Naomi Osaka faces default from Grand Slam for refusing to speak to media
bbc.com
bbc.com
I have to say, I'm sympathetic to Osaka, and to all the other athletes who have to endure the media circus so soon after a loss. Thirty minutes to recover after a loss is nothing -- especially when the questions you're set to face all boil down to some variation on "That was a tough loss: tell us, how emotionally destroyed are you by your failure?" If what we want as viewers is an eloquent, insightful response that cuts to the heart of the reason for the loss, we should demand a longer delay, to give athletes time to compose themselves. I bet Osaka (and other players) would find a one day lag time more acceptable. Perhaps they could start there.
Serious question for sports fans: do you find the athlete interviews before and after the game all that compelling? Many athletes don't seem interested in doing them and often times they offer a nothingburger response that allows them to get through the interview without having to say too much or expend much emotional energy.
I support Naomi and her decision to call B.S. on this.
Since hearing that pearl of wisdom in like 1997 I've no more need for these. What could one possibly add?
Reference: Bull Durham
It is a bit different in combat sports. People like Conor have made this an art form - constantly insulting others, shit talking, talking about money etc. None of this makes any sense, or is useful to elevate sports. It is just disgusting. Just like other shit things in life, there seems to be a market for this.
Fighters are literally going against the clock of getting permanent severe brain damage before they retire need to make as much money as fast as possible. What Connor did is the best move a fighter could do. Be as entertaining as possible, outside the ring and inside. Retire with hundreds of millions.
Also he fought a guy called Nurmagomedov in Oct 2018 who is a sorta ok fighter, good enough to have never lost in 29 fights.
There must be a lot of fighters out there that you don't like if you expect wins over guys of that calibre.
Is he a top 10 fighter in his weight class. Absolutely. Is his paycheck in any way in proportion to a skill as an athlete. Not even close.
He didn't look terrible. He looked very dangerous, just didn't address the leg kicks. It's a game of inches, a couple of Conor's big lefts only just missed Dustin's jaw. One of those lands and things could have been very different.
>Is his paycheck in any way in proportion to a skill as an athlete. Not even close.
I was addressing:
>hasn't taken fighting seriously for years.
I disagree. You don't step into the ring with Poirier and have a showing like that without taking fighting seriously.
There is a huge market for this kind of “manufactured drama” junk. As evidenced by Conor like behavior. I guess fans are to blame as they eat it up and encourage it.
To me, the actual sport is the entertainment - whether it is MMA or Scrabble or something in between.
She has also declared a nuanced rejection of IOC's decision to plough-on with Tokyo Olympics, despite +70% of Japanese people being against it.
She's a remarkable person who, if her athletic success continues, will be good for her sport since it will bring in people who care little for tennis but love the attitude.
The worst is in the olympics, where they have maybe 100 hours of coverage of which maybe 10 is showing the sport and the rest are various life stories, replete with mood music and weeping parents holding up handwritten signs with clenched fists as Tammy begins her first uneven bar routine.
I might get into sports again if they just showed live sports with zero commentary but good camera work. And I still ocassionally go to a live sports game to, you know, watch the sport without anyone buzzing in my ear.
This is generally true of sports commentary too.
I think ultimately though it's pretty simple math. If you don't have them, you'll never get something good out of them so the small number of them that break the mold justify the whole operation. When you do get something meaningful out of them it usually serves to create drama or fuel whatever narrative is going on in the season.
I completely ignore them. I used to find them relatively interesting about 30 years ago, when I first started following sports, but as the time has passed I've begun to realise that the only thing that matters is what happens on the playing field. That's also why I'm really not interested in the private life of athletes.
F1 for example is loaded with media that the drivers are required to participate in. The only real memorable stuff is when something funny happens at the interview or the media drag out some team/ driver conflicts.
An example of this is the UEFA Champions League Final this weekend. The player who scored the winning goal was the club's record signing but he hasn't had a very prolific season in terms of goals and assists (long story, he caught COVID and had a tough recovery, the managers and tactics changed multiple times this season, etc.). Moments after the final whistle, the entire team is celebrating and a journo decides this is a good time to ask "there were questions about your performance and your price tag, do you feel like you have paid it off in full with tonight's goal?" The guy just said "Right now I don't give a fuck, we won the fucking Champions' League."
They add nothing to the sport, except that I get to laugh that they say the same things as every other competitor.
Reading the comments here, I understand why. If they say anything else, they risk saying something that offends accidentally and it could hurt their career.
So I've got a lot of sympathy for the players here, and not much at all for the industry.
This is not BS. This is part and parcel of the job she has signed on for. Apparently she finds it very unpleasant, but that doesn’t make it any less an obligation of her job.
I’m sure we would/will hear an outcry if that happened.
It’s pretty normal that penalties escalate after repeat infractions.
Indeed, if Osaka wants this convention/rule to change, then the best thing to happen is for the penalties to escalate to something as extreme as her being forced out of the tournament (which is bad for everyone involved) to draw attention to the issue and create a movement for change.
Honestly, if they didn’t change the rules because of her, it would eventually happen due to other players following in her footsteps. I’m sure nobody really wants to talk to the press, even after a win (especially when there is another match the next day). I’ve seen so many good moments in those interviews and even the salty people that lost usually have great gems that add something to the sport and make you interested in the next tournament.
