47 ms·

Naomi Osaka faces default from Grand Slam for refusing to speak to media

153 points by e2e4 5y ago

e2e4 5y ago
> she wants to protect her mental health quite reasonable
- the-dude 5y ago
  She entered a contract.
  - jerry1979 5y ago
    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.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      Could you define socially acceptable? Thanks.
    - Shadonototro 5y ago
      interview is not socially acceptable? it's part of her job she is mad she lost
  - politicorific 5y ago
    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. I wish Naomi the best of luck.
    - a9h74j 5y ago
      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.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  In the context of Grand Slams, she is an entertainer.
m3kw9 5y ago
Let’s see who bulks first
- mLuby 5y ago
  "balks" (but what you wrote is funnier.)
  - m3kw9 5y ago
    Didn’t mean to be but it feels like a “laughing at me” funny
jimbob45 5y ago
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.
- slg 5y ago
  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.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    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.
mongol 5y ago
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.
- baseballdork 5y ago
  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.
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    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.
    - baseballdork 5y ago
      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?
      - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        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.
axlee 5y ago
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.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  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.
  - axlee 5y ago
    What do you think broadcast rights are? Why do you think companies sponsor sports players?
    - gamblor956 5y ago
      Broadcast rights are for the event itself, not the news media interviews after the event. Companies sponsor athletes so their logos appear during the event. Athletes are usually in sweats at the post event news media sessions.
  - sverhagen 5y ago
    Isn't the pool media helping to drum up viewership for the broadcasts? I mean, it's still all connected?
    - gamblor956 5y ago
alkonaut 5y ago
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.
e40 5y ago
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.
- tokai 5y ago
  I would have thought that any high level athlete would take some kind of media training.
  - e40 5y ago
    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.
- bloaf 5y ago
  I wonder if Osaka showed up and only said "I didn't understand, please repeat the question" until the interview was over if she would end up banned.
- kaladin_1 5y ago
  Yeah, some reporters can be nasty and I wonder if there's a way for the players to complain. 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
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    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
texaswhizzle 5y ago
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. I’m sure all that is great for her mental health.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  Did you submit this article just to dunk on a 23 year old? Seems off topic for the site... > 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.
- dang 5y ago
  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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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 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=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
  - texaswhizzle 5y ago
    Happy to stop using Hacker News. Thanks. Please ban.
anonymousiam 5y ago
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.
mLuby 5y ago
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.
- dvt 5y ago
  > 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.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    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.
    - votepaunchy 5y ago
throwawaw 5y ago
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.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  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.
  - akudha 5y ago
    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.
    - rapsey 5y ago
      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.
jasode 5y ago
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. An example tweet mentioning Article III Section H from the rulebook: https://twitter.com/tumcarayol/status/1399017968432992260 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-2020-f.pdf https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-202...
- klyrs 5y ago
  The Defaults section appears to permit the tournament to take this action in response to a single violation of the rules.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    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.
Audiophilip 5y ago
The article seems to be gone from the top page(s). Any ideas why? Edit: apparently the article got flagged. Still wondering why.
jedahan 5y ago
Might be able to take a page out of Marshawn Lynch’s interview playbook https://youtu.be/CU1BuC1672U https://youtu.be/CU1BuC1672U
- CalChris 5y ago
  The Shortest Interview of Magnus Carlsen - ONLY 10 SECONDS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0goKBquMpn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0goKBquMpn0
sbagel 5y ago
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.
shruubi 5y ago
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.
- gregoriol 5y ago
  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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
GhostVII 5y ago
