Sophie Cunningham cut through the noise by saying the ad was built for men, not women’s sports, and defended Sydney Sweeney while still calling the spot “inauthentic.”
Story Snapshot
- The ad used near-nude imagery and triggered athlete backlash across women’s sports.
- Sophie Cunningham called the campaign “so inauthentic” but asked, “Why are girls mad?”.
- Cunningham argued it was a gambling ad aimed at men, not a statement on women’s sports.
- Sweeney reportedly lost large chunks of followers during the furor, showing real impact.
The Ad, The Backlash, And What Lit The Match
Reports described the Novig campaign with Sydney Sweeney as nude or minimally clothed, using footballs and other gear to cover parts of her body. Female athletes posted that the ad sexualized women in sports and disrespected their work. Large outlets covered the pushback, which turned a quick viral moment into a full news cycle. The facts here are not fuzzy: sex-forward visuals met a sports-betting pitch and set off a wave among athletes and fans alike.
USA Today detailed a measurable cost in the heat of the storm. Sweeney’s Instagram account shed hundreds of thousands of followers across key days, according to Social Blade data. Those numbers do not rule on right or wrong, but they do show the controversy moved real people to act. That kind of shift tells brands and talent that attention cuts both ways. Visibility rose. So did a reputational bill that someone would have to pay later.
Cunningham’s Take: Call Out The Tone, Defend The Person
WNBA guard Sophie Cunningham pressed two points at once on her podcast. She said the ad felt “so inauthentic,” and she asked a blunt question: “Why are girls mad?” She praised Sweeney’s looks, said the actress does this kind of work, and added, “Go do your thing, sis.” That framed her stance as moral discomfort with the execution, not a personal attack on Sweeney. She separated the woman from the marketing playbook and kept both ideas in view.
Cunningham also drew a hard line on scope. She said the ad “had nothing to do with women’s sports.” It was a gambling commercial, designed to grab male attention with sex appeal and sports props. That claim matches a common tactic in betting ads, where sexualized imagery is a known hook. You can dislike the method and still see the target clearly. Cunningham’s point aligned with the plain logic of how gambling ads chase clicks and signups.
What Holds Up And What Does Not
The strongest critique says the ad objectifies women and trades on the male gaze. The images make that case for themselves. The weakness is legal or factual proof of wrongdoing. The reporting does not show fraud about the product, a regulator’s sanction, or a platform rule broken. The dispute lives in culture, not in court. That does not make it small; it does set the bounds of what anyone can prove with records and rulings today.
WNBA star Sophie Cunningham has a mixed take on Sydney Sweeney’s controversial NOVIG ad.
She called the sports connection “inauthentic” and said she doesn’t particularly like the ad, but questioned why so much anger is being directed at Sweeney herself: “Why are girls mad?”
Her… pic.twitter.com/05pueGrMz5
— Bhavesh Gujrati (@Bhaveshlivelife) September 21, 2026
The authenticity shot also has limits. Cunningham asked if Sweeney even bets, but no outlet provided direct evidence on that point. The brand’s chief reportedly said Sweeney drove parts of the visual concept, which, if accurate, undercuts claims she was only a prop. Still, that does not fix the core tension. If the ad sells betting to mostly men using near-nude images, the message will always clash with athletes who fight to earn respect on the field, not by posing off it.
What Conservative Common Sense Sees
The ad looks like classic attention marketing: adults selling a legal product to an adult audience. That is free speech, and people can vote with their feeds and wallets. But values also ask for honesty and respect. Selling to men with sex while borrowing the shine of sports invites a fair pushback from women who actually play the games. Cunningham’s stance threads that needle: defend the person, question the tactic, and keep the blame on the playbook, not the individual.
Sources:
nytimes.com, apnews.com, usatoday.com, cnn.com, sports.yahoo.com
