Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: Jaded on 30 May, 2021, 07:52:20 pm
-
Naomi Osaka is having a trouble with the French Open and the media.
She has said that she won't do the obligatory post match Press Conferences, and TBH, I agree with her. She says it is to protect her mental health. Good on her.
Organisers "A core element of the Grand Slam regulations is the responsibility of the players to engage with the media, whatever the result of their match, a responsibility which players take for the benefit of the sport, the fans and for themselves"
I call bollocks on that... and add the smell of money as the main reason...
Would you not watch a match (and buy the sponsors' products) if there wasn't a bear-pit grilling of the combatants afterwards?
-
I'm with Naomi.
Her talent is banging a ball over a net. If that was my talent and I wasn't comfortable chatting with numbskull journos after a loss, I'd like to think I'd take the same stance.
Can't she get a doctor's note ? Not taking mental health issues seriously in this day and age is a big no-no.
-
I agree; refusal to talk to the "press" didn't do Alex Ferguson much harm. In fact, it may well have saved a few reporters' lives.
-
They aren’t sportspeople, they are professionals. A big part of that job is media work. Don’t do the work means don’t get paid the big bucks. Don’t enter the event and stick to the amateur circuit.
-
Generally, I would agree, D. What makes me pause is the mention of mental difficulties. However, whatever they are (and I'm not belittling them - just don't know) they don't seem to be affecting her play.
-
If she can’t do the whole job, then why is she there? Either don’t enter or withstand the same pressures (e.g. media time and stress) as her opponents, otherwise she has a competitive advantage over them.
-
Yes, that is a point of view. Kim Hughes, ex-captain of some cricket team or other comes to mind!
-
My opinion on professionals remains the same, regardless of who we are talking about.
-
I wasn't making a firm argument. Only demonstrating compassion for a fellow human being whose interview appeared distressing to me. I don't know enough, or indeed anything much about the tennis-player's case and I see the logic in your suggestion that it would appear that she is not submitting to the same conditions as her rivals. But I don't know enough about it and will leave it there.
-
They aren’t sportspeople, they are professionals. A big part of that job is media work. Don’t do the work means don’t get paid the big bucks. Don’t enter the event and stick to the amateur circuit.
They are tennis players. A big part of the job is playing and trying to win tennis matches.
Sitting in a Press Conference 10 mins after a match is not relevant, sorry. Why not the next day?
Perhaps you’d like to visit the last part of the OP....
-
Idiocy. Just fine her, take her money and leave her the **** alone. If and when she does decide to talk to them, perhaps the press could actually ask some interesting questions…
-
Talking to the media is as much a part of the Grand Slam rules as hitting the ball over the net. Escalating penalties - fine, DQ, refuse entry. She is at Stage 1.
-
I like watching people hitting a ball back and forth across a net.
I'm significantly less interested in hearing them talk about it.
I get that there are rules, but if this is affecting her mental health then the authorities should be taking a long hard look at themselves. Aside from anything else I would think they are leaving themselves open to a potential damages claim if it can be demonstrated her health is affected.
-
There is no evidence provided, just a fait accompli, to the organisers.
If I was a competitor, I would not want somebody else to get an unfair advantage. Either everybody does media or nobody. If there is no media, the event goes downhill.
-
Idiocy. Just fine her, take her money and leave her the **** alone. If and when she does decide to talk to them, perhaps the press could actually ask some interesting questions…
+1
If you are a bit obsessed with what goes on inside their heads, read the Daily Mail, or Hello magazine.
-
There is no evidence provided, just a fait accompli, to the organisers.
To require "evidence" of mental health issues in this context shows a lack of knowledge of them.
-
Stage 2 is DQ from the French Open. Stage 3 is refuse entry to future Grand Slams.
Is she seeking treatment or counselling in any way? Has there been any attempt to negotiate reduced media responsibilities?
