Could you elaborate on your comment? I imagine you comment could mean that because she entered a contract, people should view all contract enforcement as socially acceptable, regardless of any other circumstances.
Contracts are not immutable nor eternal. By raising the issue now, she is setting the stage for her future contract negotiations and garnering support for this point in advance. I imagine that if she had followed through with all the interviews for this season and waited to raise this until her next contract negotiations that she would not win this concession.
Now she has a much better chance of getting this flexibility.
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.
In addition, does anyone want a job where they cannot take a single mental health day? All the time and you get fired, but many places allow for the occasional exception. A $20K fine might have been precisely calibrated for the appropriate incentives at that level. Every tournament location can't not be the exception.
That strategy didn’t work for Marshawn Lynch and it won’t work here either. Fan intrigue pays her bills, whether she wants to acknowledge that fact or not.
What are the odds a post about Osaka's play on the court would appear on HN? Lynch has benefited plenty from "I'm just here so I don't get fined." Moves such as this likely do more to build intrigue than answering a standard post match/game interview question.
I could have sworn there was a large discussion on HN when Osaka beat Williams and Williams had a freakout. But I can't find that discussion now on algolia... maybe it was flagged off, or maybe I'm just misremembering?
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.
Top athletes are very well paid because there is public interest in what they do. Being available for interviews is part of the job. If athletes can bail out as they wish there will be less money for them in the long run. This will perhaps affect the next generation more than the current but I think it is selfish to not fulfill their commitments.
I had the same thought originally, but after thinking about it, does the post match interview really make that much money or publicity in general? I really have no idea. Personally, as soon as the game is over I tune out.
It does not matter. It's part of the event scheduled in the event agenda. It's contractual. Signing up for an event implies fulfilling all these obligations.
I understand that it's an obligation she signed on for. What I'm questioning is does it make sense to make that an obligation? Does it really provide enough value to override the harm that some athletes seem to get from it?
The correct question would be: does it make sense to require the athletes to go through this.
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.
> The correct question would be: does it make sense to require the athletes to go through this.
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.
It is part of the job. A single interview makes no difference but if athletes always bail when they don't feel like it, it will be less interesting to follow. Consider a sports broadcast, aside from the actual match there is much time spent to switch between interviews and pundits, with advertisments mixed in between. With less interviews, less content and less time to push ads to the viewers. The broadcasters uses the interviews to create interesting air time.
Yeah its really important that athletes answer the interesting questions like "You are often compared to the Williams sisters. Maybe it’s because you’re Black. But I guess it’s because you’re talented and maybe American too. We could have a final between you and Serena. Is it something you hope for? I mean, 22 years separate you girls." [1]
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't think the fans care at all about the post-game interviews. In any sport.
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:
The trouble is that journalists are a self-important and entitled bunch, and they really don't like people who don't help them out by speaking with them on demand. Often they even seem actively suspicious of anyone who doesn't trust them, no matter how hard-earned that distrust is.
Similarly w.r.t racing - I have no problem with press conferences, but a mandatory press conference isn't really any good. The only time that it's worth watching is when they're all in a good mood and there is some banter.
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 ...
This was certainly true in the past, but I'm not sure it is true anymore. Athletes and their fans can now form direct connections through social media and other platforms that were previously purely controlled by the media. I wouldn't say sports media is irrelevant or anything that extreme, but their role as a middleman between athletes and fans isn't needed as much anymore.
I'm not very familiar with the business of tennis specifically, but in sports in general a plurality or even a majority of the money comes from advertisers who pay to sponsor events or show ads on the TV broadcast. The rates for those ads depends on the ratings and popularity of the event. The next biggest chunk of money is directly from fans in the form of tickets, merchandise, and directly paying to watch through streaming or pay-per-view.
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).
The majority of income for all top athletes comes from endorsements. Over the last year, Naomi Osaka made $5m from tournaments and $50m from advertisers. LeBron James has a lifetime contract with Nike worth over a billion dollars.
It's pretty obvious why athletes don't care about engaging with traditional sports media anymore.
Right, but if by some hypothetical Osaka was banned from all tournaments, it's not like her income would drop from $55M to $50.