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.
- discordance 5y ago
  I watch sports for the sport, and despise the same old torturous q&a. We should appreciate our best for what they do best.
- prawn 5y ago
  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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
prawn 5y ago
Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets has taken fines to avoid media appearances also.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
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.
spoonjim 5y ago
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.”
redis_mlc 5y ago
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.
ping_pong 5y ago
You can't have your cake and eat it too. 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.
endisneigh 5y ago
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?
- alberto-m 5y ago
  Magnus Carlsen, the most dominating chess player since Kasparov, has many times sabotaged the post-game interviews. The latest incident occurred just this week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtrZkDUa8xU&t=11511s 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.
kingaillas 5y ago
She should just pull a Marshawn Lynch, who answered "thanks for asking" for every question at one press conference: https://www.businessinsider.com/marshawn-lynch-thanks-presser-2014-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/marshawn-lynch-thanks-presse... That would fulfill her media obligations.
- karaokeyoga 5y ago
  related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQnKTyXqWx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQnKTyXqWx0
  - ilamont 5y ago
    “Thanks for asking about my stomach.”
- kristjansson 5y ago
  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.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  And let’s not forget Marshawn Lynch’s Super Bowl media day classic: “I’m just here so I don’t get fined.” in response to 30 different questions.
  - nmcveity 5y ago
    And it was still the most insightful interview given that week.
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    And the NFL got their monies worth the news coverage of that was larger than if he was giving really insightful answers.
- 5y ago
kristjansson 5y ago
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.
fmakunbound 5y ago
Good for her, sports interviews are all the same bullshit.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
televised sport != sport televised sport == advertising dollars Seeing this more and more. Amateur-level sport is becoming a better spectacle, a better showcase of the sport itself, than professional, televised sports because of all the "value-add" the media does to try and create drama around everything. In Australia, the AFL (Australian Football League) implemented the video reply system in order to "add drama", in other words, to get the fans riled up. And it works. Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. The fans get loud about it - which is the desired end result. Drama: 1, AFL sporting integrity: 0 Edited to add: If you saw the game / match and you understand the sport, there's very little that a post-match interview can add that's of any value outside of sound-bites and article titles for the media.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  > Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. I'm with you for every part of your comment except for this one. Video replays are unpopular because they slow down matches and remove spontaneity and flow, but at least in North America (hockey, basketball, football) they absolutely do improve the quality of decisions and lead to more fair outcomes. Are you sure about your evaluation? Or is something weird with the AFL that makes it unique?
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    I'll limit my criticism to what I'm familiar with: AFL (although I hear bad things about video replay in rugby and soccer as well, but that may be due to a reverse survivorship bias kinda situation). AFL is a somewhat unique sport, and whilst the video replay system is admittedly improving, it's initial implementation was poorly thought-out: they didn't use cameras with high enough frames-per-second to actually catch the detail that was it's raison d'etre. From one frame to the next would miss the 'event' proving whether the ball was touched by a player, or rebounded off a post or whatever else may result in something other than a goal. The fast pace of AFL also means that where video replays are used are in the, generally, less controversial sets of decisions that umpires have to make. Goal umpires have been pretty well vindicated by the video system, whilst it's traditionally been the quality of the field umpiring that gets questioned, but video replay is not, and cannot (due to the pace of the game) be used to remedy this. I should say that I think cricket has got its various technologies nice and tight, along with tennis. But they're not pure video replays, they're additional technologies built on top of video.
chad_strategic 5y ago
I love watching sports. (US football, basketball etc.) I don't need the see post game interviews. It's nice to watch them, but don't need them. I can see how tough it is for athletes to have to talk to reporters about losses. It's hard enough being an professional sports athlete. Leave the game on the court not the locker room. If that isn't hard enough, then they have to deal with social media. Where everybody is a critic. Good for Naomi. Also Marshawn Lynch really lead the way.
aidenn0 5y ago
It might say something if an athlete is willing to pay $20k to not talk to the media.
sidcool 5y ago
This is news to me. Did not know it's a contractual thing. Understandable that organizers would want to cash on the fame of the players, but players should have a right to deny. $15K is an OK price for Naomi to pay for mental peace. Edit: She made $55 million last year, so this is small potatoes.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
