4 ms·

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 val

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.

4 ms·

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 val

by baseballdork 5y ago

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.