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.
If you're referring to tv deals, those networks make money by selling ads against the events, not by covering the storylines. If the latter were the case, I think one would expect the sponsoring networks to negotiate exclusive post game press conference rights?
I am an avid F1 fan and some drivers like Sebastian Vettel is intensely private and has no social media presence - except for media responsibilities for his team you don't really hear from him off the track.
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.
"Athletes and their fans can now form direct connections through social media and other platforms that were previously purely controlled by the media."
Right, but do you think tennis players can replace prize money (funded by the media industry) with Patreon and Substack?
I find this funny. My father, my girlfriend's father (even I, but I don't care about sports) don't have social media at all.
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)
This isn't about keeping up public interest, this is about sports "reporters" protecting what is left of their control over the narrative. Athletes already generate way more public interest in their sport by engaging directly with fans. They don't need traditional outlets like Sports Illustrated or ESPN in order to build a brand / promote their sport, so they don't feel like they need to put up with the bullshit aspects of sports media... like post game interviews where everyone is just trying to bait them into a juicy quote.
And honestly as a fan, good riddance. Most of these "reporters" are doing little more than trying to manufacture controversy.
The only reason she can play the sport professionally is precisely because of the media machine behind it. It is incredibly misguided for her to think that, as a professional sport player, her job stops at the final whistle. Who does she think pays for her prize money?
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.
She's the world #2 female player, and she was doing media pool appearances until today.
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.
I've seen plenty of anecdata over the years, including seemingly endless amounts of government and private propoaganda/advertising, that seems to drive public interest.
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.
First strike could be losing any prize money or qualifying comp from the tournament. Media and sponsors are paying for all of it after all. It’s not like media is just there covering athletes doing their thing and should be lucky to get a word. Simply put, media and sponsors pay athletes to perform a show which includes (among other things) sports and interviews.
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've seen reporters ask really invasive questions, or repeat them over and over, with slightly different words.
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.
Some of these athletes are very young. Training is one thing, but doing it IRL is another, especially after a hard loss when you are physically drained.
Yes, it’s a war where inane questions lead to inane answers which the reporters know are boring so there is a reward for creating drama and controversy as the athletes try to keep things boring
Doesn’t want to talk to the media because she “wants to protect her mental health.”
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.
Please don't be snarky or post shallow dismissals to HN, and if you'd please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments generally, we'd be grateful.
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...
If I read the article correctly, she is simply setting a window of time where she will not give interviews. She will grant them once the event is over.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
Disagree, I’ve played professional tennis briefly and the tour can be grinding sure, but the reason players are paid so much is because people want to watch them and see them compete, press junkets are part of this. I’ve seen her happily give victory speeches before. What a spoiled baby, refusing to talk to the associations when they reached out, good on the Grand Slams for not accepting this type of behavior. She could take a cue from Federer or Nadal.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The massive investment seen in sports recently is not because all of a sudden humanities best talents are in sports. It's partly because of the marketing done by the organisers.
So, seems a bit odd that an athlete wants to collect the outrageous fees without being part of the advertising bringing in that money.
I do not support preying on one's emotions, but when you look at the figures being paid to players, you realise they aren't being paid just to play tennis or soccer.
Usually, there are other responsibilities attached that you may not like just like in any other job.
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.
Did they change the rules just to punish her? Last I heard, the policy was that missing interviews incurs a fine, which Osaka decided she could handle. If so, this starts to look a little villainous. I guess they're afraid other players will follow suit.
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.
I don't watch sports nearly as much as many other people in my life, though I am interested enough to watch with them when I'm spending time with them.
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.
I've watched a fair amount of live cricket and swimming, and it's _very_ rare for me to find the interviews interesting. I might leave them on as background noise or if I'm waiting to see something after them, but I'm not going to seek them out. They feel like a way to fill air time more than anything.
> 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.
No, I find those interviews shitty and insulting to players. There is no value add.
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.
This is a very idealistic point of view. At the end of the day sports for viewers is entertainment. Athletes make their money by entertaining the audience. They can do this with their skill only and many do. That however is not a path of making the most out of their career financially.
