Forum menu
I think everyone grasps that fact just fine.
it doesn't appear so though. Can you explain how ?
If they don't do interviews/media, there's nothing to watch/see/read/hear.... therefore less interest for sponsors, less money, less wages at the top and bottom end, less coverage and less, well everything.
Interviewing sports people is a thing, it's always been a thing.... you can't switch it off without consequences.
the media is a massive part of the job for a sportsman/woman
And the vast majority of media coverage is about what they do during the event itself, with a small and usually bland quote about something they said afterwards. In F1, one of the biggest "media circus surrounding an event" activities the single biggest team (Ferrari) just opted out of dealing with the media for an age. If they can do it, why can't a tennis player?
I expect their is a certain amount of the WTA/tournaments exerting their power and control.
Osaka has certainly brought more press attention than if she did the interviews. Whether that is positive or negative publicity (or whether it matters either way) depends on how it was/is handled by the governing bodies.
From what I have seen she hasn't got much solidarity from other players either. Maybe this is because they are afraid to talk out (they know which side their bread is buttered) or they simply dodn't agree with her stance.
The 'net' result (to me) is it comes across like bullying.
it doesn’t appear so though. Can you explain how ?
Well, you could insist all players appear for naked photos shoots, it might well increase the media attention and the money flowing. But then the best players might decide not to join in with that circus, resulting in a deterioration of the quality of competition, and a loss of interest in the events meaning less money flowing. Same with these involuntary media scrum events. They might currently be key in driving media interest and increasing the money in the higher levels of the sport, but that doesn't mean things can't or shouldn't change. The athletes might force it. They matter. It might become voluntary, and then the interviews limited to those who want to play that promotional game (who may or may not then become the bigger earners). That might move power (and money) from events to players, meaning the balance of revenue streams need looking at (smaller prizes?).
Well, you could insist all players appear for naked photos shoots, it might well increase the media attention and the money flowing
Now you're just being silly. You're supposed to be intelligent... have a try.
No, I'm making it clear that you can understand the media and financial implications behind these mandatory interviews without blindly insisting that someone who struggles with them should be made to do them. And also explain that there is balance to be struck, because stopping the best players from playing will also have media and financial implications.
If they don’t do interviews/media, there’s nothing to watch/see/read/hear….
apart from, the tennis...
therefore less interest for sponsors,
except we’ve already established that nobody finds tennis press conferences interesting so the sponsors should be asking how they get their name seen in the bits of the game people want to watch
less money, less wages at the top and bottom end, less coverage and less, well everything.
Perhaps she doesn’t think the French open really needs a top prize of >$2m
except we’ve already established that nobody finds tennis press conferences interesting so the sponsors should be asking how they get their name seen in the bits of the game people want to watch
We have ? Or you have ? I'm sure tennis fans find them interesting, in the same way cycling fans find the interviews after a rider wins or indeed loses interesting in the racing. Don't they ?
When the rider wants to play that game, and makes it interesting, yes.
If they don’t do interviews/media, there’s nothing to watch/see/read/hear…. therefore less interest for sponsors, less money, less wages at the top and bottom end, less coverage and less, well everything.
Interesting you think that. This article suggests, and for what it's worth I agree, that the press conference is redundant. The athletes already give people the new they need directly through social media, a few sound bites from a staged press conference are not important enough for the strain it puts on certain players. Players already manager their own news and can put out their messages as they see fit, they no longer need the press for it.
I want politicians put under this kind of unfiltered mandatory live press scrutiny. I really don't see why we should expect it from a top tennis player... they aren't going to be making life and death decisions on our behalf.
Who really gives a toss what players think anyway? aye, you'll always get good soundbites from Kyrgios, Novak etc, but if the lass struggles with anxiety or whatever, then it's not an issue for me, let someone else talk. Only folk that are moaning are the usual suspects that moan about equal prize money.
I noted this morning the guy from WTA (or whoever he was) read a statement but wouldn't take questions from the press.
Oh the irony.
I understand the contract that the players sign with he WTA includes media "duties" . So WTA are probably "entitled" to take measures as set out in the contract. I would say though that if a player complains that the pressure of that is making her mentally unwell, then now they're aware of it, they have a duty to take steps to reduce/accommodate that, and reduce the commitments for all the players. The optics don't really look good as Nobeer suggests.