-
Either everybody does media or nobody. If there is no media, the event goes downhill.
I always wondered what made a good tennis tournament.
Now, I know. ::-)
-
Stage 2 is DQ from the French Open. Stage 3 is refuse entry to future Grand Slams.
So, bullying.
-
Is it ok if she doesn’t have to hit the ball over the net?
-
Is it ok if she doesn’t have to hit the ball over the net?
As I understood it, that is tennis.
Sitting at a table full of microphones 20 mins (is it 10 mins?) afterwards, is not tennis.
-
It is being a professional player at a Grand Slam. It is a big part of the job. That is why doing that is specifically written into the Grand Slam rules.
The interview is within 30 minutes of the end of the match, from memory.
-
Woosh.
-
No. You think being a professional tennis player is just hitting the ball. Being pro is doing everything, including media responsibilities, otherwise stick with being a talented amateur tennis player and avoid professional responsibilities.
-
So, you think, on the other hand, that if you are a good tennis player, able to beat the best in the world, you cannot.
-
If I can’t handle being a professional, I shouldn’t be a professional. If I get injured doing tennis, perhaps I shouldn’t do tennis.
-
If I can’t handle being a professional, I shouldn’t be a professional.
No, you shouldn't.
But this isn't about you.
-
No but that opinion doesn’t change, regardless of who we are talking about.
Either every Grand Slam professional does media interviews or none of them do. Both of those situations are fair. A single competitor getting an advantage over the field by avoiding stress and lost recovery time is not fair.
Change the rules so that there are no media interviews at Grand Slams. Fine, no complaints from me. That would be fair on all the competitors.
-
It's basically the contract - when you sign up to play in a tournament you agree to abide by their rules, which include media duties. The media are the people who keep the cash coming in, and enable to tournament organisers to pay the players. Especially in the early rounds, the interviews can be more interesting than the matches.
Ferguson got away with it because the contract and the obligation lay on the club not personally on the manager. Maybe that would be a way around it - maybe her coach or some other member of her team could do the media duty, but I doubt that would satisfy the organisers as a big part of the tennis broadcast event is hearing the players talk about the game afterwards.
-
Either every Grand Slam professional does media interviews or none of them do. Both of those situations are fair. A single competitor getting an advantage over the field by avoiding stress and lost recovery time is not fair.
That's assuming that everyone is equally affected by having to do post-match interviews. Some relish them more than others.
(Andy Murray clearly never enjoyed them, but he dealt with it by being surly and taciturn. Maybe Naomi Osaka could find a similar strategy that works for her.)
Either everybody does media or nobody. If there is no media, the event goes downhill.
I always wondered what made a good tennis tournament.
Now, I know. ::-)
LWaB is right on this. Media obligations are part and parcel of being a professional sportsperson these days. I'm sure when I was growing up you never saw the Wimbledon champion being interviewed on court immediately after the game finished, but presumably it has been determined that this is what the paying public want, so it is very much part of the job, part of the spectacle. If you want to enjoy the vast rewards that come from being at the top of your sport, you have to find a way to deal with the expectations that come with that. No such thing as a free lunch.
Really don't get why people are so interested in hearing what they have to say, though - most sportspeople give very dull interviews.
That said, I do have a lot of sympathy for Naomi Osaka - if being in front of a camera and expected to speak is causing her anxiety, the organisers should be doing what they can to help, not acting like callous bullies - and it would be to their own benefit. The top tournaments are only the top tournaments because they feature the top players. Start expelling them for matters other than the game itself and the sponsors will stop forking out, the crowds will start staying away...
Naomi Osaka has to make a decision about what she wants from life though. There are many cases of people who have left professional sport to avoid that kind of pressure. Taylor Phinney comes to mind - while rehabilitating from his injury, he discovered that he preferred not having to live with the stress of being a pro cyclist, and although he tried to make a comeback, it was clear his heart was no longer in it. He now rides a bike for fun and seems to be a much happier person, judging by his social media.