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.
If you go back and check he lost both those fights. He also looked kind of terrible against Poirier, and nothing like the Conor who gave a fuck and took the belt from Eddie Alvarez.
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.
McGregor won the first round on all three scorecards.
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.
I agree with everything you said. But we have different opinions about what entertainment is. To me, constantly insulting your opponents is not entertainment.
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.
Ironically, Osaka is providing the same drama.
Rather than shit-talking opponents, she goes up against institutions.
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.
Sure but the drama is over if/when she or the league relents. She's not making drama for entertainment. She's trying to improve her life and the lives of other athletes who are sick of this particular ritual.
Or maybe she should have responded when they reached out to see what they could do to accommodate her. Throwing a tantrum should absolutely be punished.
No. Interviews are almost always useless. Best case you get an interviewer asking benign questions and an interviewee provide fluff responses (“it was a team effort”, “we’re ignoring the trophy - we only ever concentrate on the next game”, that kind of thing). Worst case you get malevolent questions aimed at riling then interviewee and resulting in a sound bite. These might be more interesting but are not beneficial to the sport or audience IMHO. In some sports mid game interviews with coaches (during play) and players (at breaks) are becoming a thing. It’s a complete and utter waste and gets my dander up. I watch a ton of sport and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an insightful response to an interview question. Nobody is going to give away their tactics, preparation processes or any other insight that might act as a competitive advantage.
One of the reasons why I stopped watching sports was the annoying reporters, broadcasters, and announcers, as well as ridiculous chyrons, graphical effects and general ADD style eye candy constantly thrown at you and also interrupting the flow of the game.
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.
I have a friend who has explicitly traveled to Canada to watch the Olympics with her sister because the coverage is so much better than in the US - which is to say it’s mostly just the actual competition.
Right? Jesus christ! It's like upending your entire life to watch Thai TV in Thailand-- someone will happily beam that data to you anywhere in the world for a fee.
Please call this kind of thing "ADD style". ADD is a condition where people find focusing on things extremely hard and are easily distracted. The kind of programming you refer to makes thing much, much harder to watch for people with ADD.
Anecdote, diagnosed pretty bad adult ADHD. Call it whatever you want, ignore people trying to police your language. Not everyone is offended all the time.
Sports broadcasting has been going down the gutter over the last couple of decades. The game itself has become an afterthought. Commentators have been replaced by dull celebrities. Analysts only want to create outrage. ESPN and every other network is solely interested in drama between players and pushing a certain narrative.
They're awful. 95% of the time it's stock questions and stock answers. The only time they're entertaining is when it's someone like the Patriots' head coach Bill Belichick. He very clearly hates stupid questions but rarely he'll be asked a good one and have a chance to launch into a detailed discussion on punting in the NFL or some other lesser discussed aspect of the game. Ask him good questions and he'll happily give thoughtful, detailed responses, it just almost never happens.
I've long said to anyone who'll listen that there should be an alternate audio channel a la "En espanol en SAP", but instead of another pair of announcers calling the game in another language, it's no announcers at all, and it's just the sounds of the game and the crowd. No commentary. Sports-spectacle is atrocious and ruins most games.
While it is exceedingly rare (2-5% I would guess, at least in the motorsports I watch), the times when it goes beyond a simple canned response it can be incredibly interesting and compelling. Though I think the dynamic of Motorsports is different than most other sports as you're not going to get the same situations where a driver is being interviewed as they return to the garage from crashing out of the race.
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.
> do you find the athlete interviews before and after the game all that compelling?
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.
The pitch side TV 1:1s are good. The press conferences are universally abysmal. I would not be surprised if an enormous part of it is just to get an athlete head-and-shoulders shot with the Gazprom logo in the background.
Mostly useless, same questions and same answers every time. The media is trying to spin some narrative and the players/ coaches just throw out the same old lines.
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.
I'm very deeply invested in football (soccer for my freedom-loving friends). I don't particularly care for athlete interviews, but manager interviews can often be pretty interesting. For example, Marcelo Bielsa can do very interesting tactical deep-dives in pre and post-match interviews. That said, the majority of these interviews are pretty bad. Vacuous reporters chasing headlines or expecting a particular answer and working backwards from that to frame questions. There has been some pushback from players and managers.
