Some female athletes objected to the sexualized imagery. Others defended the creative choice or disputed what the ad was intended to represent. Those views do not establish how most viewers feel.
Why did athletes criticize the ad?
The criticism reported by Front Office Sports focuses on the advertisement’s sexualized presentation of women in a sports setting. The concern is about what receives attention: the portrayal of a woman’s body versus women’s athletic skill and achievement. That describes the argument of the people cited in the reporting, not a consensus among all women or all athletes. Read the athlete-response report.
One directly identifiable example appears in ABC News’s coverage, around 0:20–0:28: the onscreen label identifies Olympic skier Cassidy Gray, whose remarks address sexualization and being taken seriously. That segment should not be attributed to a different athlete simply because other coverage cites them.
The ad itself is Novig’s Just Sports commercial, released in September 2026. Watch the official video to see the campaign being discussed before interpreting a reaction clip.
How did Novig respond?
At a September 15 Front Office Sports discussion, the moderator raises the criticism at approximately 4:15. Jacob Fortinsky responds by defending the campaign’s sports focus and describing Sweeney’s role in its visuals and messaging. The relevant discussion runs through about 5:35.
His comments are the company’s explanation of its creative choices. His assessment of the response to the campaign is not an independent measurement of public opinion.
Those comments also inform the creative-role report. They establish what the CEO said about her participation, without turning that account into a complete list of production credits.
Did Sydney Sweeney respond or apologize?
Front Office Sports reported that Sweeney shared older ESPN Body Issue images and interpreted the posts as an indirect response. This site has not obtained a complete original archive of those temporary Stories. A report interpreting a social post is different from a formal statement in her own words. Source: Front Office Sports.
No verified public apology about this Novig campaign was found in the sources reviewed on September 26. That is a description of the checked record, not a claim that she could never issue one or that every temporary post has been preserved.
Sharing an old image of an athlete also does not establish that the athlete endorses this new campaign. Such a conclusion would require the athlete’s own statement about it.
Three different questions in the debate
Representation. The athletes cited by Front Office Sports question whether the sexualized presentation draws attention away from women’s sporting achievement. Their concerns address representation in a sports setting.
Personal expression. In her September 24 interview, published the following day, golfer Charley Hull defended Sweeney and the ad. Hull’s own perspective provides an example of support; it does not speak for all women or athletes.
The product being promoted. Some community discussion objects to gambling promotion itself. One Reddit commenter’s objection illustrates that separate argument. A comment establishes an individual view; the health and social-harm claims in it have not been independently verified for this article.
These arguments can overlap. Neither the sampled comments nor the interviews establish the proportion of searchers who are angry, supportive or simply curious.
A dated timeline of the discussion
| Date | What the source records |
|---|---|
| September 9 | Novig announces Just Sports and Sweeney’s partnership. |
| September 14 | Front Office Sports reports athlete criticism and social responses. |
| September 15 | Fortinsky answers a question about the backlash during the Front Office Sports discussion. |
| September 24 | PEOPLE publishes its September 23 interview with Sharon Stone, who calls for Sweeney to take responsibility for the ad. |
| September 25 | OutKick publishes its September 24 interview with Charley Hull. Hull defended the ad. |
The final two entries preserve the distinction between the interview date and the publication date. They are individual perspectives, not a poll or a numerical balance of support and opposition.
Keep this campaign separate from other controversies
Some reporting also mentions Sweeney’s earlier American Eagle advertisement. Statements about that campaign should not be presented as responses to Novig. In ABC’s video, the shift to the earlier advertisement occurs after the Novig-related segment. ABC’s campaign coverage provides that context.
Likewise, a high video view count does not measure approval. Without a comparable before-and-after record and causal evidence, a reported follower change cannot establish how many people left because of this ad.
What remains uncertain?
Some temporary social posts are unavailable as complete originals, and the accessible sources do not amount to a representative survey. The reliable conclusion is that there were documented objections, a public company response and differing individual views.
For the business relationship behind the campaign, see what Novig disclosed about the partnership. For the visual materials themselves, use the official photo index.
Sources & verification
Sources checked . Official statements, reported events and individual opinions are attributed to their sources.