What must a woman do to force the world to pay attention to sports?
Apparently, take off her clothes.
That uncomfortable reality sits at the heart of the backlash surrounding Euphoria star Sydney Sweeney’s new ad for sports betting company Novig. In it, Sweeney poses nearly nude, hugging footballs, basketballs, a tennis racket and other gear. The images are provocative and engineered to go viral, receiving over 22 million views in just two days.
What, exactly, are we being asked to notice? Sweeney? Her body? Or the sports themselves? That distinction is everything. This is not a call to police Sweeney’s choices; she has every right to own her image. Women can be sexual, self-assured and authentically themselves. The problem is when a woman’s body becomes the main event in a sports narrative, especially when she is not even an athlete.
The Fight to Be Seen
Women in sports already battle to be seen for their achievements, not just their bodies. Last year, nearly 3.54 million girls played high school sports in the U.S., accounting for 43% of all participants. At the college level, 242,341 women competed in NCAA athletics. Women are not side characters in American sports; they are nearly half the talent on the field, court, pool and track. Nevertheless, the struggle for equal opportunity is far from won. A 2024 GAO report shows women make up 56% of college students, yet only 42% of college athletes. At nearly two-thirds of colleges, women’s sports participation lags by at least 10 percentage points compared to enrollment. Four in ten colleges have not closed the gap since 2009-10. For decades, women have fought for funding, respect and the right to compete. Still, when they finally stand in the spotlight, another question arises: What are they being valued for? Female athletes face a constant balancing act. Strong, but not “too” strong; competitive, but always “feminine.” They are judged on their performances and their appearances, asked to perform at the highest level and then explain how they look doing it. Their bodies are both their instruments and their first hurdle.
There is no single age at which people start sexualizing girls in sports. Research does show, however, that the way female athletes are represented can affect how adolescent girls view both those athletes and themselves. Elizabeth Daniels, a developmental psychologist who researches gender, media and the experiences of girls and women, studied how different portrayals of female athletes affected adolescent girls and college women. In her 2012 study, Daniels examined responses from 258 girls ages 13-18 and 171 college women. She found that images of female athletes actively performing their sports encouraged viewers to focus on athletic ability and view those athletes as role models. Sexualized images, by contrast, encouraged more objectified views of both the athletes and themselves. Is it about what her body is doing or what her body looks like?
Olympic figure skater Evgenia Medvedeva knows that line all too well. In a 2024 interview, she referenced being just 14 when judges told her to pad her costume because she did not have enough breasts for higher scores. Body commentary, she said, was simply routine in figure skating. Fourteen. At an age when most girls are still discovering themselves, an elite athlete was told she was not “feminine” enough. This is the culture young female athletes inherit.
Context Changes Everything
Sweeney’s response to the backlash made things even more tangled. She posted images of female athletes posing nude for ESPN’s Body Issue — Serena Williams, Ronda Rousey, Sue Bird, Megan Rapinoe, Caroline Wozniacki. Her argument: “Athletes do it too, so what is the difference?” The answer is context. Those athletes were featured because of what their bodies can do. The Body Issue celebrated the power, discipline and stories written in muscle and sweat. Those bodies were not just for display; years of training built them.
The Novig ad tells a different story. Sweeney is not there for her athletic skill; she is there for her appeal. That difference is exactly why so many athletes pushed back.
The Backlash from Pro Athletes
British sprinter Amy Hunt addressed Sweeney after competing at the Ultimate Championships, saying, “Sydney Sweeney, this is what women in sport look like.” She pointed to the reality behind elite performance: “Muscles, hard work, sweat, blood tears.” Those are the things the advertisement leaves out. The exhaustion. The injuries. The early mornings. The failed races. The missed opportunities. The hours of practice when nobody is watching.
Australian Olympic swimmer Ariarne Titmus made a similar argument, calling the advertisement “a kick in the face” to women who have dedicated their lives to perfecting their craft. She questioned how society could still be “monetizing a woman’s body and sexualising women’s sport.” Boxer Skye Nicolson made perhaps the clearest distinction: “There’s a big difference between looking ‘sexy’ because you do sport compared to using sex to sell ‘sport’.”
Its significance matters even more when considering how few female athletes actually make it to the professional level. The NCAA estimates only 0.8% of women’s college basketball players were drafted into the WNBA in 2024. Including international professional opportunities, NCAA estimates 9.1% of that cohort had professional opportunities. For most female college athletes, playing professionally is not the next step. It is an extraordinarily narrow path. The women who do make it have already spent years proving they belong. They should not then have to compete with another standard of attention, one that asks whether women are attractive enough to sell the sport.
Choice vs. Expectation
The history of women’s sports uniforms shows how complicated that expectation could become. In 2021, Norway’s women’s beach handball team was fined €1,500 after its players wore shorts instead of the bikini bottoms required by competition rules. The European Handball Federation classified the shorts as “improper clothing” and fined each player €150. The controversy was not about whether the athletes could play in the shorts. It was about whether they were showing the expected amount of skin. The real problem lies in the tension between choice and expectation. Nothing is wrong with a female athlete choosing a bikini. Nothing is wrong with an athlete choosing shorts. Nothing is wrong with a woman choosing to pose nude. The problem comes when women are expected to display their bodies to participate, compete, or attract attention. That is why this issue goes beyond Sweeney herself. Her campaign followed a well-worn playbook: appeal to the male gaze, go viral, and rake in exposure. Novig got what it wanted; the bigger question is what this strategy says about how women are still sold in sports.
Representation is not just about women being visible; it is about what they are valued for. A young athlete should see a woman in a sports ad and think, “I want to be that strong.” She should see a swimmer and want to work that hard. She should see an athlete and be inspired by what her body can do, not just how it looks. Beauty and sexuality are not the issue; it is the difference between valuing a woman’s accomplishments and using her body for clicks. Those are not the same.
A woman can be exceptional at her sport and still find that her appearance gets more attention than her performance. Women in sports have invested generations fighting to be seen as more than bodies. They have demanded the right to compete, to lead, to inspire. As a woman in sports, I know an athlete is never just a body. She is the hours no one sees, the losses she learns from, the work she puts in and the moments she earns. Young girls are watching. They deserve to see women honored for their power and achievement. Women in sports are competitors, athletes, leaders, teammates and champions. Watch them for what they can do, not just for how they look.