Storylines are what make sports interesting in the first place. If there are no stories, a sport is doomed to die IMO.
I'd be super worried my sport league would start looking like a bunch of snotty elitist who refuse to lower themselves at people's questions. It's really really hard to feel pity for a multi-million advertisement model who happen to play tennis :s I almost feel like if she can't do that, maybe we shouldn't watch her and she'd be left alone.
It is funny that refusing to talk to media is itself generating buzz about the sport so maybe Naomi knows how to spin a narrative better than I know haha.
Do they get asked bad questions sometimes? Yes and it’s amazing to see that reporter asking something inappropriate get slammed by the players.
People have such a fetish for “Person A DESTROYS Person B” drama that they’re disregarding the humanity and dignity of the people along the way.
Regarding dignity, these people do have alternative paths to earn money, so if they choose a job that they find undign, they can just resign.
It is amazing that people make a lot of money from playing a game, and for making millions in sponsorships from being famous for that game:
> Both sponsorship agreements follow a wave of success for Osaka. The three-time Grand Slam winner defeated 23-time champion Serena Williams in 2018 and became the highest paid female athlete in 2020, earning around $34 million from endorsements alone.
* https://insidersport.com/2021/01/20/naomi-osaka-signs-luxury...
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/22/naom...
* https://sportskhabri.com/naomi-osaka-brand-ambassador-endors...
If she doesn't want to go out there in public, perhaps she should stopping putting herself out there in public.
If you don't want to be rich and famous, but just rich, go run a hedge fund. Many fewer people will know about you and you'll have just as nice a lifestyle.
But when you are paid to be in the public eye, especially with multi-million dollar endorsement/advertisement contracts, then complaining about being in the public eye... seems non-sensensical IMHO.
Then play tennis.
But when you sign endorsement deals that has your face on billboards that are several stories tall, complaining about being the public eye is disingenuous:
* https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv4DGMdJgcm/
* https://tennistonic.com/tennis-news/60258/naomi-osaka-takes-...
The expectation that they should accept further exploitation (paparazzi, forced interviews, etc) is a societal disease; these people are human as well.
If she wants the endorsements she has to put up with the fame. The two go hand in hand. She is trading the hassle of extra attention for a big cheque. Besides perhaps Tiger Woods, I doubt a random person of the general public could name a golf player. Which is why Tiger Woods has/had the endorsement contracts.
If have no problem with her just wanting to play tennis, or not wanting to be in the public spotlight. But to agree to be on public billboards, and not-agree to do public interviews, is an inconsistent position IMHO.
Stop taking the multi-million dollar cheques if you don't want the attention. You'll fall into obscurity quite quickly: how many people pay attention to Andre Agassi or Steffi Graf nowadays?
The promotion of her as an athlete could focus on videos, photos and live spectatorship of the thing she actually does well. She can remain super famous in the context of her sport and people can otherwise leave her alone. Taking a sponsorship should not mean allowing someone control over your life outside of work.
The blind acceptance of the idea of “this is the way this industry has always been run, you better accept it or get out of the way” is how people like Weinstein ever had any power. Good on her to stand up for her well-being and point out the obvious flaws and exploitation in these systems that no one wants to address. That’s how change happens.
And the OP's article is about her (not) doing interviews in relation to the exact context of where her fame is.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I do not think she should be hassled walking down the street, except maybe a fan wanting a selfie with her (which she has the right to decline). But we're talking about participating in things in the context of her career in the tennis world.
If tennis fans wanted to watch some randos play, they could go to their local park and watch two unskilled yahoos (try to) bounce the ball back and forth. But people pay to watched skilled professionals perform at an elite level. These players get their living from being a public spectacle on the court.
If anyone wants to simply pay tennis in peace they can join a private club and smash the ball out of the public eye. But you won't be paid to do it. Every career has its pros and cons.
For the sake of basic human empathy, I hope that the industry starts to see things Osaka's way instead of yours.
I beg to differ. She is competing in a tennis competition. To do this she should be required to play tennis, and nothing else, not "be in the public eye".
Also, inappropriate questions are very rare but I was just using that as a personal example of what I enjoy but there are also good bits in those pressers on mentality and good examples of composure with a loss that people can learn from. There’s a lot people can get out from a champions mindset which you otherwise wouldn’t get unless they choose to release a book later in life.
So what? Markets aren't a god or a person. Championship tennis is about as far away from a free market as you can imagine.
Personally, it strikes me as very weird and even unfair you can be disqualified for something that has nothing to do with playing tennis.
A one day time lag would mean the media couldn't get a quote for the match until the day after, an impossible long time to wait before reporting the outcome of the match. So most media would just cut the time they spend on tennis, and spend the liberated cash when reporting on other sports instead.
I suppose some really niche tennis journos would go the other way and start agressively pestering the big players for a quote to put along with their match report as all such same-day quotes are now elevated to the status of "scoop".
"Possibility of a forced default" isn't really indicated by the rulebook for repeated violations of the MEDIA CONFERENCE rule. That's specified on the Point Penalty Schedule, which MEDIA CONFERENCE offences don't use.
It could be AGGRAVATED BEHAVIOUR under the third defining clause ("A series of two (2) or more violations of this Code within a twelve (12) month period which singularly do not constitute 'Aggravated Behaviour', but when viewed together establish a pattern of conduct that is collectively egregious and is detrimental or injurious to the Grand Slam Tournaments.")
