The Sydney Sweeney Advert: Is It Really Setting Back Women’s Sport — Or Are We Having the Wrong Argument?

 

The Sydney Sweeney Advert: Is It Really Setting Back Women’s Sport

Or Are We Having the Wrong Argument?

There has been a huge reaction over the past few days to Sydney Sweeney's new campaign for sports prediction company Novig.

If you haven't seen it, the advert features Sweeney wearing little or no clothing, strategically covered by various pieces of sporting equipment while promoting Novig's sports-focused prediction platform. The response from female athletes has been fierce. Olympic champions and elite sportswomen including Ariarne Titmus, Amy Hunt and Sophie Capewell have criticised the campaign, while numerous athletes have posted videos of themselves competing under variations of the message: "This is what women in sport look like."

And I want to start by saying something important.

I understand their frustration.

Women's sport has fought incredibly hard to be taken seriously. Female athletes should be recognised first for their talent, dedication, sacrifice, strength and achievements rather than how attractive they happen to be.

I'm a huge supporter of women's sport. In fact, I barely watch men's football anymore. I watch the women's game with my daughter, and I think the growth in the standard, visibility and professionalism of women's sport has been fantastic to see.

So I understand why athletes are protective of that progress.

But I also think we need to separate several different arguments that have become mixed together.

Because when I actually look at this particular advert, I'm not convinced it says what some of its critics believe it says.

Sydney Sweeney isn't pretending to represent female athletes

This is probably the biggest distinction for me.

Sydney Sweeney isn't a professional athlete.

She's an actor and celebrity.

Novig didn't take an Olympic swimmer, footballer or sprinter and say, "Rather than celebrating your sporting ability, we're going to strip you off and sell your body."

They hired an actor whose public image and celebrity appeal are part of her commercial value.

And there is another important commercial consideration: the campaign appears deliberately aimed at attracting the attention of a predominantly male sports and betting audience.

That doesn't automatically make it tasteful.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't criticise it.

But it does change the context.

The sporting equipment is being used as a visual device to connect the advert to the product. I don't watch it and think, "This is how Novig believes female athletes should be represented."

I see an intentionally provocative celebrity advert designed to get people talking about a sports prediction business.

And on that measure, it has unquestionably succeeded.

The campaign reportedly passed 22 million views in its first two days. Analysis reported by Business Insider found Novig's social-media mentions increased roughly ninefold following the campaign.

Ironically, the backlash has become part of the marketing.

Sex sells. We can dislike that reality without pretending it doesn't exist.

This is probably where I'll upset some people.

Sexual attraction has been used in advertising for decades because human beings respond to attractive people.

Men and women.

This isn't exclusively something done to women.

David Beckham is one of the most obvious examples. His commercial value hasn't been based purely on what he did with a football. Fashion, underwear, fragrance, grooming and countless other endorsements have monetised his appearance alongside his sporting fame.

Male actors and athletes have appeared shirtless or virtually naked in advertising because brands know people find them attractive.

Female celebrities have done exactly the same.

And so have female athletes.

In fact, one detail being repeated in this debate needs correcting. Serena Williams wasn't naked on the cover of Sports Illustrated in the example people are sharing. She appeared nude on one of the six covers of ESPN The Magazine's inaugural Body Issue in 2009, and hers was reportedly the best-selling of those six covers. The issue deliberately celebrated elite athletic bodies through nude photography and included both male and female athletes.

Sweeney herself appears to have responded to the current criticism by sharing examples of male and female athletes who have previously participated in nude sporting photography.

That doesn't automatically invalidate the athletes' criticism.

But it does demonstrate that the relationship between sport, bodies, attractiveness and commercial imagery is considerably more complicated than simply saying:

"Showing an attractive woman with sporting equipment is an attack on women's sport."

There is an important distinction between choice and objectification

This is where I would slightly change one argument I've seen made around this controversy.

Female athletes should absolutely be able to compete in whatever legitimate kit is appropriate for their sport. They should also be free to post photographs of themselves in bikinis, training wear or anything else they choose.

The same applies to men.

And choosing to show your body doesn't mean you surrender your right to object to somebody else reducing your entire worth to that body.

Those two things can coexist.

But equally, we shouldn't pretend physical attractiveness suddenly ceases to exist because someone is an athlete.

If an athlete posts a photograph or video that deliberately celebrates their physique, people are going to notice their physique. That's human behaviour.

The important distinction is between noticing someone's attractiveness and deciding that their attractiveness is all they are worth.

That's where I think the debate needs considerably more nuance.

A woman can be an extraordinary athlete and attractive.

A man can be an extraordinary athlete and attractive.

Celebrating one doesn't automatically invalidate the other.

The problem comes when appearance consistently overshadows achievement or when female athletes discover that their commercial opportunities depend disproportionately on looking a particular way.

That's a legitimate issue worth discussing.

Female athletes themselves operate in a commercial marketplace

Professional sport isn't isolated from the rest of the entertainment industry.

Athletes have sponsors.

They build personal brands.

They create social-media audiences.

They sign ambassador agreements.

They appear in fashion campaigns.

They sell products.

And inevitably, commercial value isn't determined exclusively by sporting performance.

Personality matters.

Following matters.

Story matters.

Marketability matters.

