No War. No Death. But Plenty of Politics: My Tuppence Ha'penny's Worth on the Novig Just Sports Ad Campaign (2026) Featuring Sydney Sweeney

Sydney Sweeney showing us an alternative use for a pool 

table in her Novig Just Sports ad campaign (2026) 

 

 

I. 

 

Even though I don't always agree with her, I like the left-leaning British journalist and amusing cultural commentator Marina Hyde. 

 

Similarly, although I don't always agree with her, I like the right-of-centre British journalist and fearless GB News presenter Camilla Tominey. 

 

And so I was pleased to see that both women - despite their differing political sympathies - came out in support of the American actress and provocateuse Sydney Sweeney, who is back in the news for a new ad campaign [1] and once again facing abuse from various killjoys who resent her beauty, her breasts, and her refusal to conform to political and moral orthodoxy.   

 

 

II. 

 

Sweeney's new ad campaign is for Novig - an American sports prediction and trading company (or what we used to simply call a betting site) - and features the actress in various states of undress showcasing several different sports.    

 

To be fair, I can see why it might irritate professional sportswomen and old school feminists concerned with the way that women are sexualised in advertising in order to promote (and sell) stuff or services to a consumer market mostly made up of men. 

 

But, having said that, isn't it simply savvy business sense for her to "leverage her all-natural assets for commercial gain?" [2] The video for Novig - a company in which Ms Sweeney has shares - picked up over a million views in the first four days.  

 

Writing in The Telegraph, this is essentially Camilla Tominey's position. Although, in a slightly sapphic manner, she also admits that she has "become obsessed with Sydney Sweeney's breasts" - their size, shape, and gravity-defying nature, as well as their "sheer ubiquity on the world stage".  

 

I think this is partly explained by the fact that Ms Tominey has a drop of Italian blood in her veins and Italian beauty ideals historically embrace a full-figured, voluptuous body shape - think Sophia Loren (38-24-38) and Gina Lollobrigida (36-22-35). 

 

Personally, I prefer a slimmer, smaller-breasted body, but, like Tominey, I rather like the fact that Sweeney seems either incapable of covering up her breasts "or delightfully unwilling to do so". 

 

Addressing the backlash from female athletes who complain that Sweeney has sexualised women's sport and that it detracts from all their hard work and professionalism, Tominey reminds her readers that athletes "of both sexes have posed nude for commercial gain for decades". 

 

Thus, it's surely not that unreasonable that "an actress who has never claimed to be a professional sportswoman" should do the same: 

 

"Surely female athletes have bigger battles to fight - like the gender pay gap, inequality of funding or protecting competitors from abusive coaches, than directing their outrage at a woman leveraging her considerable assets for profit?"  

  

Ms Tominey concludes her Telegraph piece by taking a swipe at those progressives who scold Sweeney for unashamedly flaunting her breasts, whilst supporting trans men competing against women in sports including boxing, swimming, and weight-lifting.  

 

 

III.

 

Like Camilla Tominey, Marina Hyde is also prepared to be "insanely unfashionable" [3] and defend Sydney Sweeney. 

 

And like Ms Tominey, she can't help admiring Sweeney's breasts, "which are [...] seriously among the best in Hollywood" - maybe even the best. Breasts that add to the gaiety of nations by counteracting all the grey moral seriousness that threatens to envelop the world. 

  

If the reaction to last year's ad for American Eagle bordered on lunacy, then the reaction this time is just boring in its all-too-predictable nature and Hyde has very little sympathy with those women who claim it is a kick in the teeth to every woman who values sport for teaching the importance of things like teamwork, dedication, and the pursuit of excellence.    

  

She feels that it might have been more admirable if, rather than knock Sweeney for getting her tits out, they focused instead on the negative effects of legalised commercial gambling. Ultimately, Hyde loves the fact that Sweeney is "out there in the culture, pissing off reflexively judgmental people who ignore so many bigger issues". 