But the penalties for Aggravated Behaviour are much more severe than that: "Violation of this Section [...] shall subject a player to a fine of up to $250,000 or the amount of prize money won at the tournament, whichever is greater, and a maximum penalty of permanent suspension from play in all Grand Slam Tournaments."
It would be interesting if she chose to appear in just one tournament a year specifically to invalidate the potential charge of Aggravated Behaviour.
She said expecting players to answer questions after a defeat amounted to "kicking a person while they're down".
"I've often felt that people have no regard for athletes' mental health and this rings true whenever I see a press conference or partake in one," she said in the statement, which she posted on social media.
"We're often sat there and asked questions that we've been asked multiple times before or asked questions that bring doubt into our minds and I'm just not going to subject myself to people that doubt me."
Good for her for risking her career to improve mental health for all athletes.
I disagree. Sport has always been part athleticism and part showmanship. At the end of the day, it's a business, and showmanship increases the bottom line. Partaking in interviews is also contractually mandatory (kind of like if you're a movie star). I think she's hijacking a hot-button issue in the zeitgeist (mental health) just because she doesn't want to do the post-game interviews after a loss (which I'm sure is not fun).
And either way -- even if it were genuinely a mental health issue -- her, of all people, would quite literally have all the resources in the world to deal with it. Just do your job. You already make an absolutely obscene amount of money, anyway.
Moreover, the contract which requires her to speak to the media also says the penalty for not doing so is a single monetary fine, which she has already said she accepts as the cost for not participating.
The news is that the Grand Slam events are attempting to unilaterally change the rules on her to include additional penalties not provided for in the contract.
She has 7 career titles (4 grand slams!) with 134 losses. This is much better than average, but she is still almost always losing.
[1] http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsa...
Competitive sports are slightly muddier than individual events, but the principle holds. It's called "sports entertainment" not the other way around because without the top-tier competitive sport aspect, it'd just be Survivor-like entertainment shows.
And the movie star thing is different because they're literally hired for marketing purposes; the whole point of "star power" is that I'll go see any movie Tom Hanks is in.
Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building.
But if you're a firefighter and that's part of your job..
It's fun to think that we get to decide what job responsibilities are, but that's a negotiation between her and her employer.
Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions.
Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.
I didn't downvote your comment but your comparison with firefighters is not relevant in this case. It's part of the job description for professional athletes being paid at sports events to talk to the media.
>Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract.
She's not an employee. She's a professional athlete that voluntarily enters into sport events with established rules by the tour organizers. The opportunity to earn millions in prize money is a privilege provided by the combination of the events' prestige + media sponsorship + press coverage. She's not an oppressed minimum-wage employee asserting inalienable workers' rights issues. The press conference obligations are part of the tennis event that she already agreed to as a professional.
>And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.
Yes but I think Andre Agassi's handling of Wimbledon's rules in 1980s was more professional and respectful. At first, he didn't agree with Wimbledon's strict rule to wear all white so he skipped Wimbledon for 3 years. In other words, he didn't agree to participate at Wimbledon and then show up in a colorful red and blue outfit to stick a middle finger to the event. Likewise, Osaka could have skipped the Grand Slams to avoid the mental health issues from media interviews. But she preferred to enter the event anyway and roll the dice with paying the fines as a way to break the rules. That seems to be the more unprofessional approach by trying to workaround the event's policies. In any case, if the tour responds by expelling her from the event, she needs to be ok with those consequences. She has to weigh the mental health issues of being kicked out vs talking to the press.
>Naomi's advocating for better working conditions.
That's fine but many disagree with her approach.
How would we handle a tennis player who decided (for mental health reasons) that playing in public was an unbearable burden? Have special games without spectators? I think that case won't be too far behind this one if she prevails.
Special allowances can only go so far.
I'm hearing three camps here: the first says sports about the athletic competition, the second says sports are about performance in front of spectators, and the third says Freedom of Contract is all that matters.
Anyway it's moot since Naomi withdrew from the French Open yesterday: https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/57310701
Of course we'd all love it if perks were all we took from our jobs, but the reality is the perks and duties are a negotiation and you won't get off with only perks. It will be interesting to watch this negotiation play out.
Yes, but she and all other professional athletes are not really athletes, but some amalgum of athlete and entertainer.
Not showing-up for media could well be viewed by swaths of the fans and big bank rollers as two birdie fingers in the air.
ATP's job is to nurture the game to be of broad appeal to the public. Tennis stars command much higher pay than athletes playing other racquet sports like squash, racquetball, badminton, and pickleball because of its public appeal.
Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. The athletic goals should be seen within this context.
Maybe it shouldn't be forced. I watch sports sometimes, but I have never cared to sit and watch hour long interviews, especially those just after the match. It is not interesting to me, it is just media circus.
Then we have manufactured drama in these "events", UFC and Conor come to mind. He is asked shit questions, he gives shit answers (mostly just insults) etc etc. The whole thing is just disgusting. If this is what entertainment is, then maybe we should rethink our standards.
As a fan, I just want to watch a good match, see the better player/team of the day win, and thats just about it.
There’s no job where you get to skip the part that actually generates revenue for the business because you don’t like it.