  Marshawn Lynch, a famous NFL player in the USA, made headlines in 2015 for also refusing to speak to the media before and after games. He has reportedly been fined over $300,000 USD to date (1) for his refusals to speak with the media over a long NFL career. During the 2015 Super Bowl he somewhat infamously created a meme by performing the entire Media Day interview saying variations of “I’m just here so I won’t get fined” (2). 1:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportscasting.com/marshawn-lynchs-refusal-to-play-by-the-nfls-rules-has-cost-him-over-300k/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportscasting.com/marshawn-... 2: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rmABbHSOTqQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rmABbHSOTqQ
tmellon2 5y ago
This is ridiculous - why would anyone force someone to speak if they don't want to.
nprateem 5y ago
Would she also refuse any prize money if she won? Surely she knows roughly the economics of the tournament?
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  Perhaps it is less about how it is than how it should be.
skc 5y ago
I follow football (soccer) and at least in England, when you join a professional team there is a very heavy emphasis on mandatory media training for the players. Which is why you often see so many dull player interviews, you can literally see them recalling their training and giving stock standard answers to the sort of questions they've been trained to respond to based on the outcome of the game or their performance. Maybe other sports should take a similar stance.
gorgoiler 5y ago
> “players have a responsibility to engage with the media for the benefit of the sport, the fans and for themselves” If the French Open are going to enforce their contract it is disingenuous to call it a responsibility. I don’t have a “responsibility” to show up to work every day for the benefit of some third party. If I don’t, I simply get fired. I am a small cog in a big machine. One hopes that the balance of power is much more in Osaka’s behaviour. On behalf of all of us small cogs, good luck to her.
Tepix 5y ago
People watch mainly watch sports TV to see athletes perform, not to see them being interviewed. Interviewing someone shortly after a loss can be very cruel indeed
- gregoriol 5y ago
  When you consider that these are Pro players, it's not cruel, it's part of the job.
jl6 5y ago
Enforcing this feels like an immense own-goal for the tennis establishment. I have every sympathy for someone who doesn’t want to talk to the media, and I’m sure the weight of public opinion will be on her side too. The audience wants to watch good tennis and likes to think the sport and the players come first in the organizing body’s priorities. Sending a stark reminder that money and sponsorship ranks higher is not going to end well.
nindalf 5y ago
Going against the consensus of the thread and say - Osaka should do the interviews. Yes, they’re harrowing and no, I don’t have to do anything as difficult in my job. Nevertheless, it’s necessary in modern sport. One of the reasons the top sports stars are paid so much is because of the strong connection they have with their fans. These “para-social” relationships form when a fan feels that they’re friends with the sportsperson, even if the relationship is obviously one sided. When such fans see their “friend” lose a game, they want to connect with them and see how they’re feeling. Watching an interview half an hour after the game, when the loss is still raw strengthens the relationship between star and fan. These interviews grow the number of people intensely invested in the sport, the kind of people who will travel long distances and pay large sums to attend games. These are the lifeblood of the game. Stopping these interviews would undoubtedly improve the mental health of players, but might also shrink the sport. Osaka might not be personally affected by smaller fan following or prize pools because she’s won plenty and has endorsements, but hundreds of other players don’t. Those players are willing to put the needs of the fans before their own, so the sport as a whole can grow and they can get a part of that. Lastly, Osaka always has the option of handling the interview like Marshawn Lynch.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Who lives vicariously through sports reporters though? If she wants to connect with fans she can do an AMA, IG Live, stream on Twitch, whatever. There's no reason why she needs to hand her time over to magazines or blogs asking the same repetitive questions when she can reach her audience directly without the middle men. "Traditional" press isn't needed to grow a brand anymore. Social media is key.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    You’re right, social media is essential to growing the number of fans. And yet, the TV interviews do two important things - it reaches an audience that’s watching the game live and might not have social media. My dad, for example, would watch the post match interviews but he wouldn’t create social media accounts for this. And secondly, social media posts are choreographed while post match interviews are raw, unedited and “real”. Seeing a human being vulnerable and in pain elicits sympathy from us, makes us invested in their journey, creates the parasocial relationship I was talking about. Again, maybe Osaka has reached a stage in her career where she doesn’t benefit as much from doing it, but she did benefit from decades of Serena Williams and others doing these interviews. They grew the sport to the point where the prize pools are $10M+.
rdiddly 5y ago
Fine with me. The last thing I want to hear is an athlete talking anyway. They're good at the sportsball and that's enough. If I want to watch someone struggle in something they're not good at, I might as well watch a journalist play tennis! ;)
