Sydney Sweeney’s Ad Became a Culture War. Novig Got the Attention.

By the time an advertisement becomes a national argument about what women are allowed to do, the company behind it has already received something valuable: attention. Whether that attention produces customers is another question, but the rest of us should at least notice whose name keeps appearing while everybody fights.

This week, that name is Novig.

Sydney Sweeney's campaign for the sports prediction platform has drawn criticism from female athletes over its sexualized presentation. Associated Press reporting on September 14 described the objections; gymnast Gracie Kramer and other athletes have argued that the imagery undermines the effort to have women recognized for athletic achievement.

Novig CEO Jacob Fortinsky offered a different interpretation in an interview with Front Office Sports. He said the campaign was not intended to depict women's sports and described Sweeney as an actress communicating the company's sports focus. He also said she helped drive its visuals and messaging. In a campaign statement reported by The Independent, Sweeney characterized the concept as a playful idea.

There is a reasonable argument on either side of the advertising question. Turning that disagreement into a referendum on one woman's moral worth is where the discussion loses its way.

Choice cannot require universal approval

An adult actress can choose to make a provocative advertisement. Female athletes can find that advertisement tiresome, reductive or damaging to the image of their profession. Neither position requires pretending the other women have no right to speak.

The athletes' strongest argument concerns commercial priorities. They spend years developing skills; an advertiser can generate enormous interest by placing a celebrity beside sporting equipment. It is understandable that they would question the resulting picture of women and sport.

But Sweeney is not applying for a place on an Olympic team. Her performance in an advertisement does not erase an athlete's accomplishments, and she should not have to carry the burden of representing every woman whenever she accepts a commercial role. A principle of female independence that permits only approved choices is not much of a principle.

Conservatives should resist an equally lazy response. Defending her freedom does not require declaring every advertisement tasteful or treating every female critic as jealous. Personal responsibility includes making judgments about what businesses sell and how they sell it.

Remember the product

The most useful question may be why a sports prediction company became the setting for this argument at all. An advertising campaign asks viewers to connect a feeling with a product. The celebrity supplies recognition; the controversy gives people another reason to repeat the brand's name.

That does not establish that Novig planned the backlash. Nor do headlines prove the campaign increased revenue. It does mean critics and defenders should recognize that endlessly circulating an advertisement can extend its reach even when the accompanying message is hostile.

For parents and sports fans, a more substantive conversation would examine how wagering-related products are marketed, which audiences see them and whether the sales pitch encourages sensible judgment. Those questions deserve attention without turning this article into an endorsement of the service.

People are free to dislike Sweeney's advertisement. They are also free to find the outrage excessive. Neither camp needs to turn her into a political mascot. Judge the campaign, listen to the athletes' actual objections and remember that the company has something to sell while everyone else argues about virtue.

Written byMarcus Bennett

Senior Contributor · Editorial Pen Name

Marcus Bennett is a conservative commentator focused on crime, education, economic opportunity, urban policy, and American culture. Raised in a working-class community outside Atlanta, Bennett developed his politics around the belief that public policy should be judged by results rather than intentions. His columns frequently examine failing institutions, public safety, family stability, educational reform, and the political assumptions surrounding Black Americans. Bennett brings a skeptical, data-driven approach to political arguments and has little patience for ideological explanations that fail to match conditions on the ground.