8 ms·

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 r

by 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
    > she has lost very few matches... She has 7 career titles (4 grand slams!) with 134 losses. This is much better than average, but she is still almost always losing.
    - glandium 5y ago
      246 wins vs. 136 losses according to the WTA site as of writing. A lot more victories, but still a lot of losses.
    - gamblor956 5y ago
      Today I learned that the HN crowd cannot read tennis statistics. Her losses are mostly from the start of her career; her win record the past 4 years is above 80% and her career GS record is 70%.
      - dvt 5y ago
        If you're going to be snarky, at least be correct[1]. Her match win percentage ranges from 51% in 2017 (45 matches played), to 80% last year (20 matches played). [1] http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsaka#recent-results-h http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsa...
- mLuby 5y ago
  If Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps refused to do post-race interviews, they're still the best in the world at their events, and their feats would still be covered by the media. Caveat: opting out of regulations directly connected to competitors' athletic abilities (i.e. drug testing) is different. Competitive sports are slightly muddier than individual events, but the principle holds. It's called "sports entertainment" not the other way around because without the top-tier competitive sport aspect, it'd just be Survivor-like entertainment shows. And the movie star thing is different because they're literally hired for marketing purposes; the whole point of "star power" is that I'll go see any movie Tom Hanks is in. Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building. But if you're a firefighter and that's part of your job.. It's fun to think that we get to decide what job responsibilities are, but that's a negotiation between her and her employer.
    - mLuby 5y ago
      If we're going to be mixing metaphors here: should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions like "how do you feel about not being able to save everyone in today's fire?" Those tears would be lucrative, and viewers can assuage their ghoulish interest with the knowledge that a portion of the ad revenue benefits the fallen firefighter's fund. –__– Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.
ellyagg 5y ago
I'm sure that's what many ahtletes wish were the case, but the ones who we care about being interviewed are paid an enormous amount of money because of their entertainment value to fans. Of course we'd all love it if perks were all we took from our jobs, but the reality is the perks and duties are a negotiation and you won't get off with only perks. It will be interesting to watch this negotiation play out.
jgalt212 5y ago
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. Yes, but she and all other professional athletes are not really athletes, but some amalgum of athlete and entertainer.
- airhead969 5y ago
  and ambassador for the sport. Not showing-up for media could well be viewed by swaths of the fans and big bank rollers as two birdie fingers in the air.
mavelikara 5y ago
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. ATP's job is to nurture the game to be of broad appeal to the public. Tennis stars command much higher pay than athletes playing other racquet sports like squash, racquetball, badminton, and pickleball because of its public appeal. Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. The athletic goals should be seen within this context.
- akudha 5y ago
  Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. Maybe it shouldn't be forced. I watch sports sometimes, but I have never cared to sit and watch hour long interviews, especially those just after the match. It is not interesting to me, it is just media circus. Then we have manufactured drama in these "events", UFC and Conor come to mind. He is asked shit questions, he gives shit answers (mostly just insults) etc etc. The whole thing is just disgusting. If this is what entertainment is, then maybe we should rethink our standards. As a fan, I just want to watch a good match, see the better player/team of the day win, and thats just about it.
  - arkades 5y ago
    It’s not forced, in the sense that if someone doesn’t want to play in that setting and receive that money, they don’t have to. There’s no job where you get to skip the part that actually generates revenue for the business because you don’t like it.
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      That's the main question. Where does the revenue come from? A) The people that want to see her playing tennis in spite the publicity in the field and in added in in the tv? B) The people that want he heard he answering questions about if she is happy to win or sad to loose? If A) is not important, I can do B) for $87.000.
gumby 5y ago
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. No. Like anyone else in the entertainment business their job is to keep the customers entertained. There are different paths, some of which involve more, or less publicity. But athletic skill is merely part of the question, and probably not the most important.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Disagree strongly. The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. That's the media being a problem, controlling the narrative, it's nothing to do with the athlete.
  - kodablah 5y ago