redleader55 5y ago
I really hope they kick her out. I also hope another player does the same and gets kicked out. Then another, and another, until we get only mediocre players winning the Grand Slams. Then all these players will go play in a different tournament where they can be appreciated for their skill, not for doing interviews to please media and the masses that feed on the "emotion".
- xwolfi 5y ago
  What do you think sport is ? A fair competition of disciplined skills ? It's a business whose ONLY value is the emotions it triggers in people... We don't care about a poor girl running around with a tennis racket, we care about the story, where she comes from, which population she represent when we beat her or she beats us. A league of serious sportpeople seriously competing without any storybuilding... Look at how you even feel emotions at her being the David vs the Goliath of sport lol, that's what it's always been about.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Without media and fans, professional sport simply doesn't exist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grazester 5y ago
    This is what I was thinking. I wonder if she is aware of this.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  Indeed. I would like to watch a tournament that has some integrity as a competition.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  as a former mediocre tennis player, you should not be a douche when you literally receive millions to play a sport that you love. talking to the media is part of the job, you don't have to please the media, you can go and say "media suck!" and still get the millions because you got the skills.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
readonthegoapp 5y ago
I support her right to at least try this. At a minimum, I feel like maybe 3% of all fans identify as 'speaking to the media' as the insane crucible grind that it often is, and Naomi's stand should help put a spotlight on that. I would like to at least go the route of something more humane like if you lose, you get at least the night off, and if you continue to win you get at least one night off, etc. And I don't know if tennis lets fans get away w the same insane racist isht that the NBA lets fans get away with, but things like that could qualify a player for extra time away.
frereubu 5y ago
Do fans actually get anything out of these interviews? If so, what is it? I'm generally quite an empathetic person, but for the life of me I can't figure out what possible pleasure anyone can get out of players stringing together platitudes. If they actually have any interesting thoughts on their game they'd keep it to themselves because they wouldn't want to give it away. For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.
airhead969 5y ago
How do you forge the mental toughness to become insanely excellent at tennis while also claiming that pressers in the contract hurt your feelings so badly as to risk mental illness if you happened to have lost that day? Are the players entering the sport getting more and more easily-offended and milquetoasty? Even if the other side is Evil Corp., if a contract you signed says you have to do something and you don't do it, that's shirking professional responsibility and non-performance. Contracts are contracts. Don't like it, don't sign it, negotiate it, and then sign it.. or your word and signature are meaningless.
- qayxc 5y ago
  Indeed. Would be a different story if it wasn't for the money involved. Heck, if you qualified for the 2021 Australian Open, you'd get 77,750 USD just for showing up [1]. I'd argue that getting a year's worth of pay is well worth wasting a few hours giving interviews. It's not as if the players aren't prepared and trained for that either. [1] https://www.perfect-tennis.com/prize-money/australian-open/ https://www.perfect-tennis.com/prize-money/australian-open/
- powercf 5y ago
  If her focus is on playing tennis, then interviews etc. are just a distraction. She may be contractually obligated to partake in interviews, but does she have another option if she wants to play at top events? In my opinion there is too much hype and nonsense around professional sport and I would much prefer if sportsmen/women could focus solely on their sport without joining the circus.
harry8 5y ago
Post Match interviews are utterly inane. Naomi Osaka is doing more to promote the French open and tennis via this controversy by refusing to do them. If they need the inanity to feed hundreds of third rate Sports writers they should be able to send anyone from their entourage who attended in the players' box. Edit: String Theory [1] which i read in a "Year's best Sports writing" compilation is the best tennis journalism I've read. The author went on to literary super-stardom for other reasons. Tragedy is involved. I really don't know anything about any of it, haven't read it, I'm not such a literary person. The tennis article is great. I don't recall press conferences being crucial to its success. [1] https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david-foster-wallace/ https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david...
gamblor956 5y ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/naomi-osaka-withdraws-french-open-citing-anxiety-over-media-interviews-n1269159 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/naomi-osaka-withdraws-f... The vultures won. She's pulled out of the French Open. A natural introvert, Osaka has a history of depression and suffers from imposter syndrome. It's sad, and actually quite disgusting, to see a lot of the comments here trivializing her mental health issues, especially considering how many people in the tech community also suffer from depression (and especially from imposter syndrome.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

