Hacker News Reader

Comment by mLuby | Hacker News Reader

    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."

An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. It's a bonus for their career and sports entertainment when they also have great media presence, but that's absolutely not required.

Good for her for risking her career to improve mental health for all athletes.

View on HN

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.

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.

Disagree strongly. The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport.

That's the media being a problem, controlling the narrative, it's nothing to do with the athlete.

Given the payouts are often paid by that same media on behalf of the true customers, players not engaging with the customers can prevent a sport from thriving altogether. A sport with great athletes and no revenue often, though not always, discourages future athletic participation and investment thereby robbing the world of the possibility to view any quality demonstration of the sport.

I know this is correct, but I will continually argue against it like tilting at so many windmills.

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...

> Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint?

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.

Golf was chosen specifically as, admittedly in my limited experience, a game that's uninteresting and unrewarding to youngsters outside of their parents' encouragements.

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.

Fans dont neccesarily want to watch the interviews right away. In fact I will call BS on that the media us required at all. Certainly not in this day and age of sovial media. Osaka and her PR team xan easily handle a livestream a few days after the game where she can talk directly to her fans and answer their questions directly. Or she can just release a video/audio detailing how the game went, what she did, whats next with several orders of magnitude more engagement.

Truth is Osaka is paid by the fees the media pay to broadcast the event, not by her followers.

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.

Osaka is the highest paid player, but only because of her endorsement deals. She's risking those.

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.

I don't disagree with you and I don't usually watch interviews, I'm interested in the matches not on what players have to say about them.

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.

Yes, for the broadcast. By all means. Pre and post match content is just noise. Interviews are too short and mechanical, wasting everyones time. They could use the time to show ads. Let athletes give their own post game analysis.

that's part 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.

> the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport.

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!

> the best possible demonstration of the sport

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.

> The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport.

And how would the public see this demonstration except via ... the media?

Yes, and like anyone else in the entertainment business, they get to choose how and when they interact with the press. This is what you hire agents and lawyers for. Nobody expects Scarlett Johansson to give them the time of day right after she walks off set, why should it be different for high performance athletes?

>, and like anyone else in the entertainment business, they get to choose how and when they interact with the press. [...] Nobody expects Scarlett Johansson to give them the time of day right after she walks off set,

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

Your analogy is far worse than the GP's. Having you give interviews between matches at every tournament is more like Scarlett Johansson having to give interviews between every scene than a promotional tour.

>having to give interviews between every scene than a promotional tour.

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.

Typically, actors are required to give media interviews in the lead up to a film's release too.

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.

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.

If Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps refused to do post-race interviews, they're still the best in the world at their events, and their feats would still be covered by the media. Caveat: opting out of regulations directly connected to competitors' athletic abilities (i.e. drug testing) is different.

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.

> 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.

If we're going to be mixing metaphors here: should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions like "how do you feel about not being able to save everyone in today's fire?" Those tears would be lucrative, and viewers can assuage their ghoulish interest with the knowledge that a portion of the ad revenue benefits the fallen firefighter's fund. –__–

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.

>should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions

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.

> 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.

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.

If they're the best in the world, and the special allowances don't change the sport, then why not? They played soccer games in empty stadiums during the pandemic.

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

Yes. We should all wish her a speedy recovery.

She refused to do the interview after she won her match, and generally as the #2 player in the world she has lost very few matches...

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 lost very few matches...

She has 7 career titles (4 grand slams!) with 134 losses. This is much better than average, but she is still almost always losing.

246 wins vs. 136 losses according to the WTA site as of writing. A lot more victories, but still a lot of losses.

Today I learned that the HN crowd cannot read tennis statistics. Her losses are mostly from the start of her career; her win record the past 4 years is above 80% and her career GS record is 70%.

If you're going to be snarky, at least be correct[1]. Her match win percentage ranges from 51% in 2017 (45 matches played), to 80% last year (20 matches played).

[1] http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsa...

I'm sure that's what many ahtletes wish were the case, but the ones who we care about being interviewed are paid an enormous amount of money because of their entertainment value to fans.

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.

It's literally in her contract that she has to do this.

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.

Isn’t the issue that it’s in some contract that she will be fined if she doesn’t attend these conferences, but after deciding she’s ok with paying a fine, she’s now being threatened with being banned

That's the trick though: she'd be banned from future events, which she doesn't have a contract for yet.

Surely we can do better than to view the world solely through the lens of contract law, of all things.

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.

Bad news: that means it is absolutely a part of your job not to do any work for your competitors.

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?

The point is, a contractual obligation is not the same as "what your job is".

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.

These contracts are justified because it is the sustained engagement by the fans makes it possible that Osaka can pursue her athleticism as a professional career and has financial security. Most professional sports is sustained by an audience that is willing to watch it.

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.

Her job is to play tennis, not to answer inane questions from inane "reporters" about various things only half-related to her last game. I encourage you to take a public poll on this: how many people watch tennis for the game and how many watch tennis for the post-match interviews?

The thing is you're wrong about this.

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.

why do we need a poll when we have the actual market mechanism? If people got no satisfaction out of the players talking about their games surely we'd have more tournaments exactly like that.

Game interviews are common across virtually all sports because it personalizes the player and ads some context to a game.

Is it really interviews that make the audience want to watch?

Perhaps some contracts need revisiting when circumstances change.

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.

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.

Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal.

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.

It’s not forced, in the sense that if someone doesn’t want to play in that setting and receive that money, they don’t have to.

There’s no job where you get to skip the part that actually generates revenue for the business because you don’t like it.

That's the main question. Where does the revenue come from?

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.

These are also the least interesting interviews that exist in the world of journalism.

I understand her struggle to talk publicly and answer the same questions again and again, it could be a sign of being in the spectrum of authism, but what I don't understand is that she said multiple times that interviews and press conferences are trying to the mental health of athletes (but is it true?) and we know it because she said it to the press! So there are topics she shares with the media after all...

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.

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.

Yes, but she and all other professional athletes are not really athletes, but some amalgum of athlete and entertainer.

and ambassador for the sport.

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.

She probably shouldn't compete until she in better health. We should wish her a speedy recovery.

I empathize with this because not much thought is put into it, but it is really humans being traded

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com