And, uncomfortable though it might sometimes be to admit, appearance can matter too.

Again, that isn't unique to women.

David Beckham is perhaps the ultimate demonstration that sporting achievement can create the platform while image turns somebody into a global lifestyle brand.

Would Beckham have made the same enormous commercial income from fashion and grooming endorsements if brands hadn't considered him physically attractive and marketable?

Probably not.

That doesn't diminish what he achieved as a footballer.

It simply acknowledges how celebrity marketing works.

But there is another criticism of this advert that deserves attention

There's an aspect of this controversy I actually think is more interesting than much of the gender debate.

It's a gambling advertisement.

Using sexual attraction to capture attention and then directing that attention towards a gambling or sports-prediction product raises a completely separate ethical question.

One critic, former Olympic skier and Australian MP Zali Steggall, explicitly described the campaign as using sexualisation to attract young men to gambling.

That's a legitimate discussion.

We can debate whether gambling businesses should be permitted to use celebrity, sex appeal, football sponsorship, influencers and other powerful marketing devices to encourage participation.

But that's fundamentally a gambling advertising debate, not necessarily evidence that the advert is attempting to define what a female athlete should look like.

Those are different arguments.

And then we come to the marketing

This is where the whole episode becomes fascinating from a business perspective.

The campaign has been attacked for being provocative.

But being provocative appears to have been precisely the strategy.

Sweeney isn't simply a paid face either. Reporting says she has taken an equity stake in Novig, and the company's CEO says she pitched the partnership herself.

Then came the backlash.

Athletes made response videos.

News organisations covered those videos.

Other athletes joined in.

Commentators debated it.

Social media argued about it.

And people who had never heard of Novig suddenly knew its name.

The campaign's critics therefore became, unintentionally, part of its distribution network.

That's not me criticising the athletes for speaking out. If you genuinely believe something damages women's sport, you absolutely have the right to say so.

But from a marketing perspective, there's a brutal irony here.

The campaign against the campaign may have made the original campaign considerably more successful.

There is a caveat, though. Viral attention isn't automatically commercial success. Business Insider's analysis found that although Novig mentions increased dramatically, only around 4% of social posts discussing the controversy actually mentioned Novig.

That's fascinating too.

Everyone remembering Sydney Sweeney naked with a basketball isn't necessarily the same thing as everyone remembering which company she was advertising.

Views aren't revenue.

Controversy isn't conversion.

And brand awareness isn't necessarily positive brand equity.

We'll need time to know whether this was genuinely brilliant marketing or simply spectacular attention generation.

So are the female athletes wrong?

No.

I think their underlying argument deserves respect.

Women have spent generations fighting to be recognised for sporting achievement rather than appearance. Young girls should grow up seeing female athletes celebrated because they're powerful, skilful, determined and extraordinary at what they do.

When Amy Hunt runs 22.10 seconds for 200 metres, that should be the story.

When Ariarne Titmus wins four Olympic gold medals, her sporting legacy shouldn't depend on whether somebody considers her attractive.

I completely support that.

Where I disagree is with turning this particular advert into a representation of women in sport.

I don't think it is.

Sydney Sweeney isn't an athlete being presented as an athlete.

She's an actor and celebrity being used in a deliberately provocative advertising campaign aimed at generating attention for a sports prediction company.

The props happen to be sporting equipment because the product is about sport.

That distinction matters.

Perhaps we're asking the wrong question

Rather than asking:

"Does this advert show what women in sport look like?"

I'd ask:

"Was it ever supposed to?"

I don't think anyone watching Sydney Sweeney sitting naked on a basketball hoop genuinely believes they're watching a representation of elite women's basketball.

It's advertising.

Provocative advertising, certainly.

Perhaps unnecessary advertising.

Perhaps outdated advertising.

And people are perfectly entitled to dislike it.

But there's a danger that we attach a wider social meaning to every campaign simply because we don't like its creative execution.

Sometimes an advert designed to make men look at Sydney Sweeney is simply an advert designed to make men look at Sydney Sweeney.

Women's sport deserves better — but that doesn't mean every sexualised advert involving sport attacks women's sport

This is where I ultimately land.

I want my daughter to see female footballers celebrated for their ability.

I want female athletes to receive the recognition, investment, media coverage, sponsorship and respect their achievements deserve.

I don't want women's sport reduced to attractiveness.

And I certainly don't believe women should have to sexualise themselves to achieve commercial success.

But I also don't believe supporting women's sport requires us to pretend sex appeal doesn't exist, that celebrities haven't always monetised their image, or that male and female athletes haven't done exactly the same thing when they have chosen to.

There is room for both arguments.

Celebrate female athletes as athletes.

Judge them on their achievements.

Give women's sport the coverage and investment it deserves.

Challenge businesses when female athletes are being valued primarily for appearance rather than ability.

But equally, recognise that Sydney Sweeney is an actor who willingly participated in a provocative commercial campaign, not a female athlete being told that this is how she needs to present herself to succeed.

For me, that's why the current backlash doesn't quite land.

The athletes are fighting an important battle.

I'm simply not convinced this advert is actually the enemy.

And somewhere inside Novig's marketing department, I suspect they're watching millions of people argue about an advert from a company most of us had never heard of a week ago and thinking:

Please, keep talking.