153 points by e2e4 5y ago

e2e4 5y ago

> she wants to protect her mental health quite reasonable

the-dude 5y ago
She entered a contract.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  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.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    Could you define socially acceptable? Thanks.
  - Shadonototro 5y ago
    interview is not socially acceptable? it's part of her job she is mad she lost
- politicorific 5y ago
  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. I wish Naomi the best of luck.
  - a9h74j 5y ago
    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.
flyinglizard 5y ago
In the context of Grand Slams, she is an entertainer.

m3kw9 5y ago

Let’s see who bulks first

mLuby 5y ago
"balks" (but what you wrote is funnier.)
- m3kw9 5y ago
  Didn’t mean to be but it feels like a “laughing at me” funny

jimbob45 5y ago

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.

slg 5y ago
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.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  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.

mongol 5y ago

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.

baseballdork 5y ago
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.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  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.
  - baseballdork 5y ago
    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?
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      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.

axlee 5y ago

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.

gamblor956 5y ago
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.
- axlee 5y ago
  What do you think broadcast rights are? Why do you think companies sponsor sports players?
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    Broadcast rights are for the event itself, not the news media interviews after the event. Companies sponsor athletes so their logos appear during the event. Athletes are usually in sweats at the post event news media sessions.
- sverhagen 5y ago
  Isn't the pool media helping to drum up viewership for the broadcasts? I mean, it's still all connected?
  - gamblor956 5y ago

alkonaut 5y ago

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.

e40 5y ago

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.

tokai 5y ago
I would have thought that any high level athlete would take some kind of media training.
- e40 5y ago
  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.
bloaf 5y ago
I wonder if Osaka showed up and only said "I didn't understand, please repeat the question" until the interview was over if she would end up banned.
kaladin_1 5y ago
Yeah, some reporters can be nasty and I wonder if there's a way for the players to complain. 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
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  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

texaswhizzle 5y ago

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. I’m sure all that is great for her mental health.

jerry1979 5y ago
Did you submit this article just to dunk on a 23 year old? Seems off topic for the site... > 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.
dang 5y ago
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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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 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=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- texaswhizzle 5y ago
  Happy to stop using Hacker News. Thanks. Please ban.

anonymousiam 5y ago

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.

mLuby 5y ago

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.

dvt 5y ago
> 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.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  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.
  - votepaunchy 5y ago

throwawaw 5y ago

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.

chitowneats 5y ago
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.
- akudha 5y ago
  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.
  - rapsey 5y ago
    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.

jasode 5y ago

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. An example tweet mentioning Article III Section H from the rulebook: https://twitter.com/tumcarayol/status/1399017968432992260 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-2020-f.pdf https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-202...

klyrs 5y ago
The Defaults section appears to permit the tournament to take this action in response to a single violation of the rules.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  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.

Audiophilip 5y ago

The article seems to be gone from the top page(s). Any ideas why? Edit: apparently the article got flagged. Still wondering why.

jedahan 5y ago

Might be able to take a page out of Marshawn Lynch’s interview playbook https://youtu.be/CU1BuC1672U https://youtu.be/CU1BuC1672U

CalChris 5y ago
The Shortest Interview of Magnus Carlsen - ONLY 10 SECONDS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0goKBquMpn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0goKBquMpn0

sbagel 5y ago

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.

shruubi 5y ago

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.

gregoriol 5y ago
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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

GhostVII 5y ago

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.

discordance 5y ago
I watch sports for the sport, and despise the same old torturous q&a. We should appreciate our best for what they do best.
prawn 5y ago
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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

prawn 5y ago

Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets has taken fines to avoid media appearances also.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

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.

spoonjim 5y ago

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.”

redis_mlc 5y ago

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.

ping_pong 5y ago

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 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.

endisneigh 5y ago

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?

alberto-m 5y ago
Magnus Carlsen, the most dominating chess player since Kasparov, has many times sabotaged the post-game interviews. The latest incident occurred just this week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtrZkDUa8xU&t=11511s 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.

kingaillas 5y ago

She should just pull a Marshawn Lynch, who answered "thanks for asking" for every question at one press conference: https://www.businessinsider.com/marshawn-lynch-thanks-presser-2014-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/marshawn-lynch-thanks-presse... That would fulfill her media obligations.

