4 ms·

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 prob

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.
    - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
      Golf was chosen specifically as, admittedly in my limited experience, a game that's uninteresting and unrewarding to youngsters outside of their parents' encouragements. I'm a career amateur sportsperson. I've been unable to play sports since early this year and I'm a couple of months away from being recovered enough to play again, and I'm absolutely itching for it. I love it, it soothes something intangible within me, and I've never earnt a cent from it in my life, nor expected to, and don't expect my kids to either - but I do expect them to participate.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  Fans dont neccesarily want to watch the interviews right away. In fact I will call BS on that the media us required at all. Certainly not in this day and age of sovial media. Osaka and her PR team xan easily handle a livestream a few days after the game where she can talk directly to her fans and answer their questions directly. Or she can just release a video/audio detailing how the game went, what she did, whats next with several orders of magnitude more engagement.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    Truth is Osaka is paid by the fees the media pay to broadcast the event, not by her followers. French Television and Eurosport bring around 25 million euros every year. Amazon also bought the rights to stream the matches, but I haven't found the terms of the deal.
    - vagrantJin 5y ago
      Yes, for the broadcast. By all means. Pre and post match content is just noise. Interviews are too short and mechanical, wasting everyones time. They could use the time to show ads. Let athletes give their own post game analysis.
      - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        that's part of the deal. Media buy the rights to broadcast the event and "rent" the image of the players to show it in related products (commentary, highlights, etc. etc.) that is the most precious content for advertisers, since they can't cut the action to show ads.
    - rurban 5y ago
      Osaka is the highest paid player, but only because of her endorsement deals. She's risking those. On the other hand we have the very same miserable interview theatre in film. Actors and directors are obliged to appear and entertain the media. Famous is Lars von Trier's Cannes interview which was hysterically blown out if proportions by some extremely stupid press lady and their colleagues, destroying his career. But there exceptions are allowed. A notorious instable psycho is Teddy Mallick who successfully refuses all press obligations. He does not get fined. It's his own risk. If you don't give interviews people have to actually critizise the film, which is too hard for some folks.
anonymousab 5y ago
> the best possible demonstration of the sport That is not the raison d'etre of Pro Sports organizations, from their perspective. The partial appearance of that idea is useful, but entertainment industry-driven profit is the central goal. That is why pro sports can and do make rule changes from time to time that are purely for the benefit of viewers and sponsors.
brabel 5y ago
> the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. Why do you think this is what people want? Or, if you don't think that's what people want, who would pay elite athletes to do something people don't want to watch? If people really wanted to see the best possible demonstration of the sport, without caring for simply having entertainment, it would be easy to set up alternative tournaments that do just that, and over time they would become the main tournaments... but that's not what is happening, and it will never happen, likely... because sport is simple entertainment... if you're fanatical about sports, you might have lost track of that. But ask yourself: what value is there in achieving best possible performance in a sport if people are not willing to watch it and feel entertained, emotional about that? If there were a player so good that he/she could win every match by acing every point (i.e. achieving optimal performance) would anyone want to watch matches anymore? To me , the answer is definitely "no", and the reason is that watching that would be extremely boring. It would not be entertaining in any way, despite being the best demonstration of the sport possible. If you disagree this is the best possible demonstration of the sport because it doesn't have a fight component to it, it doesn't have something that makes the game unpredictable and that feeling that the game could go either way at any point, then what you want is NOT the best possible demonstration of the sport, you want ENTERTAINMENT!
gumby 5y ago
> The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. And how would the public see this demonstration except via ... the media?

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.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    Golf was chosen specifically as, admittedly in my limited experience, a game that's uninteresting and unrewarding to youngsters outside of their parents' encouragements. I'm a career amateur sportsperson. I've been unable to play sports since early this year and I'm a couple of months away from being recovered enough to play again, and I'm absolutely itching for it. I love it, it soothes something intangible within me, and I've never earnt a cent from it in my life, nor expected to, and don't expect my kids to either - but I do expect them to participate.
vagrantJin 5y ago
Fans dont neccesarily want to watch the interviews right away. In fact I will call BS on that the media us required at all. Certainly not in this day and age of sovial media. Osaka and her PR team xan easily handle a livestream a few days after the game where she can talk directly to her fans and answer their questions directly. Or she can just release a video/audio detailing how the game went, what she did, whats next with several orders of magnitude more engagement.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  Truth is Osaka is paid by the fees the media pay to broadcast the event, not by her followers. French Television and Eurosport bring around 25 million euros every year. Amazon also bought the rights to stream the matches, but I haven't found the terms of the deal.
  - vagrantJin 5y ago
    Yes, for the broadcast. By all means. Pre and post match content is just noise. Interviews are too short and mechanical, wasting everyones time. They could use the time to show ads. Let athletes give their own post game analysis.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      that's part of the deal. Media buy the rights to broadcast the event and "rent" the image of the players to show it in related products (commentary, highlights, etc. etc.) that is the most precious content for advertisers, since they can't cut the action to show ads.
  - rurban 5y ago
    Osaka is the highest paid player, but only because of her endorsement deals. She's risking those. On the other hand we have the very same miserable interview theatre in film. Actors and directors are obliged to appear and entertain the media. Famous is Lars von Trier's Cannes interview which was hysterically blown out if proportions by some extremely stupid press lady and their colleagues, destroying his career. But there exceptions are allowed. A notorious instable psycho is Teddy Mallick who successfully refuses all press obligations. He does not get fined. It's his own risk. If you don't give interviews people have to actually critizise the film, which is too hard for some folks.

anonymousab 5y ago

> the best possible demonstration of the sport That is not the raison d'etre of Pro Sports organizations, from their perspective. The partial appearance of that idea is useful, but entertainment industry-driven profit is the central goal. That is why pro sports can and do make rule changes from time to time that are purely for the benefit of viewers and sponsors.

brabel 5y ago

> the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. Why do you think this is what people want? Or, if you don't think that's what people want, who would pay elite athletes to do something people don't want to watch? If people really wanted to see the best possible demonstration of the sport, without caring for simply having entertainment, it would be easy to set up alternative tournaments that do just that, and over time they would become the main tournaments... but that's not what is happening, and it will never happen, likely... because sport is simple entertainment... if you're fanatical about sports, you might have lost track of that. But ask yourself: what value is there in achieving best possible performance in a sport if people are not willing to watch it and feel entertained, emotional about that? If there were a player so good that he/she could win every match by acing every point (i.e. achieving optimal performance) would anyone want to watch matches anymore? To me , the answer is definitely "no", and the reason is that watching that would be extremely boring. It would not be entertaining in any way, despite being the best demonstration of the sport possible. If you disagree this is the best possible demonstration of the sport because it doesn't have a fight component to it, it doesn't have something that makes the game unpredictable and that feeling that the game could go either way at any point, then what you want is NOT the best possible demonstration of the sport, you want ENTERTAINMENT!

gumby 5y ago

> The media would be robbing the world of the possibility to view the best possible demonstration of the sport. And how would the public see this demonstration except via ... the media?