-
ISTR that triple F1 champion Nelson Piquet refused to get involved with all the PR flim-flam and sponsor-schmoozing that normally goes with the job, but in his case it just meant he didn’t get paid as much as the drivers who did. He wasn’t particularly arsed, saying you could only loaf about on one yacht at a time.
-
I think a blanket refusal to do media was a mis-step. And it’s all media, not just the French Open, not just slams. Not just when losing. I think it came to a head now because she, as one of the top 30 ranked players, is obliged by her contract with the sport to play at the French. She’s (currently) a very poor clay court player (FCVO poor) - witness the world no. 2 being taken to a tie break by a very lowly ranked opponent in a first round match. She’ll probably be out by the 3rd or 4th round. She would inevitably have this unpleasant reality pointed out to her in press after the matches, even should she win matches - today’s report in the Guardian pointed out her poor movement on the court, and that she won mainly due to her extra power.
I wonder what her sponsors are making of it. Last year she was paid $55 million, the highest amount in history for a sportswoman. That’s on top of the (relatively modest - $19 million total as a pro) prize money. I’m sure they’ll be trying to persuade her to do the press.
I also think she exacerbated the issue by, having made the announcement out of the blue, refusing to engage either with the tournament or her professional body.
Like many of us, she’s paid to do a job, and that means all of the job, not just the bits she enjoys. If we don’t do it, we’ll get disciplined. Other players (Austin, Capriati, Henin, Hingis) have chosen to step away from the sport at one time or another. In Tracey Austin’s case, it led to rule changes. Maybe Osaka can have a similar outcome.
FWIW I don’t think anyone wishes her ill over this matter, but IMO she’d have been better to withdraw citing her health problems than take the route she has. But maybe sponsor pressure prevented that. At 23 it’s a lot of responsibility for anyone, and in particular those in the public eye.
-
She signed a contract. She can either honour it, find a reason for pleading force majeure, or suffer the consequences. Just whining "mental health" without substantiation isn't a reason.
-
Interestingly another player that’s had issues in the past, Milos Raonic, has withdrawn from the tournament without hitting a ball. He’s not played any clay court tournaments this year, and hasn’t played in the French since 2017. He doesn’t like playing on clay, so he doesn’t. No idea what reasons he gave.
-
But maybe sponsor pressure prevented that. At 23 it’s a lot of responsibility for anyone, and in particular those in the public eye.
This kind of thing happens a lot across pro sport at the top level - young, talented people badly advised and exploited by greedy, corrupt agents, sponsors, event organisers and governing bodies.
The players have their heads turned by the obscene amounts of money thrown at them, and make bad decisions. Hopefully she'll be a bit wiser when it comes to signing her next lucrative contract.
-
I wonder what her sponsors are making of it. Last year she was paid $55 million, the highest amount in history for a sportswoman. That’s on top of the (relatively modest - $19 million total as a pro) prize money. I’m sure they’ll be trying to persuade her to do the press.
I reckon that they have just hit super bonus on their coverage. Instead of getting 10 mins of airtime after a match they're getting prime news coverage that will extend beyond people who watch tennis.
-
She's withdrawn from the tournament. Statement here:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/31/naomi-osaka-withdraws-french-open-press-conference-fines-tennis
While sad for her, and sad for tennis, I think it makes sense - hopefully tennis can work with her to allow players more flexibility and also her mental health will improve.
-
She signed a contract. She can either honour it, find a reason for pleading force majeure, or suffer the consequences. Just whining "mental health" without substantiation isn't a reason.
Why should she have to publicly substantiate her mental health concerns? She has already said she has suffered from depression for a number of years. I think the professional organisations concerned have handled it really badly and I hope the sponsors will be having discussions.
Anyway, no tennis player has said anything of interest after a match since about 1984.