karaokeyoga 5y ago
related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQnKTyXqWx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQnKTyXqWx0
- ilamont 5y ago
  “Thanks for asking about my stomach.”
kristjansson 5y ago
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.
elliekelly 5y ago
And let’s not forget Marshawn Lynch’s Super Bowl media day classic: “I’m just here so I don’t get fined.” in response to 30 different questions.
- nmcveity 5y ago
  And it was still the most insightful interview given that week.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  And the NFL got their monies worth the news coverage of that was larger than if he was giving really insightful answers.
5y ago

kristjansson 5y ago

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.

fmakunbound 5y ago

Good for her, sports interviews are all the same bullshit.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

televised sport != sport televised sport == advertising dollars Seeing this more and more. Amateur-level sport is becoming a better spectacle, a better showcase of the sport itself, than professional, televised sports because of all the "value-add" the media does to try and create drama around everything. In Australia, the AFL (Australian Football League) implemented the video reply system in order to "add drama", in other words, to get the fans riled up. And it works. Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. The fans get loud about it - which is the desired end result. Drama: 1, AFL sporting integrity: 0 Edited to add: If you saw the game / match and you understand the sport, there's very little that a post-match interview can add that's of any value outside of sound-bites and article titles for the media.

deanCommie 5y ago
> Just like every other video reply system it gets the result wrong more consistently than the spur-of-the-moment, human, umpiring decisions. I'm with you for every part of your comment except for this one. Video replays are unpopular because they slow down matches and remove spontaneity and flow, but at least in North America (hockey, basketball, football) they absolutely do improve the quality of decisions and lead to more fair outcomes. Are you sure about your evaluation? Or is something weird with the AFL that makes it unique?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I'll limit my criticism to what I'm familiar with: AFL (although I hear bad things about video replay in rugby and soccer as well, but that may be due to a reverse survivorship bias kinda situation). AFL is a somewhat unique sport, and whilst the video replay system is admittedly improving, it's initial implementation was poorly thought-out: they didn't use cameras with high enough frames-per-second to actually catch the detail that was it's raison d'etre. From one frame to the next would miss the 'event' proving whether the ball was touched by a player, or rebounded off a post or whatever else may result in something other than a goal. The fast pace of AFL also means that where video replays are used are in the, generally, less controversial sets of decisions that umpires have to make. Goal umpires have been pretty well vindicated by the video system, whilst it's traditionally been the quality of the field umpiring that gets questioned, but video replay is not, and cannot (due to the pace of the game) be used to remedy this. I should say that I think cricket has got its various technologies nice and tight, along with tennis. But they're not pure video replays, they're additional technologies built on top of video.

chad_strategic 5y ago

I love watching sports. (US football, basketball etc.) I don't need the see post game interviews. It's nice to watch them, but don't need them. I can see how tough it is for athletes to have to talk to reporters about losses. It's hard enough being an professional sports athlete. Leave the game on the court not the locker room. If that isn't hard enough, then they have to deal with social media. Where everybody is a critic. Good for Naomi. Also Marshawn Lynch really lead the way.

aidenn0 5y ago

It might say something if an athlete is willing to pay $20k to not talk to the media.

sidcool 5y ago

This is news to me. Did not know it's a contractual thing. Understandable that organizers would want to cash on the fame of the players, but players should have a right to deny. $15K is an OK price for Naomi to pay for mental peace. Edit: She made $55 million last year, so this is small potatoes.

SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
Marshawn Lynch, a famous NFL player in the USA, made headlines in 2015 for also refusing to speak to the media before and after games. He has reportedly been fined over $300,000 USD to date (1) for his refusals to speak with the media over a long NFL career. During the 2015 Super Bowl he somewhat infamously created a meme by performing the entire Media Day interview saying variations of “I’m just here so I won’t get fined” (2). 1:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportscasting.com/marshawn-lynchs-refusal-to-play-by-the-nfls-rules-has-cost-him-over-300k/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportscasting.com/marshawn-... 2: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rmABbHSOTqQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rmABbHSOTqQ

tmellon2 5y ago

This is ridiculous - why would anyone force someone to speak if they don't want to.

