Sport vs. Sweeney
Well, this blog post is going to be like tap dancing across a minefield!
I’m going to be honest here: in an extremely tense and divisive world, I didn’t have nude images of Sydney Sweeney on the bingo card as fuel for the fire (or someone shitting themselves at Hyrox... but there you go!). Everyone seems to have an opinion on this, and despite the clear irony in what I’m about to write and the message behind it, I do think there is one very concerning sub-narrative to this whole thing that isn’t really being talked about.
If you have been living under a rock, actress Sydney Sweeney has posed naked with a range of sporting equipment to promote a sports betting company—which she owns (or at least in part). This has received crazy amounts of criticism, particularly from prominent women in sport, arguing that this advertising campaign has set back women’s sport by sexualising it.
Now, for those of you with an eye for detail—I am not a woman in sport. I never have been. So while I can empathise and appreciate the points made, I feel it would be remiss of me to suggest that I understand the points that are being made in that space. As a middle-aged, white man who works a full-time job and lives in a detached house… we don’t need to dodge prejudice bullets because we don’t get shot at (despite what the balaclava-wearing, traffic-stopping arseholes in Dover think).
So, to answer the question my friend Joanna (@joanna_absofit) asked on her Instagram… “Sydney Sweeney: sexualisation or savvy marketer?”… The answer is both. In fact, savvy marketer is underplaying it. As a marketing strategy, it could be up there with one of the best of all time.
Before you jump on the ‘shock… man loves naked Sydney’ narrative… remember my demographic—I’m immune to prejudice! Hear me out…
Firstly, who is this marketed at? This is a sports betting company in America with a target demographic of men, predominantly young men. If you look at sports betting companies in the UK, their advertising is designed around funny, piss-taking clips, usually relating to football fans. That is because it appeals to our culture. America has a jock, frat-party-style culture to its sport. That means you’re likely to see one of the following used: a gun, an American eagle, beer, or an attractive woman. The campaign isn’t portraying women IN sport; it’s portraying women ASSOCIATED WITH sport. This is a blurry line, but one which was purposely exploited by the company.
Secondly—and this is where the marketing is extremely impressive (and I ironically help with this post!)—that blurred line multiplies the reach of the ad. The world is geared to give everyone a platform, particularly famous people like sportswomen. Between social media, YouTube, and TV, athletes have greater reach with their voices. When you have an individual with morals, values and an overwhelming feeling to speak up, coupled with the divisive nature of the world, it presents an opportunity for advertising companies to manipulate the narrative and gain traction.
Donald Trump won the election by using a similar tactic; Brexit was won using this tactic. If you make something a black-and-white choice, then people feel a need to pick a side to stand on. But regardless of which side you do stand on, you are still ultimately talking about it (or promoting it). It becomes tribalism—if you’re not with us, then you’re against us—and then there’s no fence to sit on.
I honestly did not know this ad campaign existed until Amy Hunt mentioned it in her post-race interview (that's why I'm mentioning her throughout and not the others that have spoken up). I Googled, ‘What did Sydney Sweeney say about women in sport?’… turns out she said literally nothing and didn’t need to. So by Amy speaking up about it, she inadvertently pushed me towards it (I’ll get to why this is a big issue further down).
As I mentioned above, I appreciate the point regarding the sexualisation associated with sport. Again, I can’t say I understand it, as I haven’t had to. I haven’t had to argue with a governing body of a sport regarding how revealing my kit is, or be worried about cameras filming close-ups of my arse on TV. Honestly, if I were in that situation, I would likely have done something similar to Amy Hunt. Has it ignored decades of progress? Probably, yes. Particularly for those in that battle and feeling like they've raked water uphill for the last 20-30years.
What I do find interesting is the potential moral conflict regarding the view of the damage to women in sport against the societal view that we have spent probably the last 10 years trying to instill: empowering people to do the things that make them feel great about themselves. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer, but highlighting it shows why this requires critical thinking and not just a simple black-and-white stance.
By people speaking up, athletes like Amy Hunt have undoubtedly helped drive attention to this ad. Ultimately playing right into the company's hands. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but it does raise the question of whether, in today’s age, speaking up is always the right thing to do, or if we are magnifying the message by doing so.
With the divisive nature of this comes a second, very dangerous narrative which doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of coverage: gambling addiction and the risks associated with it.
As previously mentioned, there is a societal wedge, particularly in online communities. Everything is polarised. People are fed information that appeals to them, ultimately disabling their ability to think critically. The controversy alone will push thousands of additional people to the betting company.
However, one of the most manipulative—and, in my opinion, most dangerous—elements is the manosphere. This is targeted at young men and has an undercurrent of toxic masculinity at its core. It sexualises and objectifies women. It’s about control and coercion, downplaying strong women and their opinions, and finding validation through money.
Unfortunately, there is a significant overlap between the demographics for Sydney Sweeney’s gambling company and the manosphere. With it comes the perfect storm: the perception of masculinity, the sexualisation of women, the attraction of financial potential, and the disregard for the opinions of strong women in sport. I can’t help but feel this puts a significant number of vulnerable people, particularly young men, at risk.
A survey carried out by the Gambling Commission in 2019 involving over 7,000 participants found that 1 in 5 (19%) were ‘problem gamblers’, and over 4% of those people had contemplated suicide. A systematic review in 2022 by Marionneau and Nikkinen found a positive association between gambling addictions and suicide, with the indebtedness and shame associated with gambling as key contributors.
While this advertising campaign has rightfully caused conversation in the space of women in sport, I do feel the impact on gambling and associated mental ill-health has been massively understated. This is not a pissing contest between the two issues, but it hopefully shows the ramifications that a simple advertising campaign can have, and how speaking up can carry some consequences that feed the intended narrative by design.
If you are struggling with gambling issues or mental health issues, support can be found via the links below (Please use them or at least talk to someone!):
So, there you have it. Another opinion you didn’t ask for on Sydney Sweeney’s naked pictures. Feels a bit weird typing that.
Till next time.
Comments