-
She signed a contract. She can either honour it, find a reason for pleading force majeure, or suffer the consequences. Just whining "mental health" without substantiation isn't a reason.
Why should she have to publicly substantiate her mental health concerns? She has already said she has suffered from depression for a number of years. I think the professional organisations concerned have handled it really badly and I hope the sponsors will be having discussions.
Anyway, no tennis player has said anything of interest after a match since about 1984.
You CANNOT be serious!
Mr Google says that was 1981. As you were ;D
-
I think it is notable that Osaka is a woman of colour who will get a lot more shit from the media than white men, including if she was to be surly for example...
I suspect some of the "poor handling" is a symptom of the kind of mental health difficulties she is describing. In any other job, she'd be entitled to reasonable accommodations and I wonder what the Tennis world has done to try and support her before this point.
Interestingly, I read Neville Southall's book recently and if you ignore the "bigging up of Neville" he has some interesting thoughts about the detrimental mental health impacts of multi-millionaire athlete lifestyles during/after their active careers and that money creates its own problems that many people don't handle well in reality.
-
This is really interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/may/31/were-not-the-good-guys-osaka-shows-up-problems-of-press-conferences
-
Thanks for that link.
Good to have a bit of balance...
-
Certainly puts a bit of a different slant on things - I don't really follow tennis, so I was assuming the kind of questions they faced were similar to the anodyne nonsense footballers have to deal with...
Contractual obligations or not, no one should have to put up with that kind of shit.
-
Beat me to it with that Graun article.
That is what I was trying and failing to articulate well about the sort of question women (are more likely to) get, especially women of colour. Exoticised. Patronised. Sexualised.
-
Hopefully it will result in a process that is fair to the athletes while allowing the publicity machine that benefits everyone in the bubble to continue in some form. There is definitely a double standard at play in the coverage of women's tennis, even if the prize money has become equal.
In this case, it's not clear what conversations were had behind closed doors, but I think much of the reaction is because publicly at least, Osaka simply announced she wasn't going to do the press conferences. If there were conversations behind closed doors, she's been hung out to dry, if there weren't then I think the announcement route was a poor decision.
-
Except , is it reasonable that someone, when affected by depression or other mental health concerns, behaves in a "normal" way that non-mental heath suffers expect?
-
Except , is it reasonable that someone, when affected by depression or other mental health concerns, behaves in a "normal" way that non-mental heath suffers expect?
Agreed. I think people with anxiety often push themselves so hard to achieve anxiety inducing things that they end up crashing and appearing to be belligerent when actually they've hit the end of their cope.
-
It's a job isn't it, the days of amateur sports are long gone, she takes her cut on the sponsorship and lucrative contracts. If it's too much, then all power to her to step away, but equally you can't have it every which way.
-
Except , is it reasonable that someone, when affected by depression or other mental health concerns, behaves in a "normal" way that non-mental heath suffers expect?
I didn't say it was unreasonable. However, she must have a team of advisors, from a coach and physio to a business manager, and one would hope they would be able to assist in diffusing the situation so it could be resolved in a way that would be less painful for all concerned. I almost put that I thought she had been badly advised, but then I felt that sounded like she was incapable of making her own decisions, so I changed it to just commenting on the decision itself.
-
She signed a contract. She can either honour it, find a reason for pleading force majeure, or suffer the consequences. Just whining "mental health" without substantiation isn't a reason.
Why should she have to publicly substantiate her mental health concerns? She has already said she has suffered from depression for a number of years. I think the professional organisations concerned have handled it really badly and I hope the sponsors will be having discussions.
Anyway, no tennis player has said anything of interest after a match since about 1984.
I didn't say "publicly". Private presentation of a doctor's certificate, like a TUE, might suffice. The high tennis muckamucks can't be more constipated than the UCI.
-
Loads of people suffer from mental health issues and still have to turn up for work.
Almost none of them earn $55,000,000 a year.