A) The people that want to see her playing tennis in spite the publicity in the field and in added in in the tv?
B) The people that want he heard he answering questions about if she is happy to win or sad to loose?
If A) is not important, I can do B) for $87.000.
No. Like anyone else in the entertainment business their job is to keep the customers entertained.
There are different paths, some of which involve more, or less publicity. But athletic skill is merely part of the question, and probably not the most important.
That's the media being a problem, controlling the narrative, it's nothing to do with the athlete.
The evidence that you're viewpoint is correct is: Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint?
(I think) I am fairly good with speaking and writing persuasively, but there's something I find fundamentally wrong with having to explain how good a thing is, when I find it intrinsically obvious. Feels like wasted effort. But the audience is lazy and full of money, so catering to it is never a waste. For this, I need constant reminders...
The same youngsters who paint, work with clay, learn to play musical instruments, learn to play other games, or learn other sports. Because their parents or peers strongly encourage them to.
Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that not everything we do needs to have a direct capital ROI.
I'm a career amateur sportsperson. I've been unable to play sports since early this year and I'm a couple of months away from being recovered enough to play again, and I'm absolutely itching for it. I love it, it soothes something intangible within me, and I've never earnt a cent from it in my life, nor expected to, and don't expect my kids to either - but I do expect them to participate.
French Television and Eurosport bring around 25 million euros every year.
Amazon also bought the rights to stream the matches, but I haven't found the terms of the deal.
Media buy the rights to broadcast the event and "rent" the image of the players to show it in related products (commentary, highlights, etc. etc.)
that is the most precious content for advertisers, since they can't cut the action to show ads.
On the other hand we have the very same miserable interview theatre in film. Actors and directors are obliged to appear and entertain the media. Famous is Lars von Trier's Cannes interview which was hysterically blown out if proportions by some extremely stupid press lady and their colleagues, destroying his career. But there exceptions are allowed. A notorious instable psycho is Teddy Mallick who successfully refuses all press obligations. He does not get fined. It's his own risk. If you don't give interviews people have to actually critizise the film, which is too hard for some folks.
But ...
> Famous is Lars von Trier's Cannes interview which was hysterically blown out if proportions
... boy the showbiz love those outburst!
It gives them weeks worth of material to talk about!
I'm with Osaka on this, but she signed a contract and in the current setup there isn't much we can do to change it.
Tickets alone don't pay for the prizes tennis players are getting and if we raise ticket prices, we'd go back to old times when regular people could not afford to watch them live.
That is not the raison d'etre of Pro Sports organizations, from their perspective. The partial appearance of that idea is useful, but entertainment industry-driven profit is the central goal.
That is why pro sports can and do make rule changes from time to time that are purely for the benefit of viewers and sponsors.
Why do you think this is what people want? Or, if you don't think that's what people want, who would pay elite athletes to do something people don't want to watch?
If people really wanted to see the best possible demonstration of the sport, without caring for simply having entertainment, it would be easy to set up alternative tournaments that do just that, and over time they would become the main tournaments... but that's not what is happening, and it will never happen, likely... because sport is simple entertainment... if you're fanatical about sports, you might have lost track of that.
But ask yourself: what value is there in achieving best possible performance in a sport if people are not willing to watch it and feel entertained, emotional about that?
If there were a player so good that he/she could win every match by acing every point (i.e. achieving optimal performance) would anyone want to watch matches anymore? To me , the answer is definitely "no", and the reason is that watching that would be extremely boring. It would not be entertaining in any way, despite being the best demonstration of the sport possible.
If you disagree this is the best possible demonstration of the sport because it doesn't have a fight component to it, it doesn't have something that makes the game unpredictable and that feeling that the game could go either way at any point, then what you want is NOT the best possible demonstration of the sport, you want ENTERTAINMENT!
And how would the public see this demonstration except via ... the media?
That's not the right analogy. The closer analogy to Naomi Osaka's tour obligations for post-match interviews for Hollywood actors' is the press junket (the promotional campaign) after the filming is completed.
E.g. Scarlett Johansson (and other Marvel film actors+directors) appearance at Comic Con[1] is a contractual obligation to help build hype for the film. She didn't travel to San Diego because she wants to "engage with fans" or collect the latest comic books. It's her job. On the one hand, actors find the endless media appearances to be tedious with the same stupid questions being asked but on the other hand, they begrudgingly accept the film studio's contractual requirements to attend them because it helps boost the box office results. Therefore, if actors want to opt out of Comic Con press events for "mental health reasons", the professional way to do that is to not accept the roles from Marvel Films in the first place instead of protesting a known contractual clause after the fact.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Scarlett+Johansson+comic-con
Of course not literally between every scene but actors also have contractual obligations to get interviewed by media on the film set (during a break between scenes) to help build buzz. (Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtnn6cktK18)
The main point of the analogy is not the frequency of the media obligations. The analogy is the contractual rules being known beforehand by a paid professional such as pro athletes or actors before participating. It seems very unprofessional to protest the rules after one already agreed to participate under those rules.
Should it be? I dunno, but you can't say her job is just 'to be the best at [her] sport' when the contract includes talking to the media after the matches.
That's definitionally part of her job at that point.
If your contract contains an non-compete clause, is it now part of your "job" to not do any work for competitors? No, your job is to produce things, not to not specifically do it for someone else. That's just a contractual obligation you have happened to agree to.
