Sydney Sweeney’s Nude Sports-Betting Ad Draws Sharp Criticism from Female Olympians

Novig’s new spot centres on a striking visual conceit: Sydney Sweeney appears almost entirely uncovered, with sporting equipment used in place of conventional clothing. According to reports, items including footballs, tennis rackets and basketball hoops are positioned to conceal her body. The campaign was released last week and was built around the tagline that Sweeney is ‘wearing just sports’, a phrasing that foregrounds the deliberate use of athletic paraphernalia as the only coverings. The creative choice is clearly meant to grab attention, using the juxtaposition of glamour photography and sports imagery to promote the sports-betting brand.

The advertisement prompted strong criticism from women in sport. Reports state that female athletes — among them Olympians — expressed anger at the campaign and its approach to using sporting gear to cover a woman’s body. The backlash was significant enough to prompt prominent headlines; one summed up responses as ‘a kick in the face to every woman’. That level of reaction points to a feeling among some athletes that the spot trivialises or sexualises women’s bodies while co-opting sport imagery, rather than celebrating athleticism.

This isn't the first time Sydney Sweeney has been linked to advertising that sparks debate. Coverage notes that she is ‘no stranger’ to controversial campaigns, and the Novig spot fits into a pattern of high-profile endorsements that attract strong public response. The frequency with which these appearances spark headlines suggests a continuing tension between star-driven marketing strategies that prize visibility and segments of the public — notably professional women in sport in this instance — who find certain creative choices objectionable.

The Novig campaign’s defining visual gambit is literal: sporting equipment stands in for clothing. Footballs, tennis rackets and basketball hoops are used not as props in play but as substitutes for garments, and that artistic decision has been central to the controversy. Supporters of bold advertising might argue the concept is a tongue-in-cheek nod to the brand’s association with sport, while critics see it as reducing a woman to an object and co-opting athletic symbolism in a way that offends professional athletes. The debate highlights how an image meant to provoke attention can be read very differently by different audiences.

Within hours of the campaign’s release, media coverage and commentary picked up on the story, amplifying athlete reactions and bringing the ad to a broader audience. Headlines have focused on the negative responses from women in sport, while also noting the provocative nature of the creative. The intensity of the coverage underlines how celebrity-fronted commercial work can quickly become a flashpoint for discussions about representation, commercial responsibility and the line between publicity and offence. At present, the Novig spot has become a focal point for those arguments rather than a quietly circulated ad.

With the campaign released only last week and reactions mounting, the longer-term consequences for Novig and Sweeney’s advertising profile remain unresolved. The immediate result has been a wave of criticism from female athletes, including Olympians, that has dominated the early conversation around the spot. Whether that controversy will prompt changes to the campaign, further statements from those involved or additional coverage is not yet clear. For now, the ad stands as the latest example of how celebrity endorsements can spark swift, potent backlash when creative choices clash with public sentiment.