Sydney Sweeney Faces Backlash for Sexualized Novig Ad: "Exactly Why Women in Sports Aren't Taken Seriously"
https://t.co/4Tc43tlTIK— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) September 12, 2026
Posted on 09/14/2026 10:55:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
After years of the Left attacking women's sports in the name of "trans" inclusion — including the Biden administration's cynical attempt to rewrite Title IX of the Civil Rights Act — the Hollywood Reporter is suddenly worried about how seriously we take women's sports.
That worry is not borne from the disastrous WNBA, which relies on the much more successful NBA to keep it afloat, or the problematic statements of female athletes like Megan Rapinoe, a soccer player who can't compete against teenage boys but still managed to get a cut of the men's World Cup winnings over the summer. Instead, they really are concerned about actress, model, and incredibly savvy businesswoman Sydney Sweeney damaging the reputation of women's sports.
Why? Sweeney recently cut a provocative ad for Novig, a prediction website that focuses solely on sports. The ad features Sweeney with strategically-placed sports gear, and it gained a lot of attention online over the last week.
Sydney Sweeney Faces Backlash for Sexualized Novig Ad: "Exactly Why Women in Sports Aren't Taken Seriously"
https://t.co/4Tc43tlTIK— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) September 12, 2026
The Euphoria actress partnered up with Novig on Wednesday to support the new platform, which launched last month. She not only starred in the ad but also joined Novig as a strategic partner and equity holder.
Novig’s “platform combines the mechanics of modern financial exchanges with a sports-first experience, creating a more efficient and transparent way for fans to trade on sports outcomes,” per a release. It’s also dubbed “the only prediction market to maintain a 21+ age requirement,” which the brand argues “[sets] a higher standard for responsible participation as the category continues to grow.”
Some users are arguing Sweeney’s ad for the age-restricted platform could have used an R-rated rating as well. “I couldn’t believe when that ad came on the tv. I had my 2 children in the living room I had to yell at them to look away from the TV. I don’t understand WHY they would need to create such a [vulgar] ad,” a TikTok user commented on a post made by Marissa Womack, manager of game day promotions and programming for minor league baseball team the Harrisburg Senators.
Others took to Sweeney’s Instagram comments, including one user who called out Instagram’s inconsistencies with taking down potentially sexualized content. “Love how @instagram allows for stuff like this but the moment I post something in a bikini , the post is removed,” they wrote, while another added, “22.4 million views but not even 1 million likes … why? Because this is not what we want for our sports ads. ESPECIALLY when kids like and follow sports as well.”
It's weird. Biden could have topless trans people on the lawn of the White House, and The Hollywood Reporter doesn't utter a word. Drag queens can have story hours and so-called "pride" events can feature barely-dressed activists, but the second a beautiful woman is used in an advertisement, they are suddenly puritanical again. It's almost like they have double standards.
Sweeney is not an athlete. She's not promoting sports. She's promoting a sports-betting website, something children shouldn't have access to in the first place. So spare me the pearl-clutching over all of this.
But more to the point: suddenly the Left has a newfound respect for women's sports. Up until about three seconds ago, The Hollywood Reporter and all of these complainers were perfectly fine with destroying women's sports entirely. In March of last year, the Boston Globe published an op-ed that called for the end of women's sports to "abolish the gender divide in athletics altogether." Where was the respect for women's sports then? In fact, where was the respect for women? Because ending women's sports would, in a sense, end the gender divide: sports would be men-only.
As Megan Rapinoe and her soccer gals proved, women do not have the physicality to play against men, even when those men are teenage boys half their age. The physical differences between men and women — inherent and biological — mean something, even if the Left wants to deny that reality to appease the fragile egos of some mentally ill males.
I am not an athlete by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I a feminist. Yet here I am, defending women's sports and women's rights against the actual invasion of the patriarchy (remember when the Left hated the patriarchy? Good times). For that, I'm called a "TERF" and threatened with bodily harm, up to and including death.
This sudden concern about the respect for women's sports is rooted in jealousy of Sweeney, who is as smart as she is attractive. Deals like the contract with Novig, her lingerie line, and her work with American Eagle mean she'll have financial security long after she ages out of Hollywood. But because she's not an outspoken leftist, and because she looks good in both clothing and her birthday suit, the media seek to destroy her, and they'll even go so far as to feign concern for women's sports to do it.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Doesn't matter if children shouldn't have access to the website - according to the article, the ads are appearing on television, where young children can see them.