So I think it actually is her job, in spirit and not just on paper to engage with the audience as long as it is respectful.
Game interviews are common across virtually all sports because it personalizes the player and ads some context to a game.
Her job is both of those things. You don't like this for some reason, I don't care about it either way.
If the terms of someone's employment say "wait tables and answer the phone", they can't say "I'm a waitress, my job is to take people's order, why should I answer the phone?". If the terms of someone's employment say "play tennis and answer questions from the media" it's the same thing.
Or you can move somewhere that noncompetes aren't honored, or refuse to sign that contract. I've yet to sign an employment contract exactly as it's handed to me.
You can always decide that your contractual obligations don't apply, but don't be surprised when the counterparty pursues one of the remedies for defaulting specified in that same contract.
I also think it's kind of insulting to claim that a clause specifying that an athlete must do media appearances is at all comparable to noncompetes. The latter are banned in California for a reason, and I think that should happen more widely.
By contrast, entertainers promoting themselves is a basic part of the job. Do you really think that sort of clause should be declared unenforceable by statute? On what grounds?
Your job contract does not state the details of your day-to-day job, but that is definitely "part of your job", so it is clear that your contract does not define what your job actually is.
Conversely, your contract having various obligations in it does not mean that those obligations ARE your job. They are just obligations.
I explain financial assets and derivatives pricing payout expectations to people using analogies of trading athletes versus trading merchandise. A franchise might make 30% on the athlete's value when they trade them out in the future, while a basketball signed by the athlete goes up 1000% in value. The basketball value being derived from the athlete's own value.
I do this for emphasis to provide introspection and inspiration, the lack of consideration of them as an asset can definitely be improved.
Moreover, by refusing to engage with the media, the media are now focusing even more on the fact that she refuses to talk to the press and will probably ask even more about it, instead of talking about her tennis skills.
Also: it's required by the contract the players sign to be part of the WTA.
That would fulfill her media obligations.
Then all these players will go play in a different tournament where they can be appreciated for their skill, not for doing interviews to please media and the masses that feed on the "emotion".
We don't care about a poor girl running around with a tennis racket, we care about the story, where she comes from, which population she represent when we beat her or she beats us.
A league of serious sportpeople seriously competing without any storybuilding... Look at how you even feel emotions at her being the David vs the Goliath of sport lol, that's what it's always been about.
talking to the media is part of the job, you don't have to please the media, you can go and say "media suck!" and still get the millions because you got the skills.
You can choose to have "professional" sports like that where the important part is the press coverage, or something like the Gordon Ramsay show where if the food is perfect but 30 seconds late they get eliminated. [The guy could reduce the amount of scream anyway. Why is he screaming all the time?]
An example tweet mentioning Article III Section H from the rulebook: https://twitter.com/tumcarayol/status/1399017968432992260
The relevant excerpt from a 2020 Grand Slam rulebook pdf[1] :
H. MEDIA CONFERENCE Unless injured and physically unable to appear, a player or team must attend the post-match media conference(s) organised immediately or within thirty (30) minutes after the conclusion of each match, including walkovers, whether the player or team was the winner or loser, unless such time is extended or otherwise modified by the Referee for good cause. In addition, all Main Draw players must participate, if requested, in a pre-event press conference to be arranged during the two days before the start of the Main Draw. All media obligations include, but are not limited to, interviews with the host and player’s national broadcaster. Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000.
(Although that section only mentions $20k fine and doesn't spell out penalty of disqualification or ban from other tournaments, it looks the rulebook's other sections on "Unsportsmanlike conduct" and "Aggravated Behavior" can be interpreted by officials to kick her out of the tournament.)
[1] https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-202...
> N. ABUSE OF BALLS:
> Violation of this Section shall subject a player to fine up to $20,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warm-up), the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth.
The last offence is R. UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT, followed by S, which defines the point penalty schedule, and T, which defines what a default is.
The point penalty schedule mandates consideration for default on fourth (third?) and subsequent offences.
The offence sections all specify their own penalties. Many involve a $20,000 fine. Many, generally those that occur during play, specify that they invoke the Point Penalty Schedule. And several specify that they may trigger a default:
> D. LEAVING THE COURT
> Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000 for each violation.
> In addition the player may be defaulted...
So it's not clear that section T gives the tournament any authority that isn't granted in the subsection of the particular offense. It's a definitional section, and the text "may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule set out above" faithfully reflects that (i) certain offenses specify that a single violation may trigger a default, and (ii) the Point Penalty Schedule also specifies that it may trigger a default.
I'm not saying this is clear in either direction. It isn't. This contract doesn't specify how much discretion the tournament has. Maybe they have a lot, but that's not explicit in the contract.
> A. AGGRAVATED BEHAVIOUR > 3. A series of two (2) or more violations of this Code within a twelve (12) month period which singularly do not constitute “Aggravated Behaviour”, but when viewed together establish a pattern of conduct that is collectively egregious and is detrimental or injurious to the Grand Slam Tournaments.
> Violation of this Section by a player, directly or indirectly through a Related Person or others, shall subject a player to a fine of up to $250,000 or the amount of prize money won at the tournament, whichever is greater, and a maximum penalty of permanent suspension from play in all Grand Slam Tournaments.