    Given the payouts are often paid by that same media on behalf of the true customers, players not engaging with the customers can prevent a sport from thriving altogether. A sport with great athletes and no revenue often, though not always, discourages future athletic participation and investment thereby robbing the world of the possibility to view any quality demonstration of the sport.
    - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
      I know this is correct, but I will continually argue against it like tilting at so many windmills. The evidence that you're viewpoint is correct is: Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint? (I think) I am fairly good with speaking and writing persuasively, but there's something I find fundamentally wrong with having to explain how good a thing is, when I find it intrinsically obvious. Feels like wasted effort. But the audience is lazy and full of money, so catering to it is never a waste. For this, I need constant reminders...
      - oarsinsync 5y ago
        > Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint? The same youngsters who paint, work with clay, learn to play musical instruments, learn to play other games, or learn other sports. Because their parents or peers strongly encourage them to. Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that not everything we do needs to have a direct capital ROI.
kaczordon 5y ago
Disagree, I’ve played professional tennis briefly and the tour can be grinding sure, but the reason players are paid so much is because people want to watch them and see them compete, press junkets are part of this. I’ve seen her happily give victory speeches before. What a spoiled baby, refusing to talk to the associations when they reached out, good on the Grand Slams for not accepting this type of behavior. She could take a cue from Federer or Nadal.
samatman 5y ago
It's literally in her contract that she has to do this. Should it be? I dunno, but you can't say her job is just 'to be the best at [her] sport' when the contract includes talking to the media after the matches. That's definitionally part of her job at that point.
- tmellon2 5y ago
  Perhaps some contracts need revisiting when circumstances change.
- smcl 5y ago
  Isn’t the issue that it’s in some contract that she will be fined if she doesn’t attend these conferences, but after deciding she’s ok with paying a fine, she’s now being threatened with being banned
  - glandium 5y ago
    That's the trick though: she'd be banned from future events, which she doesn't have a contract for yet.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Surely we can do better than to view the world solely through the lens of contract law, of all things. If your contract contains an non-compete clause, is it now part of your "job" to not do any work for competitors? No, your job is to produce things, not to not specifically do it for someone else. That's just a contractual obligation you have happened to agree to.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    These contracts are justified because it is the sustained engagement by the fans makes it possible that Osaka can pursue her athleticism as a professional career and has financial security. Most professional sports is sustained by an audience that is willing to watch it. So I think it actually is her job, in spirit and not just on paper to engage with the audience as long as it is respectful.
tootie 5y ago
These are also the least interesting interviews that exist in the world of journalism.
vmception 5y ago
I empathize with this because not much thought is put into it, but it is really humans being traded I explain financial assets and derivatives pricing payout expectations to people using analogies of trading athletes versus trading merchandise. A franchise might make 30% on the athlete's value when they trade them out in the future, while a basketball signed by the athlete goes up 1000% in value. The basketball value being derived from the athlete's own value. I do this for emphasis to provide introspection and inspiration, the lack of consideration of them as an asset can definitely be improved.
kaladin_1 5y ago
The massive investment seen in sports recently is not because all of a sudden humanities best talents are in sports. It's partly because of the marketing done by the organisers. So, seems a bit odd that an athlete wants to collect the outrageous fees without being part of the advertising bringing in that money. I do not support preying on one's emotions, but when you look at the figures being paid to players, you realise they aren't being paid just to play tennis or soccer. Usually, there are other responsibilities attached that you may not like just like in any other job.
golemotron 5y ago
She probably shouldn't compete until she in better health. We should wish her a speedy recovery.
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
I understand her struggle to talk publicly and answer the same questions again and again, it could be a sign of being in the spectrum of authism, but what I don't understand is that she said multiple times that interviews and press conferences are trying to the mental health of athletes (but is it true?) and we know it because she said it to the press! So there are topics she shares with the media after all... Moreover, by refusing to engage with the media, the media are now focusing even more on the fact that she refuses to talk to the press and will probably ask even more about it, instead of talking about her tennis skills. Also: it's required by the contract the players sign to be part of the WTA.

