Paid Praise or Pay‑to‑Publish? Brendan Cole's Controversial Contract with Sky Vegas Brendan Cole, a former Strictly professional, now presents paid reviews of the show for betting firm Sky Vegas, sparking outrage after his insensitive remarks about fellow pro Amy Dowden. The story examines the ethics of sponsorship, the backlash from the Strictly community, and the larger conversation about how former dancers are monetising their voices. Every Tuesday morning before 11.30 an email arrives that invites me to converse with Brendan Cole, the former Strictly professional dancer, about the latest season of the BBC's iconic show. Sky Vegas sponsorship ethicsThe allure is undeniable, thanks to Cole's brash reputation and the curiosity of fans eager for an insider's viewpoint. However, the interview is not a free‑for‑all offer. Each exchange comes with a stipulation: any published commentary must include a discreet mention of Sky Vegas, the betting brand that reportedly compensates Cole for the personal endorsement. This arrangement raises immediate questions about the objectivity of his observations and the ethics of sponsorship in entertainment journalism.Cole's recent comments illustrate both the pitfalls and the controversies surrounding these paid collaborations. Earlier this month he publicly criticized Amy Dowden, a fellow Strictly professional who has been battling stage 3 breast cancer amid living with Crohn's disease, a fact she had publicly shared. Rather than offering a moment of empathy or solidarity, Cole dismissed Dowden's efforts, labeling her performance inadequate and suggesting she could not meet the rigorous demands of the profession.The response from Dowden's supporters was swift; many condemned the tone as harsh and callous, especially given her health challenges. The backlash did not stop there, as prominent former strictly dancers such as Vincent Simone and James Jordan-who himself has been associated with betting site WhichBingo-expressed outrage towards Cole's comments.Former dancers defend ColeJordan, known for his blunt criticism of the strict structural elements of the show, publicly defended Cole in an online column, arguing that the press coverage was unfair and that Cole was misinterpreted. The situation has sparked a broader conversation within the Strictly community about the propriety of former professionals monetising their former status through gambling endorsements.It also highlights the ongoing police of the show's hierarchy, as Cole has repeatedly accused upper management of creating uncertainty for dancers regarding partnership assignments. He has also taken flak for his remarks about other participants such as pro dancer Nancy Xu and actress Melanie Walters, whom he claimed was forced to leave the competition when a new choreographer was introduced.This wave of criticism signals a shift: retired Strictly pros are not just observers but active participants in the narrative, leveraging their names and expertise to influence public opinion-often at the expense of colleagues and former colleagues, and with corporate sponsorships underwriting their commentary. The debate continues as audiences weigh the authenticity of these commentary pieces against the commercial incentives that drive them.