However, the context needs to be kept in mind: From the event organizer perspective, there are sponsors who put serious money on the table for the event itself AND the prize money these athletes take home and live off. These sponsors hold commercial rights to these events and require such interviews for their own promo goals. It benefits everyone: the event organizer, the sponsor and the player. The player knows all the rules while entering the event. It's a blanket rule, like in motorsport where participants are required to attend the podium ceremony and remain at the race track until final result is confirmed. It's just part of the pro sport.
Those might be wrong rules, who knows. But they are what they are right now and that premise the player is being penalized. Maybe this will set a precedent. It's worth asking what makes this player feel that their mental health suffers from these interviews.
Yes, that's what I asked. Does it make sense to make attending these events an obligation?
> These sponsors hold commercial rights to these events and require such interviews for their own promo goals.
Is that true? I've seen this repeated several times, so I guess I should assume that you guys know, but I'd rather have a source for what use the sponsors have for the interviews. It really seems to be for the media.
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/reporter-says-coco-gauff-compared-182...
I think they're there for reporters to get "gotcha" headlines for their websites and papers. I think it's disgusting how some reporters behave, and there are no repercussions.
Sometimes the reporters try to trick the players into answers that would get them into trouble. Exhibit A, with Draymond Green:
But then again most of what you hear in a press conference is just useless.
Much of this I believe has to do with the absolutely inane rubbish they are asked (sometimes leads to quite funny retorts - but most of the press conference seems to be garbage) - hence you see people in F1 like Kimi so obviously disinterested in the press conference circus.
On a side note, if I recall correctly the Stig, in Top Gear, was not supposed to speak - because I believe Clarkson said "opinions of racing drivers are worthless".
And with people like Lando Norris gaining popularity due to his direct social media interactions - the press circus seems more irrelevant than ever.
This just seems to be a vindictive attempt by traditional media to keep their hold over the coverage ...
Speaking as someone that follows football. During the typical fans' banter a lot of things from press conference are brought up.
It sought of extends the experience beyond the field. Many do not watch it but the die-hard fans do or at least go back to reference it later.
Some of these journalists work for the TV networks that use those ad dollars to pay the league, organizers, and athletes. Some of those TV networks have contracts guaranteeing them access to the athletes for pre/post game/match interviews and other appearances, but the primary product they are purchasing is always the rights to broadcast the game/match itself because that is what gets the biggest ratings and the biggest ad dollars. Many of these journalists work for some other media company that is not paying anything beyond just the general promotion of the sport. So "the media pays the athletes for these interviews" is only true in a relatively lower dollar amount and in a rather indirect way. Nowadays these journalists need the athletes more than the athletes need the journalists (this shifting power dynamic comes with its own set of problems, but that is a different conversation).
It's pretty obvious why athletes don't care about engaging with traditional sports media anymore.
I mean, yes, depending on the circumstances, maybe she would still be an icon and a role model a la Colin Kapernick, but broadly speaking she needs the first $5M to make the next $50M.
Obviously the LeBrons and the Jordans of the world continue to get paid even after they retire for the rest of their lives, but they are extreme outliers and the number of athletes that remain "marketable" and can move merchandise based on their name/face alone once they are no longer competing athletically is probably <10 alive today worldwide.
Netflix Drive To Survive has helped but his interviews during the race weekend gives the fans some insight - i.e he did a course in bee keeping last year.
Right, but do you think tennis players can replace prize money (funded by the media industry) with Patreon and Substack?
My father probably watches 3/4 hours a day of various sports on tv (my gf's father is even worse). They are the target of these interviews and media.
Can we just agree that HN/Reddit isn't really a representation of society in general. Specially a slightly older population that isn't all in with the new fashions of the internet.
Without the media coverage of the games, of his life and everything around, Ronaldo wouldn't have 1/1000th of the followers in social media. Pick a sport that isn't heavily broadcasted, and you can find a once in a lifetime star that will probably still be working a side job to make ends meet. It was actually the advent of live sports on tv that made sports go from 'oh it is a nice living' to 'best well played job in the world'. The current attitude of a lot of players (not all) is 'hey I got mine already so fuck the ones that come after' and do nothing to help. (Ronaldo has 289 million followers, Bernardo Silva has 2.1 million, other good players have probably less (sorry, I really only remember those two players from the national team, I searched current best goalkeeper in the world, gave me Oblak, with 1.5 million followers). because the media don't focus so much on them, not giving them the opportunity to get those followers)
And honestly as a fan, good riddance. Most of these "reporters" are doing little more than trying to manufacture controversy.
I've seen Steve Kerr or Greg Popovich handle these types of situations with grace, but they are far older than Osaka. They have had years to hone their responses and they are very accomplished in their fields. For Osaka, I can totally empathize with her. It's demeaning, sometimes, and when they see you are vulnerable they push even harder.
I have seen Liverpool's coach, Jurgen Klopp, lose his temper over a reporter after a game.
But, you know what, the whole thing makes fans even want to watch it for the drama
That said, these interviews immediately after a tournament, especially when a competitor loses, are compelling only to the point that they make me want to punch the interviewer: "So, you've trained for this your whole life, but wow you really biffed it at the last moment, doesn't that make you just want to cry and maybe just a little bit want to commit suicide?" Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much - these "reporters" are looking for the visual equivalent of clickbait, which is why their questions are so vacuous and seem designed to do nothing but enrage.
