Via Novig

Marissa Hodgson

Sports Editor

Sydney Sweeney is no stranger to the spotlight. As one of Hollywood’s most recognizable young actresses, she has built a career around roles that have made her both critically acclaimed and widely discussed. But when Sweeney became the face of a sports-betting advertisement, the criticism surrounding the ad brought attention to a larger question: how are women represented in the sports world?

The advertisement for Novig, a sports-betting company, places Sweeney at the centre of a campaign designed to attract attention in a heavily male-dominated industry. Her appearance and sexuality are a major part of the advertisement’s appeal. Rather than featuring an athlete discussing competition, training or the experience of playing sports, the campaign relies on Sweeney’s sex appeal to sell a product connected to sports.

That raises a question that goes beyond one celebrity or one betting company: when women’s sports are fighting for recognition based on athletic ability, why does sexuality continue to be such a powerful marketing tool?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a woman embracing her sexuality. Women should be able to dress however they desire, present themselves how they want and feel confident in their bodies without being judged for it. But having that freedom does not mean every use of sexuality is beyond criticism. Context matters.

Sweeney is not being presented as an athlete. She is not being celebrated for a sporting achievement or discussing what it takes to compete. She is being presented as a celebrity, with her appearance and sexuality driving the advertisement’s appeal.

That choice matters because women in sports are still fighting against the perception that their appearance matters as much as, or more than their athletic ability.

When a female athlete scores a goal, breaks a record or wins a championship, the conversation should be about what she accomplished. Yet women in sports are consistently expected to navigate conversations about how they look, what they wear and whether they fit conventional standards of attractiveness.

An advertisement like Sweeney’s does not create that problem by itself. But it can contribute to its proliferation.

Luciana Ciccarello, a young hockey player at St. Mark’s, believes there is an important distinction between women expressing their sexuality and sexuality being used in a way that affects how women are perceived in sports.

“I feel like women’s sexuality has a right to be expressed,” Ciccarello said. “But there is a difference between being comfortable with one’s body and actively participating in the degradation of women’s sports and female fans.”

A woman choosing to express her sexuality is different from a sports-related campaign using sexuality as the primary tool to attract attention. The first is an individual choice. The second is a marketing decision, one made by a company that could have chosen to highlight an athlete and her accomplishments instead.

That leads to another question: why Sweeney?

There are thousands of female athletes who dedicate years of their lives to their sports. They train before and after school, compete through injuries, sacrifice time with friends and family and work toward opportunities that can be difficult to obtain. Many struggle to receive the same media attention, sponsorship opportunities and financial support as male athletes.

Yet when a company wants to create an advertisement connected to sports, a Hollywood actress can become the face of the campaign.

Sweeney’s existing fame undoubtedly made her an attractive choice for the campaign. But the decision to feature her raises questions beyond marketing. In a sports industry where women continue to fight for recognition as athletes, the choice to centre a Hollywood celebrity in a sports-betting advertisement invites a closer look at how women are presented to sports audiences. Rather than highlighting a female athlete’s achievements or connection to the game, the campaign relies on a celebrity whose public image is closely tied to her appearance and sexuality. Whether intentional or not, that choice raises questions about which qualities are being used to attract sports fans and what that suggests about the place of women in sports culture.

If the goal is to connect an audience with sports, why not put an actual female athlete at the centre of the campaign?A female athlete could bring her own experience to the advertisement. She could talk about competition, preparation, pressure and the reality of participating in sports. She could introduce viewers to her sport and potentially bring attention to a career that might otherwise receive little coverage.

Instead, the advertisement puts the focus on a woman whose fame comes from entertainment rather than athletics.

That does not mean Sweeney is responsible for the larger culture surrounding women in sports. Nor does it mean women should have to stop expressing their sexuality to be taken seriously. The issue is the choice to make sexuality such a prominent part of a sports-related advertisement when another form of representation was possible.

For Ciccarello, that choice has consequences beyond one advertisement.

“It really just shut the door on women and girls who look up to athletes or love that atmosphere and fan culture, turning it into spectacles for men’s pleasure,” she said.

Putting a woman in an advertisement does not automatically mean women’s sports are being represented. Representation depends on who is being shown, what they are being shown doing and what audiences are being encouraged to value about them.

A female athlete being featured because of her achievements sends a different message than a woman being featured primarily because her sexuality can attract attention.

One puts athleticism at the centre.The other puts appearance at the centre. For young women and girls watching sports, that difference can matter. Ciccarello worries about the message that repeated sexualization can send to younger fans.

“For every little girl who loves sports,” she said, “all you’ll ever be in their eyes are puck bunnies or people to be gazed at, rather than part of the culture.”

Women’s sports have spent years fighting for legitimacy. Female athletes have had to prove that their games deserve audiences, sponsorships, media coverage and investment. As women’s sports continue to grow, athletes are finally receiving more of the attention they have worked toward.

But increased visibility is not automatically meaningful representation.

If women’s sports are marketed through women’s bodies, audiences may continue to associate female athletes with appearance before achievement.

The sport becomes the backdrop rather than the focus.

Advertisers have the ability to decide whose stories are placed in front of audiences. They can choose the celebrity who already has millions of followers, or they can use their platform to introduce audiences to an athlete whose accomplishments deserve more attention.

They can sell sports through appearance, or they can sell sports through the people who actually play them.

The difference is representation.

Women do not need to stop being sexual to belong in sports. They do not need to hide their bodies to earn respect.

But sports should not have to sexualize women in order to make them interesting.

The athletes are already interesting.

Their rivalries are interesting. Their accomplishments are interesting. Their sacrifices, failures, personalities and victories are interesting.

Women have spent years proving that they belong in sports. As the visibility of women’s sports continues to grow, the next step should not simply be putting more women in front of cameras.

It should be making sure they are being seen for the right reasons.

Because there is a difference between giving women a spotlight and giving them a platform.

One can make them visible.

The other can make them heard.