by mLuby 5y ago

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
  > she has lost very few matches... She has 7 career titles (4 grand slams!) with 134 losses. This is much better than average, but she is still almost always losing.
  - glandium 5y ago
    246 wins vs. 136 losses according to the WTA site as of writing. A lot more victories, but still a lot of losses.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    Today I learned that the HN crowd cannot read tennis statistics. Her losses are mostly from the start of her career; her win record the past 4 years is above 80% and her career GS record is 70%.
    - dvt 5y ago
      If you're going to be snarky, at least be correct[1]. Her match win percentage ranges from 51% in 2017 (45 matches played), to 80% last year (20 matches played). [1] http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsaka#recent-results-h http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NaomiOsa...
mLuby 5y ago
If Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps refused to do post-race interviews, they're still the best in the world at their events, and their feats would still be covered by the media. Caveat: opting out of regulations directly connected to competitors' athletic abilities (i.e. drug testing) is different. Competitive sports are slightly muddier than individual events, but the principle holds. It's called "sports entertainment" not the other way around because without the top-tier competitive sport aspect, it'd just be Survivor-like entertainment shows. And the movie star thing is different because they're literally hired for marketing purposes; the whole point of "star power" is that I'll go see any movie Tom Hanks is in. Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building.
- golemotron 5y ago
  > Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building. But if you're a firefighter and that's part of your job.. It's fun to think that we get to decide what job responsibilities are, but that's a negotiation between her and her employer.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    If we're going to be mixing metaphors here: should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions like "how do you feel about not being able to save everyone in today's fire?" Those tears would be lucrative, and viewers can assuage their ghoulish interest with the knowledge that a portion of the ad revenue benefits the fallen firefighter's fund. –__– Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.

ellyagg 5y ago

I'm sure that's what many ahtletes wish were the case, but the ones who we care about being interviewed are paid an enormous amount of money because of their entertainment value to fans. Of course we'd all love it if perks were all we took from our jobs, but the reality is the perks and duties are a negotiation and you won't get off with only perks. It will be interesting to watch this negotiation play out.

jgalt212 5y ago

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. Yes, but she and all other professional athletes are not really athletes, but some amalgum of athlete and entertainer.

airhead969 5y ago
and ambassador for the sport. Not showing-up for media could well be viewed by swaths of the fans and big bank rollers as two birdie fingers in the air.

mavelikara 5y ago

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. ATP's job is to nurture the game to be of broad appeal to the public. Tennis stars command much higher pay than athletes playing other racquet sports like squash, racquetball, badminton, and pickleball because of its public appeal. Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. The athletic goals should be seen within this context.

akudha 5y ago
Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. Maybe it shouldn't be forced. I watch sports sometimes, but I have never cared to sit and watch hour long interviews, especially those just after the match. It is not interesting to me, it is just media circus. Then we have manufactured drama in these "events", UFC and Conor come to mind. He is asked shit questions, he gives shit answers (mostly just insults) etc etc. The whole thing is just disgusting. If this is what entertainment is, then maybe we should rethink our standards. As a fan, I just want to watch a good match, see the better player/team of the day win, and thats just about it.
- arkades 5y ago
  It’s not forced, in the sense that if someone doesn’t want to play in that setting and receive that money, they don’t have to. There’s no job where you get to skip the part that actually generates revenue for the business because you don’t like it.
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    That's the main question. Where does the revenue come from? A) The people that want to see her playing tennis in spite the publicity in the field and in added in in the tv? B) The people that want he heard he answering questions about if she is happy to win or sad to loose? If A) is not important, I can do B) for $87.000.