At a minimum, I feel like maybe 3% of all fans identify as 'speaking to the media' as the insane crucible grind that it often is, and Naomi's stand should help put a spotlight on that.
I would like to at least go the route of something more humane like if you lose, you get at least the night off, and if you continue to win you get at least one night off, etc.
And I don't know if tennis lets fans get away w the same insane racist isht that the NBA lets fans get away with, but things like that could qualify a player for extra time away.
We should appreciate our best for what they do best.
I do tend to agree that media interest is something that brings money to sport and is part of the job of a professional athlete. It's interesting to think though that in most sports you cannot compete and test yourself against the world's best without fulfilling media obligations. The commercial media side of the Olympics would be just as strong.
That said, I personally can't stand watching sports interviews and immediately switch off.
Applaud Osaka for this move and hope it opens a dialogue about the relationship between media and competitors and the harms of gotcha journalism to drive engaging headlines as it relates to mental health, especially for younger competitors.
I'm fully aware that by the rules of the tournament, they are expected to, and I have no real interest in tennis, but from my perspective this feels punitive against an athlete as though the media have this attitude of "how dare she not subject herself to our dissections".
Fully acknowledging that the media are the main source of revenue for these sports and subsequently these athletes, it is still such a strange relationship the athletes and the media have whereby an athlete not only needs to be amongst the best in the world at their chosen sport, but also need to be skilled in PR and be willing to dance to the whims of the media.
I don't need the see post game interviews. It's nice to watch them, but don't need them. I can see how tough it is for athletes to have to talk to reporters about losses. It's hard enough being an professional sports athlete.
Leave the game on the court not the locker room.
If that isn't hard enough, then they have to deal with social media. Where everybody is a critic.
Good for Naomi.
Also Marshawn Lynch really lead the way.
If they need the inanity to feed hundreds of third rate Sports writers they should be able to send anyone from their entourage who attended in the players' box.
Edit: String Theory [1] which i read in a "Year's best Sports writing" compilation is the best tennis journalism I've read. The author went on to literary super-stardom for other reasons. Tragedy is involved. I really don't know anything about any of it, haven't read it, I'm not such a literary person. The tennis article is great. I don't recall press conferences being crucial to its success.
[1] https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david...
The audience wants to watch good tennis and likes to think the sport and the players come first in the organizing body’s priorities. Sending a stark reminder that money and sponsorship ranks higher is not going to end well.
Everyone should be able to occasionally skip it, and media should be sensitive here too. But systematically dodging media can’t be a thing.
I imagine someone who could defeat any tennis player, man or woman, but simply decided to never discuss the battle after winning would be able to do whatever they want.
Would people really accept not letting such an individual participate in some tournament when everyone knows they're the best?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtrZkDUa8xU&t=11511s
It should however be added that Carlsen is aware that a leading sportsman should also be a showman, and he started many initiatives to contribute to popularity and diffusion of the game.
For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.
The vultures won. She's pulled out of the French Open.
A natural introvert, Osaka has a history of depression and suffers from imposter syndrome. It's sad, and actually quite disgusting, to see a lot of the comments here trivializing her mental health issues, especially considering how many people in the tech community also suffer from depression (and especially from imposter syndrome.
These interviews grow the number of people intensely invested in the sport, the kind of people who will travel long distances and pay large sums to attend games. These are the lifeblood of the game. Stopping these interviews would undoubtedly improve the mental health of players, but might also shrink the sport. Osaka might not be personally affected by smaller fan following or prize pools because she’s won plenty and has endorsements, but hundreds of other players don’t. Those players are willing to put the needs of the fans before their own, so the sport as a whole can grow and they can get a part of that.
Lastly, Osaka always has the option of handling the interview like Marshawn Lynch.
"Traditional" press isn't needed to grow a brand anymore. Social media is key.
Again, maybe Osaka has reached a stage in her career where she doesn’t benefit as much from doing it, but she did benefit from decades of Serena Williams and others doing these interviews. They grew the sport to the point where the prize pools are $10M+.
Maybe Osaka is benefiting from others past participation, but I think she’s right in identifying that the audience today (at least her audience) does not demand or even want that sort of interaction
Maybe other sports should take a similar stance.
televised sport == advertising dollars
Seeing this more and more. Amateur-level sport is becoming a better spectacle, a better showcase of the sport itself, than professional, televised sports because of all the "value-add" the media does to try and create drama around everything.
In Australia, the AFL (Australian Football League) implemented the video reply system in order to "add drama", in other words, to get the fans riled up. And it works. Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. The fans get loud about it - which is the desired end result.
Drama: 1, AFL sporting integrity: 0
Edited to add: If you saw the game / match and you understand the sport, there's very little that a post-match interview can add that's of any value outside of sound-bites and article titles for the media.
I'm with you for every part of your comment except for this one.
Video replays are unpopular because they slow down matches and remove spontaneity and flow, but at least in North America (hockey, basketball, football) they absolutely do improve the quality of decisions and lead to more fair outcomes. Are you sure about your evaluation? Or is something weird with the AFL that makes it unique?
AFL is a somewhat unique sport, and whilst the video replay system is admittedly improving, it's initial implementation was poorly thought-out: they didn't use cameras with high enough frames-per-second to actually catch the detail that was it's raison d'etre. From one frame to the next would miss the 'event' proving whether the ball was touched by a player, or rebounded off a post or whatever else may result in something other than a goal.