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."
My wife and I watch Sumo wrestling, and I often understand what the wrestler is replying because it's almost always incredibly simple, like, "I was really happy." The questions are almost inevitably like, "How do you feel about winning the whole tournament?"
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.
95 times out of 100 the interview is simply robotic repetition of the same cliches. You watch the interview for the other 5 times when you sometimes do gain greater exposure or understanding through an emotional or unguarded moment.
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.
This seems to have been an unpopular comment, which is a little perplexing. I’m not endorsing or criticizing anyone/anything. Just pointing out that penalties usually escalate (in sport and elsewhere in society) after repeat breaches, to prevent people just treating fines as a cost of doing business.
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.
I mostly agreed with this point of view until I saw Rafael Nadal’s (post match ha) interview on the subject. Ultimately these press conferences are another avenue to put a spotlight on the sport and it’s the popularity of these top players that bring in fans that write checks for the top ~500 players in the world (plus all the staff around players and tournaments). If a player doesn’t want to participate it only hurts the sport which will eventually hurt you if you want the sport to grow/survive.
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.
You can have storylines and build narratives without annoying star players with paparazzi. And you can have press conferences after big events without the current fashion in which the media harasses athletes.
But how do you prevent people turning against sportpeople when they show disdain at taking a bit of heat for a defeat ?
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.
I guess they depends on whether you, as a fan of the sport, prefer athletic excellence in the game being played vs being make-believe friends with athletes.
I don’t disagree that it’s possible but if a player refuses to give an opinion or to interact with media it doesn’t make building narratives easier. “Player X has this record vs Player Y” isn’t that compelling in itself.
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.
Just to be clear, post match interviews aren’t “paparazzi”, they aren’t randomly followed on the street, they meet at a given place at a given time and interact with cleared media people.
Do they get asked bad questions sometimes? Yes and it’s amazing to see that reporter asking something inappropriate get slammed by the players.
On one hand I agree with you; on the other hand, they are getting paid to perform, and that includes the interview by contract. The problem with performances such as those interviews, or theatre plays, is that they need to be done in a timely manner. I think it is reasonable that their career worsens if the reliability is not there - even if there are perfectly legitimate causes for it such are not being emotionally able. Same way there are career issues if you break a leg during a tournament.
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.
> Why is it amazing for the players in the midst of a very emotional moment to have to endure an inappropriate question, and respond with an attack?
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.
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.
It's incredible how entitled we think we are to another person's time, attention, and peace of mind just because they had the audacity to be the best at what they do.
If someone does not want to be in the public, they have every right to not be in the public eye.
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.
Someone might want to play tennis at the highest level and at the same time only be in the "public eye" to a medium extent (spectators and broadcast of the actual match) rather than to the extreme. That shouldn't be an unreasonable ask.
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:
Perhaps she reasonably assumed that if someone pays to put your face on a billboard while wearing your product, then they are paying to put your face on a billboard while wearing your product. Transaction complete.
The expectation that they should accept further exploitation (paparazzi, forced interviews, etc) is a societal disease; these people are human as well.
The only reason why she is paid to have her face on a billboard is because of her activities in the tennis world. If she is unknown to the general public for being a tennis star, then there is no value to the companies paying her for the use of her image.
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 reason she is paid is because she is one of the best in the world at doing one specific thing. That’s what people enjoy watching her do.
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.
> 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.
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.
It's absolutely insane that it's the 21st century and we're still having heated debates on whether or not people deserve the most basic level of privacy and autonomy.
Pro athletes have done basic media days, outreach, and non-antagonizing interviews. Why do they need to do more than that? Why does the default need to be for the public to obsess over them?
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".
Because that is what the markets have determined. There weren’t always post match pressers and clearly the sport has determined that there is a value to having them.
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.
That may be the case for you but certainly not everyone. I, for one, don't care about interviews at all and in all the sports that I have watched (which includes basically everything, including competitive gaming), I sticked to the race/match/etc only. I watch for the competitive spirit and competitors can express themselves through their actions which is how I may become a fan of them. All the "blabla" is unnecessary fluff and if it's even forced on the competitors, of course they should have the right to refuse, without straight up being denied participation.
