5 ms·

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

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.
    - baseballdork 5y ago
      > 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mongol 5y ago
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.
- tqi 5y ago
  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] [1] https://news.yahoo.com/reporter-says-coco-gauff-compared-182000321.html https://news.yahoo.com/reporter-says-coco-gauff-compared-182...
e40 5y ago
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DchVkmlak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DchVkmlak
- makomk 5y ago
  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.
- gtyras2mrs 5y ago
  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 ...
Dopameaner 5y ago
The post match interviews usually have sponsorship merch. I wonder if that comes into part of enforcement.
- kaladin_1 5y ago
  This is also another dimension to it, the merch being displayed. How do the players think the fat salaries come about... Just from cable?
kaladin_1 5y ago
The post match interview gives fans gist for another week or even months. 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.

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.
  - baseballdork 5y ago
    > 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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mongol 5y ago

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.

tqi 5y ago
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] [1] https://news.yahoo.com/reporter-says-coco-gauff-compared-182000321.html https://news.yahoo.com/reporter-says-coco-gauff-compared-182...

e40 5y ago

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DchVkmlak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DchVkmlak

makomk 5y ago
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.
gtyras2mrs 5y ago
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 ...

Dopameaner 5y ago

The post match interviews usually have sponsorship merch. I wonder if that comes into part of enforcement.

kaladin_1 5y ago
This is also another dimension to it, the merch being displayed. How do the players think the fat salaries come about... Just from cable?

kaladin_1 5y ago

The post match interview gives fans gist for another week or even months. 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.