gumby 5y ago

> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. No. Like anyone else in the entertainment business their job is to keep the customers entertained. There are different paths, some of which involve more, or less publicity. But athletic skill is merely part of the question, and probably not the most important.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Disagree strongly. The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. That's the media being a problem, controlling the narrative, it's nothing to do with the athlete.
- kodablah 5y ago
  Given the payouts are often paid by that same media on behalf of the true customers, players not engaging with the customers can prevent a sport from thriving altogether. A sport with great athletes and no revenue often, though not always, discourages future athletic participation and investment thereby robbing the world of the possibility to view any quality demonstration of the sport.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    I know this is correct, but I will continually argue against it like tilting at so many windmills. The evidence that you're viewpoint is correct is: Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint? (I think) I am fairly good with speaking and writing persuasively, but there's something I find fundamentally wrong with having to explain how good a thing is, when I find it intrinsically obvious. Feels like wasted effort. But the audience is lazy and full of money, so catering to it is never a waste. For this, I need constant reminders...
    - oarsinsync 5y ago
      > Who would play golf as a youngster if it wasn't for the possibility of becoming a professional and making a mint? The same youngsters who paint, work with clay, learn to play musical instruments, learn to play other games, or learn other sports. Because their parents or peers strongly encourage them to. Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that not everything we do needs to have a direct capital ROI.

kaczordon 5y ago

Disagree, I’ve played professional tennis briefly and the tour can be grinding sure, but the reason players are paid so much is because people want to watch them and see them compete, press junkets are part of this. I’ve seen her happily give victory speeches before. What a spoiled baby, refusing to talk to the associations when they reached out, good on the Grand Slams for not accepting this type of behavior. She could take a cue from Federer or Nadal.

samatman 5y ago

It's literally in her contract that she has to do this. Should it be? I dunno, but you can't say her job is just 'to be the best at [her] sport' when the contract includes talking to the media after the matches. That's definitionally part of her job at that point.

tmellon2 5y ago
Perhaps some contracts need revisiting when circumstances change.
smcl 5y ago
Isn’t the issue that it’s in some contract that she will be fined if she doesn’t attend these conferences, but after deciding she’s ok with paying a fine, she’s now being threatened with being banned
- glandium 5y ago
  That's the trick though: she'd be banned from future events, which she doesn't have a contract for yet.
user-the-name 5y ago
Surely we can do better than to view the world solely through the lens of contract law, of all things. If your contract contains an non-compete clause, is it now part of your "job" to not do any work for competitors? No, your job is to produce things, not to not specifically do it for someone else. That's just a contractual obligation you have happened to agree to.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  These contracts are justified because it is the sustained engagement by the fans makes it possible that Osaka can pursue her athleticism as a professional career and has financial security. Most professional sports is sustained by an audience that is willing to watch it. So I think it actually is her job, in spirit and not just on paper to engage with the audience as long as it is respectful.

tootie 5y ago

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

vmception 5y ago

I empathize with this because not much thought is put into it, but it is really humans being traded I explain financial assets and derivatives pricing payout expectations to people using analogies of trading athletes versus trading merchandise. A franchise might make 30% on the athlete's value when they trade them out in the future, while a basketball signed by the athlete goes up 1000% in value. The basketball value being derived from the athlete's own value. I do this for emphasis to provide introspection and inspiration, the lack of consideration of them as an asset can definitely be improved.

kaladin_1 5y ago

The massive investment seen in sports recently is not because all of a sudden humanities best talents are in sports. It's partly because of the marketing done by the organisers. So, seems a bit odd that an athlete wants to collect the outrageous fees without being part of the advertising bringing in that money. I do not support preying on one's emotions, but when you look at the figures being paid to players, you realise they aren't being paid just to play tennis or soccer. Usually, there are other responsibilities attached that you may not like just like in any other job.

golemotron 5y ago

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

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

I understand her struggle to talk publicly and answer the same questions again and again, it could be a sign of being in the spectrum of authism, but what I don't understand is that she said multiple times that interviews and press conferences are trying to the mental health of athletes (but is it true?) and we know it because she said it to the press! So there are topics she shares with the media after all... Moreover, by refusing to engage with the media, the media are now focusing even more on the fact that she refuses to talk to the press and will probably ask even more about it, instead of talking about her tennis skills. Also: it's required by the contract the players sign to be part of the WTA.