-
Marina Hyde chips in too. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/sport-athletes-mental-health-tennis-naomi-osaka)
-
Honestly, I have no idea what that article is even about, I think she must have started the gin early.
Anyway, an incredibly rich and successful woman, one who's never actually been exactly shy, has a tantrum. It's just so rage against the machine.
-
It's sticking the boot into colossal bellend Piers “Morgan” Moron. What more do you want?
-
Someone should have said, if Piers CBE is annoyed, then more power to her.
-
Someone should have said, if Piers CBE is annoyed, then more power to her.
This drew frothing anger from all the usual suspects, including the only highly paid news anchor in history so fragile that he recently stormed off air on his own show.
-
Loads of people suffer from mental health issues and still have to turn up for work.
Almost none of them earn $55,000,000 a year.
Which is a damning indictment of how seriously (not) we treat mental health issues.
If someone was suffering from the flu or a broken leg, you wouldn't expect them to be carrying out their regular work, but because it's a mental issue, she should just tough it out? Adjusting someone's duties to take their health into account is part of the responsibility of a humane employer. Actually hitting the ball over the net to a skilled opponent is what people pay to see, not the bear pit of older white men badgering her with questions about how poorly she thinks she's done or whether her latest outfit makes her a sex symbol.
I don't agree anyone should earn £55m a year for playing sports any job of work, but the amount of money she gets paid shouldn't affect how compassionate we are regarding depression. She isn't paid that much because it's danger money for having to deal with the press while suffering from mental illness. Otherwise people who didn't have to do that would be paid less. She's paid that much because of society's ridiculous fetishisation of sport.
Sam
-
^ Well said!
-
Is anyone saying she can't take time off? Which it seems she should. Job done.
-
Is anyone saying she can't take time off? Which it seems she should. Job done.
^ this
Professional sport is Professional sport. It's a circus and she has chosen to be part of it. It's media driven. If she likes the $55m she got last year then a huge part of that is for being a media personality, in the media. She doesn't have to take the $55 million a year but she chose to sign a contract which includes media appearances.
It seems she accepts this, which is why she has withdrawn from this tournament. Let's hope however many tens of millions she gets this year will be enough for her to scrape by on.
Sorry, no tears from me.
-
The commentary is a bit weird, the same people who appear to be saying 'dastardly press making her dance' are then demanding that she continue to entertain them by playing the sport.
I evidently don't get sport, which often seems an exercise in contradictions. She's sitting on a pile of earnings that would embarrass Mammon and people are oh, but the horrible racism and sexism. Really holding her back, is that.
Genuinely, we should support her choice to take a break. It's just sport.
-
If someone was suffering from the flu or a broken leg, you wouldn't expect them to be carrying out their regular work, but because it's a mental issue, she should just tough it out?
Let's treat mental health like physical health. So, no, she shouldn't be forced to carry out her regular work she should withdrawn and take a break.
Maybe withdraw entirely from a life which is almost certainly going to damage one's mental health. Restricted diet, massive restriction on lifestyle and freedom, huge physical and mental strain.
But, yanno, who can live on less than $55 million a year these days...
-
Question: does anyone here saying she should tough it out because DOSH think she would be doing something else if tennis didn't pay millions?
What if you got your dream job, and you got ill but could continue doing parts of it, the parts you live for, the bits that made you devote yourself to gaining the skills to do the job, but someone said, "If you're too ill to do this [part you hate that makes you worse], you can't do any of it, even the parts you can still do despite your ill health," then how would you feel?
Sam
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
-
No, I'm saying she should take a break. Unlike most people, she certainly has the resources to pretty much do what she wants.
It surely is the job, she's not really being paid to knock a ball over a net. That's modern sports. Mad, I'll agree, I not sure what value hitting or kicking a ball has, but evidently some people think it's worth $55 million.
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
Why so keen to manoeuvre away from the sum in question?