 

She continues:  

 

"That [Sweeney] has emerged as such a frequent culture wars punching bag says so much more about the predictable, playable nature of her serial detractors than it does about her. Why can’t they just face it - Sydney's gonna Sweeney." 

 

- And she's gonna do so without shame, embarrassment, or apology (which is what makes her such an admirable figure). She's a young woman - just turned 29 a few days ago - doing what she wants (including making the occasional dumb move or stupid remark). 

 

And her critics - even when they have a point - are such endlessly dreary bores: 

 

"I do hope Sweeney finds a way to continue apparently not giving a shit - and that everyone else considers they might have more fun if they took a leaf out of her book from time to time."  

 

 

Marina Hyde and Camilla Tominey 

stand alongside Sydney Sweeney

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Sweeney already pissed off a lot of people for her American Eagle ad last year, in which she playfully boasted of having great jeans. See the post 'My Tuppence Ha'penny's Worth on the Sydney Sweeney Controversy' (31 July 2025). And see also the follow up post 'Herr Nietzsche Agrees: Sydney Sweeney Hat Tolle Jeans' (2 Aug 2025). 

 

[2] Camilla Tominey, 'Don't knock Sydney Sweeney for having breasts that pass the pencil test', The Telegraph (15 Sept 2026). All quotes in section two of this post are taken from this article.  

 

[3] Marina Hyde, 'Are you outraged by Sydney Sweeney - again? More fool you', The Guardian (15 Sept 2026). All quotes in section three of this post are taken from this article. 

 

 

News in the Age of Coronavirus

 

 

My mother - though not so much my father, who was really only interested in sports - loved to watch news and discussion programmes and I grew up in the company of political journalists and broadcasters such as Brian Walden and Robin Day.

 

And even until just a few years ago, I would regularly watch the Channel 4 News or Newsnight. But then something changed. I'm not sure exactly what, or when, but something definitely changed and I began to increasingly sigh and roll my eyes when watching. Now I just don't bother, I simply switch over or switch off - the ultimate act of disconnect and something which, as a lover of TV, I am loath to do.

 

Something similar has also happened between myself and the world of printed news. There was a time, for example, when I would actually buy (and read) The Guardian. But that's no longer possible, despite the fact that they still, even now, employ some excellent columnists, such as Marina Hyde.  

       

The sad fact is that almost all of the entire mainstream media has become viscerally objectionable in the last decade. Not least in their coverage of the coronavirus pandemic which has been a constant stream of government propaganda and scare-mongering. If and when this (so-called) Covid crisis is over, it won't just be our politicians who will be obliged to hang their heads in shame and resign, but every journalist and news reporter who has been an active participant in the incitement system. 

 

What Peter Sloterdijk once said in an interview about the global media's complicity with terror, can now be paraphrased about their collusion with governments vis-à-vis the Covid-19 conspiracy (i.e., the attempt to manipulate and exploit a disease and people's fear of falling ill and dying): 

As soon as there is news about coronavirus - the rate of infection has increased, for example - journalists have to be clearly aware of their responsibility. Should they simply pass on the information, should they enhance it in some manner, or should they decide to play down the story and effectively put it in quarantine (an excellent method formerly used to avoid mass panic). Perhaps the viral nature of our contemporary media is more dangerous than Covid-19 itself, because it can create chaos in the social, political, and economic systems of a society and rapidly spread hysteria in entire populations. Unfortunately, the complicity between global media and this pandemic has now become so well hamonised over the last eight months or so that we have to speak of genuine collusion and effective co-dependency. At some point we have to say openly: you, the journalists, are the dealers in this game.*

 

 

* See: Peter Sloterdijk, 'Thus Spoke Sloterdijk', interview with Res Strehle in Selected Exaggerations, ed. Bernhard Klein, trans. Karen Marglois, (Polity Press, 2016), pp. 192-201. The paragraph I'm part-quoting, part-paraphrasing is on pp. 196-97 and begins "A thought experiment could be useful here."

 

For a related post to this one, click here.