sharon stone sydney sweeney
The Sharon Stone Sydney Sweeney dispute moved a sports-betting campaign beyond celebrity advertising and into a debate about who benefits when women's sport is used to sell gambling. Stone said Sweeney must “take responsibility” for appearing nearly nude in Novig's “Just Sports” promotion after elite athletes said the imagery sexualized the women whose competition gives betting products their value.
Stone's criticism is about agency, not a ban on sexuality
“I think that it's up to [Sweeney] to take responsibility for her actions, not up to me to judge her for her actions,” Stone said. She added: “We can't denigrate women's sports to get men's attention so they can gamble.” The distinction matters. Stone did not argue that an actor cannot choose provocative work; she argued that choice comes with accountability for the commercial message and the market it serves.
That is a sharper standard than treating Sweeney as merely the hired face of a campaign. Reports describe her as a strategic partner and equity holder in Novig, giving her a closer connection to the brand than a conventional endorsement. It also keeps responsibility distributed: the agency, platform and company approved the concept, bought the media and sought the attention.
Sweeney's athlete-cover response and Novig's defense
Sweeney said the campaign was about embracing a fun idea and later posted images recalling the athlete portraits associated with ESPN's Body Issue, including celebrated competitors who chose to be photographed nude or semi-nude. That response reframed the imagery as body confidence and placed it in a tradition where athletic bodies can be presented as powerful rather than shameful.
The counterargument is about context. Body Issue portraits centered athletes and their achievements. Novig's ad used sports equipment and a celebrity body to sell a prediction market. Novig defended the provocative creative as intentional, emphasizing that it generated attention and conversation. That may be a reach strategy, but awareness is not the same as trust. A betting brand operates in a regulated, reputation-sensitive category where provocation can attract users and simultaneously alarm sponsors, leagues and lawmakers.
Athletes turned criticism into their own media campaign
Australian water-polo Olympian Tilly Kearns answered with footage of competition and described it as real women's sports content. Boxer Skye Nicolson drew a line between looking sexy because one does sport and using sex to sell sport. Four-time Olympic swimming champion Ariarne Titmus called the ad “an absolute joke” and a “kick in the face” to women who had dedicated their lives to perfecting their craft.
British sprinter Amy Hunt made the argument immediately after competition, pointing to muscles, hard work, blood, sweat and tears and saying women's sport is not always pretty, glamorous or sexy. Their coordinated effect changed the story. Instead of remaining subjects discussed by celebrity and advertiser, athletes used their own audiences to set the frame: performance, training and achievement are the product.
Gambling marketing raises the stakes
The controversy would be significant for an ordinary consumer brand. Gambling adds a second layer. Sportsbooks and prediction markets depend on partnerships with leagues, media companies and payment providers, all of which assess responsible-marketing risk. Advertising that draws young viewers or makes women's sport feel like a prop can invite scrutiny even when it complies with the letter of current rules.
For Novig, the upside is enormous earned reach. Reports said the campaign accumulated millions of views, and every rebuttal extended its visibility. The downside is that the brand can become known for the argument rather than the product. If customer acquisition comes with hostility from athletes, the cost may surface later in sponsorship negotiations, talent recruitment and regulatory hearings.
Who owns the outcome
Sweeney owns her participation and can explain why she considered the campaign empowering. Novig owns the strategy and cannot outsource the backlash to its spokesperson. Athletes own the right to say the ad misrepresents a field built on labor that advertising too often ignores. Stone's intervention is effective because it avoids denying any of those parties agency.
The likely next response is commercial rather than legal: revised creative, athlete-led partnerships, clearer responsible-gambling placement or pressure from prospective sponsors. A formal regulator would look to specific rules on audience, claims and placement, not simply whether an ad offended people. But brands often move before regulators do. The signal Novig now has is clear: reach was achieved, yet a powerful group of potential partners believes the campaign extracted value from women's sport without respecting it.