Sharon Stone Urges Sydney Sweeney to “Take Responsibility” for Controversial Sports Betting Ad
A growing debate over the portrayal of women in sports advertising has brought two Hollywood actresses into the spotlight. Sharon Stone has publicly addressed the controversy surrounding Sydney Sweeney’s revealing advertisement for sports-betting platform Novig, saying that the younger actress should take responsibility for her actions while emphasizing her support for women athletes.
Stone made her comments on September 23, 2026, while attending Variety’s Power of Women event in Beverly Hills, California. In an interview with People, she discussed the criticism directed at Sweeney’s campaign and explained why she believes women in sports deserve recognition for their achievements rather than having their accomplishments overshadowed by sexualized marketing.
AOL
+1
The comments have added another prominent voice to a debate that has spread across social media and sports communities. While some discussions focus on Sweeney’s freedom to make creative and professional choices, others question whether the advertisement reinforces stereotypes that female athletes have spent years challenging.
At the center of the controversy is a broader question: how should women be represented in advertising when the product being promoted is connected to professional sports?
What Sharon Stone Said About Sydney Sweeney
Stone, best known for films including Basic Instinct and Casino, did not frame her remarks simply as a personal attack on Sweeney.
Instead, she emphasized personal accountability and her support for women who have worked to establish themselves in competitive sports.
Speaking to People at the September 23 event, Stone said, “I think that it’s up to her to take responsibility for her actions, not up to me to judge her for her actions.”
She then turned the discussion toward female athletes, saying she wanted to support women who had become champions in their respective sports.
Stone also criticized the idea of using sexualized imagery to attract gambling customers, arguing that women’s sports should not be diminished to gain men’s attention.
AOL
+1
Her remarks are significant because Stone has spent decades working in an entertainment industry where women’s appearances have frequently been a subject of public discussion.
Nevertheless, her comments do not establish that Sweeney intended to undermine female athletes. They express Stone’s perspective on the advertisement and its possible effects.
What Is the Sydney Sweeney Betting Advertisement?
The controversy concerns an advertisement for Novig, a sports-betting platform associated with predictions and trading on sporting outcomes.
In the campaign, Sweeney appears in revealing poses alongside equipment associated with different sports, including basketball, tennis, football, baseball, and hockey. The advertisement uses the phrase “just sports” to promote the platform’s focus on sports-related activity.
Sweeney’s presentation is deliberately provocative, and the advertisement attracted widespread attention after its release in September 2026.
According to Us Weekly, Sweeney is a strategic partner and equity holder in Novig, giving her involvement in the campaign a business dimension beyond a conventional acting endorsement. The publication also reported that she had not publicly addressed the criticism at the time of its September 24 article.
Us
That distinction helps explain why the controversy has extended beyond questions about clothing or personal style. Critics are also discussing the commercial decisions behind the campaign and the message that sports-related advertising communicates to its audience.
Sweeney’s participation does not, by itself, demonstrate that she intended to offend athletes. Understanding her intentions would require reliable statements from her or the campaign’s creators rather than assumptions based solely on the finished advertisement.
Why Female Athletes Are Speaking Out
The reaction has not been limited to Hollywood commentators. Female athletes have also criticized the advertisement, arguing that it places too much emphasis on sexual appeal rather than sporting ability.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News reported on September 14 that athletes, including Olympic swimming champions Ariarne Titmus and Lani Pallister, were among those criticizing the campaign. British track athlete Amy Hunt and American gymnast Gracie Kramer also publicly challenged its presentation of women and sports.
ABC News
+1
Kramer’s response drew particular attention because she used social media to contrast the advertisement with footage highlighting women’s athletic achievements.
Her criticism reflected a concern that women athletes often have to work against assumptions that their appearance matters more than their training, strength, technique, and competitive results.
For athletes who have spent years preparing for elite competition, this distinction is important. Their careers involve demanding training schedules, injuries, financial pressures, and the challenge of earning recognition in sports that may receive less media attention than men’s competitions.
When a campaign uses a celebrity’s revealing appearance to promote a sports-related product, critics may see it as reinforcing a familiar imbalance: women’s bodies receive attention while their sporting achievements receive less.
However, the controversy also raises a question about the difference between an advertisement featuring a celebrity and one that claims to represent female athletes themselves. Those are not necessarily the same thing, even when both use sports imagery.
The Debate Over Sexualized Marketing
Sexualized advertising is not new. Fashion, entertainment, beauty, and lifestyle brands have used provocative imagery for decades to attract attention and distinguish their products from competitors.
Advertisers may argue that such campaigns are designed to be humorous, memorable, confident, or deliberately unconventional. Supporters of this approach may also argue that adult women should have the freedom to decide how they present themselves professionally.
Critics, on the other hand, question whether these campaigns reinforce expectations that women must use their appearance to attract attention or commercial opportunities.
The Novig controversy brings these competing perspectives into a sports context.
Women’s sports have developed audiences through athletes’ performances, personalities, rivalries, and achievements. Critics argue that advertising connected to this growing interest should not reduce women to visual attractions.
At the same time, Sweeney’s advertisement is a commercial campaign featuring an actress, rather than a claim that the imagery represents the experience of all female athletes.