The fast pace of AFL also means that where video replays are used are in the, generally, less controversial sets of decisions that umpires have to make. Goal umpires have been pretty well vindicated by the video system, whilst it's traditionally been the quality of the field umpiring that gets questioned, but video replay is not, and cannot (due to the pace of the game) be used to remedy this.
I should say that I think cricket has got its various technologies nice and tight, along with tennis. But they're not pure video replays, they're additional technologies built on top of video.
Edit: She made $55 million last year, so this is small potatoes.
1:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportscasting.com/marshawn-...
Are the players entering the sport getting more and more easily-offended and milquetoasty?
Even if the other side is Evil Corp., if a contract you signed says you have to do something and you don't do it, that's shirking professional responsibility and non-performance. Contracts are contracts. Don't like it, don't sign it, negotiate it, and then sign it.. or your word and signature are meaningless.
I'd argue that getting a year's worth of pay is well worth wasting a few hours giving interviews. It's not as if the players aren't prepared and trained for that either.
[1] https://www.perfect-tennis.com/prize-money/australian-open/
In my opinion there is too much hype and nonsense around professional sport and I would much prefer if sportsmen/women could focus solely on their sport without joining the circus.
If the French Open are going to enforce their contract it is disingenuous to call it a responsibility.
I don’t have a “responsibility” to show up to work every day for the benefit of some third party. If I don’t, I simply get fired. I am a small cog in a big machine.
One hopes that the balance of power is much more in Osaka’s behaviour. On behalf of all of us small cogs, good luck to her.
I think it's okay to skip interviews if she decides to forego any of the winnings. But the entire point of the tournament is to create excitement over it, via media coverage, etc. If she doesn't want to participate in it, then that's fine but she should give up the money instead and just play for the prestige.
Edit: apparently the article got flagged. Still wondering why.
quite reasonable
it's part of her job
she is mad she lost
She’s already become an icon; last year she had a few pieces on CNN which were quite wholesome. Plus, these pieces were not done in the shadow of a loss - they were reversed, scripted, and well thought out. I think it’s fair for her to want control of her image off the court given the current cultural climate in the United States. Plus, I think this is what these leagues would want more of - less controversy, especially if they are angry that a judge made a ruling which cost them the match.
There are things she probably doesn’t want to comment on and she’s probably had to deal with a lot of trolls due to her heritage. edit for grammar Also, I remember a few years ago an issue with Venus or Serena Williams and a line judge. Things get really heated, talking to the press immediately after a match in such heated situations is probably not smart and if I were running a league, I wouldn’t want that sort of bad publicity nor would I want to tarnish one of my star’s reputation.
I’d also like mention that sports interviews are really an American/Western phenomenon. Channels which buy sports rights in non-English speaking countries usually play competitions non-stop, with breaks only showing scores. Rarely will you ever see a post game press conference in countries like Korea, Japan, or China. There’s just too much other content to show. Fans in these countries just want to see the action and accept commentary in their native language.
I wish Naomi the best of luck.
I know a few high-level female musicians.
Most of them have nearly crippling anxiety they face daily if they look at social comments, which spikes near a performance. (Think "ball up in the corner in a fetal position.")
Youtube and Instagram have enabled them to have studio careers, but often they don't/won't tour.
The idea of continual interviews, especially after losses, is beyond comprehension for many people. I was alarmed when I saw that Osaka had 134 losses - even a fraction of interviews covering those losses would destroy many egos.
Kicks off a media shitstorm by refusing to talk to the media. Risks tens of thousands in fines, a WTA investigation, default from the French Open, and expulsion from future Grand Slam events.
I’m sure all that is great for her mental health.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Edit: Nevermind, I mis-intepreted texaswhizzle as the submitter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: while I have you, could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Either way, I don't follow tennis at all but Osaka is definitely a player I've heard of before. I wonder if media treatment of Osaka after she beat Williams has anything to do with her animosity towards the media now.
If she cannot take the pressure of media interviews, then she is simply not a well-rounded professional player, the same way she would not be able to play if she had a busted knee or a broken arm. It is not a pick-and-choose situation: in order to play for money, you have to hit a ball and then talk about it.
Anyway, it does not really matter. There are thousands of players ready to take her spot, and it won't be a great loss except for herself.
Also, the news media does not pay for the prize money. That comes out of broadcast rights, event sponsorship, and spectator tickets. Neither the sponsors nor the spectators are permitted to attend the media pool events.
Companies sponsor athletes so their logos appear during the event. Athletes are usually in sweats at the post event news media sessions.
No spectator started watching a game (or match) because they saw a recording of an athlete speaking to the media pool after an event.
One of many shameful examples is "war on iraq/weapons of mass destruction" storyline
FAIR did a report showing how media coverage drove public opinion. I would guess it also drove increased public interest -- certainly felt like it.
also, when there is strong public interest in an issue, we still might not see that issue get mainstream media coverage.
One example would be 'lack of healthcare (in america)'.
An incredible/horrific situation, almost unique among advanced western economies, richest most powerful nation in the history of the world -- no universal healthcare -- strong public interest -- little to no mainstream media coverage, and certainly not sustained past a political campaign that forces the issue into the media.