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you don't get to that level of tennis just because you want to earn a lot of money. It takes a level of dedication and passion that requires a love for the game. The competition is part of that; the media circus may be the way the Grand Slam organisers have set things up, but it's not part of the sport in the strict sense. You could have a tennis competition without a bunch of media hacks asking if she feels her current outfit is flattering or whatever other nonsense gets asked. What even is the purpose of those press sessions? I have no idea.
In my job, I started suffering from depression because some of the duties I had to perform badly affected my mental health. I got moved away from those duties. I don't see what how much she gets paid has to do with anything. It's an entirely separate argument from whether or not someone should be expected to participate in a part of her job that has nothing to do with what she has trained and dedicated her life to when it contributes to a worsening of her mental health. Even if you bring the sponsors into it, I doubt anyone is going out to buy whatever is advertised behind her head just because they see a sign for it while some journo asks pointless questions like, "Your first service seemed to go poorly, are you having a bad day on court?"
Sam
P.S. I do not watch tennis, so I'm imagining the kind of banalities that get asked. I used to watch motor sport, and have occasionally watched boxing, and my response to post-competition interview has always been, "Gods, can they not just get back to doing the sport, I don't want to listen to this boring nonsense."
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
Why so keen to manoeuvre away from the sum in question?
So, is there a level, or not?
-
But surely the media circus is the sport, from that comes the sponsorship, which of course, pays for the training and everything else that makes playing the game at the high level possible. And not just at the high-level, that media interest and sponsorship trickle down into the game itself, and that – I imagine and hope – gives other young athletes the resources to come up.
I think she has a responsibility in that. She benefitted from the same structure, which not only enabled her to play professional tennis, but also made her very rich.
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
Why so keen to manoeuvre away from the sum in question?
So, is there a level, or not?
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
-
The argument that professional sport is toxic and should change is a different argument to the one that a person who has chosen that profession should be permitted to not participate in certain parts of the profession because it is toxic.
...and at $55 million a year, it is very much a first-world problem.
-
That really, she can walk away.
If you're stuck beheading chickens for ten hours a day for less than minimum wage to feed your family and keep a leaking roof over your head, you don't get that opportunity. And in part, that's because some of us earn $55 million.
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
Why so keen to manoeuvre away from the sum in question?
So, is there a level, or not?
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
So, there is no level, and as you say, it's a FWP.
-
I'm not sure where £55m comes from? As far as I can see, $55m is her lifetime earnings, from tennis and endorsements (mostly from endorsements).
But surely the media circus is the sport, from that comes the sponsorship, which of course, pays for the training and everything else that makes playing the game at the high level possible. And not just at the high-level, that media interest and sponsorship trickle down into the game itself, and that – I imagine and hope – gives other young athletes the resources to come up.
I think she has a responsibility in that. She benefitted from the same structure, which not only enabled her to play professional tennis, but also made her very rich.
I don't think tennis works the way you think it does. Anyone not in the top 100 is essentially broke, and generally the player pays for their own coaching etc (unless you get sponsors or agents involved early, in which case you are a commodity from your early teens). Her family coached her from the age of 3, and they moved to Florida for more training opportunities when she was 8 or 9. She was playing qualifying for pro tournaments at 14, and turned pro at 16.
Some tennis associations put money into coaching kids, generally the ones that host grand slams to generate the income needed, but Osaka was only invited to a USTA camp at 16!
-
Well, that's a structural problem with the sport really. I don't think the actual amount really matters, those at the top of the sport evidently take the money.
Honestly, given the evident pushing by her parents from a young age, I'm not surprised she has problems. Coached from the age of three? Training opportunities when she was 8 or 9. Good god, that sounds awful.
Reading that, I don't think the problem is press conferences.
-
If £55m is a sum that gets no sympathy, at what level income would sympathy be given?
She still gets sympathy from me, as I am sure the $55 million is a tiny fraction of what the sponsors earn from her.