nprateem 5y ago

Would she also refuse any prize money if she won? Surely she knows roughly the economics of the tournament?

approxim8ion 5y ago
Perhaps it is less about how it is than how it should be.

skc 5y ago

I follow football (soccer) and at least in England, when you join a professional team there is a very heavy emphasis on mandatory media training for the players. Which is why you often see so many dull player interviews, you can literally see them recalling their training and giving stock standard answers to the sort of questions they've been trained to respond to based on the outcome of the game or their performance. Maybe other sports should take a similar stance.

gorgoiler 5y ago

> “players have a responsibility to engage with the media for the benefit of the sport, the fans and for themselves” If the French Open are going to enforce their contract it is disingenuous to call it a responsibility. I don’t have a “responsibility” to show up to work every day for the benefit of some third party. If I don’t, I simply get fired. I am a small cog in a big machine. One hopes that the balance of power is much more in Osaka’s behaviour. On behalf of all of us small cogs, good luck to her.

Tepix 5y ago

People watch mainly watch sports TV to see athletes perform, not to see them being interviewed. Interviewing someone shortly after a loss can be very cruel indeed

gregoriol 5y ago
When you consider that these are Pro players, it's not cruel, it's part of the job.

jl6 5y ago

Enforcing this feels like an immense own-goal for the tennis establishment. I have every sympathy for someone who doesn’t want to talk to the media, and I’m sure the weight of public opinion will be on her side too. The audience wants to watch good tennis and likes to think the sport and the players come first in the organizing body’s priorities. Sending a stark reminder that money and sponsorship ranks higher is not going to end well.

nindalf 5y ago

Going against the consensus of the thread and say - Osaka should do the interviews. Yes, they’re harrowing and no, I don’t have to do anything as difficult in my job. Nevertheless, it’s necessary in modern sport. One of the reasons the top sports stars are paid so much is because of the strong connection they have with their fans. These “para-social” relationships form when a fan feels that they’re friends with the sportsperson, even if the relationship is obviously one sided. When such fans see their “friend” lose a game, they want to connect with them and see how they’re feeling. Watching an interview half an hour after the game, when the loss is still raw strengthens the relationship between star and fan. These interviews grow the number of people intensely invested in the sport, the kind of people who will travel long distances and pay large sums to attend games. These are the lifeblood of the game. Stopping these interviews would undoubtedly improve the mental health of players, but might also shrink the sport. Osaka might not be personally affected by smaller fan following or prize pools because she’s won plenty and has endorsements, but hundreds of other players don’t. Those players are willing to put the needs of the fans before their own, so the sport as a whole can grow and they can get a part of that. Lastly, Osaka always has the option of handling the interview like Marshawn Lynch.

nexuist 5y ago
Who lives vicariously through sports reporters though? If she wants to connect with fans she can do an AMA, IG Live, stream on Twitch, whatever. There's no reason why she needs to hand her time over to magazines or blogs asking the same repetitive questions when she can reach her audience directly without the middle men. "Traditional" press isn't needed to grow a brand anymore. Social media is key.
- nindalf 5y ago
  You’re right, social media is essential to growing the number of fans. And yet, the TV interviews do two important things - it reaches an audience that’s watching the game live and might not have social media. My dad, for example, would watch the post match interviews but he wouldn’t create social media accounts for this. And secondly, social media posts are choreographed while post match interviews are raw, unedited and “real”. Seeing a human being vulnerable and in pain elicits sympathy from us, makes us invested in their journey, creates the parasocial relationship I was talking about. Again, maybe Osaka has reached a stage in her career where she doesn’t benefit as much from doing it, but she did benefit from decades of Serena Williams and others doing these interviews. They grew the sport to the point where the prize pools are $10M+.

rdiddly 5y ago

Fine with me. The last thing I want to hear is an athlete talking anyway. They're good at the sportsball and that's enough. If I want to watch someone struggle in something they're not good at, I might as well watch a journalist play tennis! ;)

redleader55 5y ago

I really hope they kick her out. I also hope another player does the same and gets kicked out. Then another, and another, until we get only mediocre players winning the Grand Slams. Then all these players will go play in a different tournament where they can be appreciated for their skill, not for doing interviews to please media and the masses that feed on the "emotion".

