And honestly as a fan, good riddance. Most of these "reporters" are doing little more than trying to manufacture controversy.
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)
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.