As for this "Sweeney" person: I have no idea what she's famous for, but she seems kinda trashy. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter appearing in ads like that, or my son dating a woman like that.
But I nevertheless suspect that most of the "outrage" is, indeed, virtual signalling.
On a side note: I wonder what volume of bets this website registers for women's sporting events, as compared with men's sports. Anyone got an idea?
Regards,
Yeah.
Right, Jan.
Your post does more to satisfy your need for attention than it does to advance mankind’s knowledge of this controversy.
for you women’s sports fans....
<> Why Long Jumper Sofia Tsarsitalidou Is Going Insanely Viral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDHT3mHFQsI
Define what “appearing on television” means.
Why should I have to "define" what it means to "appear on television?" Is anyone on this forum in need of such a definition?
As I explicitly said in the post to which you are replying, it was stated in the article that the ad had appeared on tv!
Some users are arguing Sweeney’s ad for the age-restricted platform could have used an R-rated rating as well. “I couldn’t believe when that ad came on the tv. I had my 2 children in the living room I had to yell at them to look away from the TV. I don’t understand WHY they would need to create such a [vulgar] ad,” a TikTok user commented.Regards,
I highly doubt that "mankind's knowledge" of this controversy needs any "advancing." (The article is basically no more than a "puff-piece.") But your post is certainly even more bereft of substance than most.
Regards,
Streaming?
On what medium?
With a subscription?
-
It is impossible to know
with such limited information as “on television”.
They saw it on TikTok?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Reading comprehension!
The article clearly states that the woman posted her complaint on "TikTok" (whatever that is!).
In her TikTok posting, she relates that her children had seen the ad on television.
I have no idea whether that is true or even plausible - I'm just quoting from the article as posted here.
If you have an issue with that, take it up with the author of the article!
Regards,
“It’s ten P.M. Do you know where your children are?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJeBbhPYBs
For us latchkeys, TV used to run PSAs (Public Service Announcements) just to remind parents that they had kids.
We came back home when the streetlights came on. Then we put a TV Dinner in the oven for supper.
Salisbury steak, green beans, mashed taters, with a little apple cobbler for dessert. All in a foil pan. No dishes. Gads I wish we still had those.
“If you have an issue with that”
-
I have an issue with you believing
everything you read on the internet.
YOU:
“I have no idea whether that is true”
Transgender-Promoting Lesbian
Democrat, complaining-Karen hags
hate actual Beautiful Women
This has been proven repeatedly
Correct! That's why I clearly said that I was merely quoting the article.
If you question the veracity of the article, please take that up with the article's author - not with me.
Regards,
You certainly a different tone than
what you said earlier...
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4395564/posts?page=3#3
> As for this "Sweeney" person: I have no idea what she's famous for, but she seems kinda trashy. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter appearing in ads like that, or my son dating a woman like that.
Sydney Sweeney is a highly intelligent, experienced, capable young women, who also happens to be beautiful and have a great body.
She designed and managed her entry into modeling and Hollywood acting and has largely run her own business as both a celebrity and a sought-after actress.
She is not shy about the fact that she's attractive -- she markets her attractiveness as well as her considerable other talents. You can label that activity as "trashy" if you wish. But I suggest you find out more about the person before you label HER as trashy.
She is an All-American girl, a patriot and lover of liberty. As far as I can tell she's politically right-wing, but she doesn't make a big deal out of it because... Hollywood, etc.
You're welcome to cross-check anything I've said above, it's all from reputable sources.
Did I say that I believed it?
No, I didn't!
Rather, I merely quoted the article, and then presented an argument based upon that premise - a premise which I only stipulated (i.e., conditionally accepted as true for the purpose of commenting on it).
I accept no liability for the (possibly) ambiguous or misleading wording of the article. And I am perfectly happy to join with you in decrying the invalidity of the article, if you'll only point out what, specifically, it claimed that is false.
I made it quite clear that I claim no competency in anything involving this so-called "TikTok" (whatever that is), or this "Sweeney" person.
In short: If a fellow FReeper quotes from the posted article and/or bases his commentary on the article, and you have reason to suspect the article's truthfulness, then please direct your attacks against the article, and not against the FReeper!
Point out the article's flawed reasoning, factual errors, etc. for all to see! I would then be more than willing to join in on the fun of denouncing this article as misleading or down-right false. But don't start impugning a fellow FReeper's character just because he has taken, for the time being, the article's claims at face-value, until proven otherwise.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.