xwolfi 5y ago
What do you think sport is ? A fair competition of disciplined skills ? It's a business whose ONLY value is the emotions it triggers in people... We don't care about a poor girl running around with a tennis racket, we care about the story, where she comes from, which population she represent when we beat her or she beats us. A league of serious sportpeople seriously competing without any storybuilding... Look at how you even feel emotions at her being the David vs the Goliath of sport lol, that's what it's always been about.
mdoms 5y ago
Without media and fans, professional sport simply doesn't exist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Grazester 5y ago
  This is what I was thinking. I wonder if she is aware of this.
anonymoushn 5y ago
Indeed. I would like to watch a tournament that has some integrity as a competition.
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
as a former mediocre tennis player, you should not be a douche when you literally receive millions to play a sport that you love. talking to the media is part of the job, you don't have to please the media, you can go and say "media suck!" and still get the millions because you got the skills.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

readonthegoapp 5y ago

I support her right to at least try this. At a minimum, I feel like maybe 3% of all fans identify as 'speaking to the media' as the insane crucible grind that it often is, and Naomi's stand should help put a spotlight on that. I would like to at least go the route of something more humane like if you lose, you get at least the night off, and if you continue to win you get at least one night off, etc. And I don't know if tennis lets fans get away w the same insane racist isht that the NBA lets fans get away with, but things like that could qualify a player for extra time away.

frereubu 5y ago

Do fans actually get anything out of these interviews? If so, what is it? I'm generally quite an empathetic person, but for the life of me I can't figure out what possible pleasure anyone can get out of players stringing together platitudes. If they actually have any interesting thoughts on their game they'd keep it to themselves because they wouldn't want to give it away. For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.

airhead969 5y ago

How do you forge the mental toughness to become insanely excellent at tennis while also claiming that pressers in the contract hurt your feelings so badly as to risk mental illness if you happened to have lost that day? Are the players entering the sport getting more and more easily-offended and milquetoasty? Even if the other side is Evil Corp., if a contract you signed says you have to do something and you don't do it, that's shirking professional responsibility and non-performance. Contracts are contracts. Don't like it, don't sign it, negotiate it, and then sign it.. or your word and signature are meaningless.

qayxc 5y ago
Indeed. Would be a different story if it wasn't for the money involved. Heck, if you qualified for the 2021 Australian Open, you'd get 77,750 USD just for showing up [1]. I'd argue that getting a year's worth of pay is well worth wasting a few hours giving interviews. It's not as if the players aren't prepared and trained for that either. [1] https://www.perfect-tennis.com/prize-money/australian-open/ https://www.perfect-tennis.com/prize-money/australian-open/
powercf 5y ago
If her focus is on playing tennis, then interviews etc. are just a distraction. She may be contractually obligated to partake in interviews, but does she have another option if she wants to play at top events? In my opinion there is too much hype and nonsense around professional sport and I would much prefer if sportsmen/women could focus solely on their sport without joining the circus.

harry8 5y ago

Post Match interviews are utterly inane. Naomi Osaka is doing more to promote the French open and tennis via this controversy by refusing to do them. If they need the inanity to feed hundreds of third rate Sports writers they should be able to send anyone from their entourage who attended in the players' box. Edit: String Theory [1] which i read in a "Year's best Sports writing" compilation is the best tennis journalism I've read. The author went on to literary super-stardom for other reasons. Tragedy is involved. I really don't know anything about any of it, haven't read it, I'm not such a literary person. The tennis article is great. I don't recall press conferences being crucial to its success. [1] https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david-foster-wallace/ https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david...

gamblor956 5y ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/naomi-osaka-withdraws-french-open-citing-anxiety-over-media-interviews-n1269159 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/naomi-osaka-withdraws-f... The vultures won. She's pulled out of the French Open. A natural introvert, Osaka has a history of depression and suffers from imposter syndrome. It's sad, and actually quite disgusting, to see a lot of the comments here trivializing her mental health issues, especially considering how many people in the tech community also suffer from depression (and especially from imposter syndrome.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]