a lot of players known for flopping or exaggerating calls, and they have been pointed out everywhere. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (SGA) is known for flopping to get free throws, and the refs always go along with it. Media coverage and public comments in 2026 note that he is often perceived as exaggerating contact to draw fouls, while league leadership has also said players are taught to “sell” calls, a point that is part of the broader foul-baiting debate. It says a lot about a player when the whole crowd chants “flopper” as he goes to the free-throw line.
Other names have been associated with this, including Jalen Brunson, LeBron James, Joel Embiid, and Luka Dončić. Jalen Brunson is a big player, especially after his performance in the 2026 NBA Finals. In 2026 reporting, he appears in conversations about players who are especially effective at creating contact and getting to the free-throw line, even though that is not the same thing as an official finding of flopping.
LeBron James, where do I even begin? One of the greatest basketball players known to recent history, but still has enough baggage to fill the ocean, as he remains one of the most commonly cited names in long-running fan debates about flopping. He has been discussed for years in this context, and in 2026 commentary, he still appears as a standard reference point whenever people talk about stars who are savvy at drawing fouls. Not even including the information outside of basketball.
Joel Embiid is a player with whom I’m not that familiar, but he still fits the bill for inclusion in the discussion and for getting away with it. He is strong at using contact and drawing whistles, which fuels both praise for his skill and criticism that he sometimes overstates contact. Luka Dončić rounds out the group because he is widely known for using craft and body control to manufacture advantages, and some fans interpret that as foul-baiting or embellishment rather than pure basketball skill. Is he great at the sport, or is he a body actor who knows how to get the ref's attention?
The NBA's Flopping Paradox
So what is the deal then? Are players to be punished for their overuse of flopping and exaggerating, or is it allowed to stand because it makes the game more interesting? All of these things play a role, and all the fans are constantly getting angry. So who’s to blame: the NBA officials, the refs, the players, or the rulebook?
There has been a lot of stuff about how the rulebook applies and the fact that the NBA’s current anti-flopping framework is real and active in 2026. The league made its in-game flopping penalty permanent in 2024, and an official flop can result in a technical foul and a free throw for the other team. The key distinction is that the league is trying to punish deceptive exaggeration, not every player who is good at drawing contact. That matters because some of these players are better described as high-level foul drawers or players who provoke debate about contact, rather than as players who are consistently punished for flopping. In other words, reputation and official discipline are not the same thing.
But where is the line? How many times does a player get to flop until the people who just provoke debate are the high-level foul drawers? I’m not saying they will, but where's the line, and who decides when they cross it? The league's judgment is a big thing. As I previously mentioned, the rules do exist. The NBA’s in‑game anti‑flopping rule, trialed in 2023–24 and made permanent in July 2024, treats flopping as a non‑unsportsmanlike technical foul.
According to an official of the NBA, Commissioner Adam Silver has repeatedly emphasized a distinction between “selling a call” (reacting strongly to real contact to help officials see it) and a “true flop” (where a player tries to fool officials by falling or lunging with minimal or no contact). He said in 2026 that “players are taught to sell calls,” and that much of what fans call flopping is actually embellishment of real fouls rather than pure deception.
The WNBA Has Its Own Cast
The WNBA has its own line of individuals who are treated the same as the NBA, but there are differences. Summarizing the NBA’s official stance as of 2026, the league penalizes specific acts via technicals and post-game fines, but it does not maintain a public list of “top floppers.” In fact, public data show only a small number of flopping fines per season league-wide. In 2025–26, one clearly documented flopping fine was Malik Monk, who was fined $2,000 for a flop on December 1, 2025, highlighting how rarely formal flopping discipline is publicly recorded.
The WNBA does not publicly assign reputational labels to individual players. Instead, it applies its rules to specific incidents. Under the 2026 policy, flopping begins with a warning and then escalates to fines, while technical fouls and flagrant fouls can lead to heavier penalties and suspensions if they accumulate. This focus on individual actions rather than "habitual offender" branding is intended to maintain the integrity of the game, similar to how stricter regulations are applied to events like stadium flyovers.
WNBA Stars in Contact Debates
In 2026, Jackie Young, A’ja Wilson, Breanna Stewart, Alyssa Thomas, and Sabrina Ionescu are best understood as elite WNBA players who sometimes come up in public debates about contact, physicality, and foul-baiting.
- Jackie Young is often mentioned for her scoring ability and skill at drawing contact on drives. Public discussion around her has focused more on her production and massive sponsorship value than on any official discipline.
- A’ja Wilson enters physical-play debates because she operates in heavy traffic. Some fan commentary has suggested she gets favorable treatment, but that reflects perception rather than a league ruling. Why do the higher-ups seem to just ignore these little details about their players?
- Breanna Stewart is more commonly discussed as a star who draws contact on drives and post-ups than as someone known for exaggerated falling. This is a good example of someone who isn’t a flopper and just has a tendency to play their part a little too well.
- Alyssa Thomas is frequently associated with physical, high-contact basketball. She is best understood as a player who draws attention in discussions about aggressive play, a necessity in the modern "arms race" for stadium dominance and league visibility.
- Sabrina Ionescu fits the category of a high-usage star whose drives and shot attempts naturally attract contact and scrutiny. She is not publicly identified by the league as a repeat offender.
The Clark-Reese Dynamic
Two popular WNBA players with an interesting relationship with both each other and league officials are Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark. In the WNBA’s ongoing conversation about flopping, Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese have become focal points more because of perception and rivalry than any formal designation from the league.
Clark, whose game is built on aggressive drives and visible emotion, has been widely accused by some commentators of exaggerating contact. A notable May 2026 column by Nancy Armour in USA Today criticized "the flopping that even a C-list actor would find cringey," fueling debates over whether she is becoming “the biggest flopper in the WNBA.” Despite this, there is no public record of her being formally fined specifically for flopping. Instead, the league’s most notable actions involving her have centered on the physical play directed at her, such as upgrading Chennedy Carter’s 2024 shoulder check to a flagrant-1.
Reese’s reputation, by contrast, is rooted in physical interior play and outspoken frustration with officiating. She has been at the center of several contentious moments, including a 2025 postgame rant about a lack of free throws in which she said she was “tired of this sh*t.” In 2026, Reese also becomes part of the flopping narrative: viral clips show her mocking Clark’s alleged flops. Through all of this, the WNBA’s formal stance has been consistent: regulating specific plays without publicly listing any player as a “top flopper.”
The Final Whistle
So, looking at the information given, it seems that all the real hatred and calls for punishment stem from fans’ perceptions of the players, while the league only truly steps in when the players seem to step out of line or get into a mindset the league doesn’t like. Players will play the game in their own way, and you cannot truly fault them for that.
They have their mindset about what they want to show, and they will follow the rules put in place. And since the rules say that playing for a call or flopping to get a free throw is a part of those rules, then who are the fans to judge them for playing the game? The fans are just watching; the players are the ones playing the game and playing to win.
About the Author
Mark Ricci is a seasoned sports analyst for Sportsmedia News, specializing in the intersection of athlete psychology and league officiating. With experience covering both the NBA and WNBA, Mark provides a unique perspective on how the "star treatment" shapes the modern game.