No, they've just fined her for now and said that if she keeps missing interviews it will (sensibly) count as repeat violations. It is the (supposed) repeated violations which carry the possibility of a forced default.
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".
> It is the (supposed) repeated violations which carry the possibility of a forced default.
"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.
Yes, my reading is that the Aggravated Behaviour clause clearly grants them the power to be harsher, and they simply chose to place a more moderate upper bound for now.
As a professional player, she already knows that the tournament rulebook requires the players to meet with the press regardless of win or lose. That's what she knowingly signed up for as a condition to participate in the tournament.
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.)
Well, there are a bunch of sections detailing various player offences, followed by some sections that define terms used in the preceding sections. e.g.:
> 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.
No, what they threaten to invoke is Article IV §A.3 which states that if you commit many offences it counts as "Aggravated Behaviour", with Aggravated Behaviour carrying potential penalties up to never playing in a grand slam again.
> 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.
A large contingent of modern sports journalists are predatory in that they aim primarily to get an out of context outrage-bait quote or soundbyte to drive engagement with no concern whatsoever for resulting fallout or hate directed towards the competitors.
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.
This exact situation has been something I have wondered about for a while (what would happen if a professional athlete just flat out refused to engage with the media) and I think it's fascinating that an athlete is being punished because they won't take part in the media sideshow.
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.
While the interviews by themselves don't bring that much to the game, the media are a highly important part of those sports: tournaments get a lot of money from media coverage, and become more "famous" thanks to the media. It's a win situation and professional athletes are part of the show.
I think it is pretty lame to try and say it is a mental health issue to talk to the media after a loss. You get paid millions of dollars to play sports, talking to the media is a part of that. I'm not saying that rich people can never complain about anything, but if the worst part of your job is talking to the media after losing a tennis game, I don't have much sympathy. If you don't want to talk to the media, don't sign up for a job that is based around performing and being a public figure.
Maybe a better approach (and possibly something she's tried already) is to speak with organisers and see if there is a different way to handle media appearances? Otherwise paying the small (for her) fine now is a loophole that they'll close soon enough.
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.
Like other commenters have noted, I agree that making media appearances is part of the job, especially when being paid what top athletes get paid.
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.
Almost all monopolists abuse their power to set rules that allow them to adjudicate ex post facto for things they just don’t like. In sports this usually falls under “sportsmanship” where poor sportsmanship is defined as “I don’t like it.”
I wanted to add some background so HN commenters can appreciate what Osaka is trying to say, instead of sputtering "but she signed a contract. QED!"
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.
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.
I'm curious - if some mystery player was objectively the best at some sport (say, tennis). Could they get away with this?
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?
Magnus Carlsen, the most dominating chess player since Kasparov, has many times sabotaged the post-game interviews. The latest incident occurred just this week
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.
Even better - he answered “I’m just here so I won’t get fined” to every question at his Superbowl press conference. Osaka included video of that in her post announcing her press policy for this event, so clearly she’s thinking along the same lines.
In a way it's not too dissimilar an approach; different people have different tolerances for -- and reactions to -- conflict though (in all walks of life). What works well for one sportsperson and their composure might not work so well for another.
The demand for these post game interviews comes from the same gross, exploitive, emotionally cheap place that demands hour-long biopics of every player with a dead sibling and full-screen closeups of losing athletes on the verge of tears. Sports coverage would be better without any them. We can tell stories of adversity without reducing people to their most painful moment.
266 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadquite 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.
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.
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DchVkmlak
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.
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.
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'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
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...
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.
So, seems a bit odd that an athlete wants to collect the outrageous fees without being part of the advertising bringing in that money.
I do not support preying on one's emotions, but when you look at the figures being paid to players, you realise they aren't being paid just to play tennis or soccer.
Usually, there are other responsibilities attached that you may not like just like in any other job.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: apparently the article got flagged. Still wondering why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0goKBquMpn0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That would fulfill her media obligations.