The important distinction is between a person’s freedom to participate in an advertisement and the public’s freedom to criticize the choices made by the advertiser.
Both can exist simultaneously. A campaign can be legally permissible and commercially intentional while still attracting criticism about its message.
Sharon Stone’s Own Experience in Hollywood
Stone’s comments carry additional context because she has experienced the attention that Hollywood directs toward women’s appearances.
Her breakthrough role in Basic Instinct (1992) made her internationally famous. The film also became closely associated with discussions about sexuality, screen representation, and the treatment of women in popular entertainment.
Throughout her career, Stone has spoken about the complexities of being a woman in an industry where appearance can influence professional opportunities and public perception.
Her latest remarks suggest that she sees a difference between embracing one’s appearance and using sexualized imagery in a way that, in her view, diminishes women’s achievements in sports.
Stone has also previously commented on Sweeney’s advertising choices. In 2025, she discussed the controversy surrounding Sweeney’s American Eagle jeans campaign, offering remarks that were more supportive of the actress’s freedom to embrace her appearance.
Yahoo
That earlier response makes the current discussion more nuanced. Stone’s position should not automatically be interpreted as opposition to Sweeney’s appearance or to revealing clothing in general. Her recent comments specifically emphasize accountability and the representation of female athletes.
Sydney Sweeney’s Perspective and Professional Choices
Sweeney rose to prominence through television and film roles, including her performance as Cassie Howard in HBO’s Euphoria. She has also built a public profile through fashion campaigns, film projects, and commercial partnerships.
Her career demonstrates how contemporary actors can operate across several industries at once. A performer may earn income through acting, brand endorsements, business partnerships, and other commercial ventures.
These opportunities can bring substantial visibility, but they also expose celebrities to scrutiny over the products they promote and the messages those products communicate.
Sweeney has previously spoken about becoming more comfortable with her body after growing up feeling self-conscious about her appearance. As reported by Us Weekly in September 2026, she had not publicly responded to the criticism of the Novig advertisement at the time of publication.
Us
Without a direct response addressing this specific controversy, it would be premature to attribute a particular intention or attitude to her.
It is also important to distinguish criticism of a marketing decision from attacks on an individual’s character. The former can focus on commercial choices and their consequences without making unsupported claims about the person involved.
Why the Controversy Matters for Women’s Sports
The disagreement comes at a time when women’s sports are attracting increased commercial and cultural attention.
Athletes increasingly use social media to connect directly with fans, promote their achievements, and respond to how their sports are portrayed. As Axios observed in its September 18 analysis of the Novig controversy, female athletes used online videos highlighting their skills to challenge the advertisement’s emphasis on sexualized imagery.
Axios
This response illustrates how athletes can shape public conversations rather than relying entirely on traditional sports broadcasters or advertising companies to represent them.
The debate also raises practical questions for brands. A campaign might generate considerable attention but still alienate the very communities associated with the product it promotes.
For companies marketing sports-related services, those communities include athletes, fans, coaches, and people who believe sports should be recognized primarily for competition and achievement.
The controversy does not establish that all viewers interpreted the advertisement in the same way. Some may regard it as an attention-grabbing celebrity campaign, while others may see it as an example of the sexualization of women in sports.
The disagreement itself demonstrates why companies need to consider not only whether an advertisement attracts attention, but also how its message may be received by different audiences.
Could the Controversy Affect Sweeney’s Career?
The campaign has generated substantial public discussion, but it is too early to draw firm conclusions about its long-term effect on Sweeney’s acting career or commercial opportunities.
Public criticism can affect a celebrity’s reputation, but the consequences vary. Some controversies fade quickly, while others influence future brand relationships or become part of a person’s public image for years.
A widely discussed advertisement can also increase visibility, although attention does not necessarily translate into public approval or commercial success.
Reports about changes in social-media followers should likewise be treated cautiously. Such figures do not independently establish how a controversy will affect future film projects, business relationships, or audience interest.
The more immediate consequence is that Sweeney’s campaign has prompted a wider discussion about how sports, celebrity culture, and advertising intersect.
Whether the controversy has lasting professional consequences remains uncertain.
Conclusion: A Wider Conversation About Responsibility and Representation
Sharon Stone’s comments have placed the Novig advertisement at the center of a broader conversation about accountability, commercial freedom, and the representation of women.
Stone has argued that Sweeney should take responsibility for her actions while emphasizing that female athletes deserve recognition for their achievements. Athletes who criticized the campaign have expressed concern that its sexualized presentation could undermine efforts to have women recognized for their sporting abilities.
AOL
+1
Sweeney’s specific intentions should not be assumed without a direct statement from her, and the existence of criticism does not settle every question about the campaign.
Ultimately, the controversy highlights a tension that extends well beyond one actress or one advertisement: how can women exercise control over their professional image while also responding to legitimate questions about the commercial messages they help promote?
The discussion is likely to continue as audiences, athletes, celebrities, and advertisers debate the relationship between personal choice and public responsibility.
The central takeaway: Stone’s criticism is not simply about what Sweeney wore. It is about the message Stone believes the campaign sends about women and sports—and whether the attention generated by an advertisement comes at the expense of recognizing women’s athletic achievements.