The WTA used to have tabaco sponsorship in the '70's (Rothmans, I think) and the players were required to pose in adverts smoking, no-one thinks that's a good look now presumably?
We have ? Or you have ? I’m sure tennis fans find them interesting, in the same way cycling fans find the interviews after a rider wins or indeed loses interesting in the racing. Don’t they ?
I’m not sure I’d mourn the loss of seeing another guy in a branded baseball hat saying ’I want to thank my team we are taking the race day by day’.
Ofc course media is a massively important part of being a professional athlete (key thing here is professional, not just elite). Tournaments obviously think having media coverage of their events is important, both for general publicity but also for the benefit of the tournament sponsors. Why pay millions to sponsor a tournament if the press barely covers it (as they want press conferences as part of the deal in providing that coverage)?
This is the core of it. If you set out to be a public figure, you are pretty much offering yourself as a human sacrifice for the media. Sponsors and event promotors need media coverage to pay the athletes, so the athletes are expected to put on a show in the press conferences. Fans feel like they are owed access to their heroes. The press need clickbait headlines, so they're motivated to ask gotcha questions. There's nothing better for getting clicks online than video of a fallen superstar like Sebastian Vettel or Daniel Ricciardo getting grilled about why they are in a slump.
We have ? Or you have ? I’m sure tennis fans find them interesting, in the same way cycling fans find the interviews after a rider wins or indeed loses interesting in the racing. Don’t they ?
Do they? The only time I ever think there is anything interesting in a cycling, F1 or similar press conference is when there has been some horrible "incident" and they basically get asked "who's to blame". Given tennis doesn't even have such drama to discuss there's not much to say. I know some serious Tennis fans - travel from Scotland to Wimbledon every year, timed trips to France or Australia to watch tennis there, sort of people. They like watching people hit balls, I've watched tennis on TV with them and they sat and chatted over press conference bits. No doubt half the questions at the French Open will be about Osaka who isn't taking part!
Serious question - regardless of the sport, if there were no longer post-event press conferences, would it in any way effect your enjoyment of that sport?
Me neither.
Interesting that people argue that, by becoming a world-famous sports star, you're effectively then a puppet to dance for the media - I know that's how it is, but strongly feel that's not how it should be.
I know that’s how it is, but strongly feel that’s not how it should be.
This.
There are obvious benefits to the sport, the events, the sponsors, the fans, the casual watchers, and many of the players themselves, of engaging with the media. There are many ways to do this now though, and mandating that all athletes must play the game in the exact same way it's been played up to now might not actually be the best way forward. The events are in danger of losing a crowd-drawing player, and looking like dinosaurs with the younger fans and watchers whose attention they will need in future to keep thriving.
The serious fans aren't going to get very much from the average press conference because the questions are so banal, and usually have not very much to do with the actual tennis. That Guardian article linked above hits it right on the head.
I'd like to see some equivalent questioning of other sports.. Richie (Porte) - why can't you ride in a straight line for a couple of weeks? Bad parenting?
Frank (Lampard) - why are Chelsea so good now, and what did you do so wrong?
It’s not just Tennis, some musicians and singers fail to perform under pressure.
Every time I press record 🙂
if there were no longer post-event press conferences, would it in any way effect your enjoyment of that sport?
Nothing like watching a losing rugby team come off the field and spout the old favourites; game of two halves, better team on the day, the game's the winner, etc.
Serious question – regardless of the sport, if there were no longer post-event press conferences, would it in any way effect your enjoyment of that sport?
Me neither.
It would effect it positively as I would enjoy it more without them. 99% of them are painful, cliche bingo affairs. If a sports person is really into doing them and provides entertainment then fine go and do them and get a bit more money from your sponsors.
As someone who doesn't really follow professional tennis, do they need the sponsors to get access to compete in the grand slams? Or is it just the money to enter, travel etc.
I find it bizarre that you can be one of the best players in the world, and get removed because you won't talk to the media. And whoever wins it now will always be shadowed by 'were they the best at tennis?' (which I guess should really be the main point anyway....)
If they don’t do interviews/media, there’s nothing to watch/see/read/hear….
Excellent point - if you exclude the match itself, and the match reports, and the commentary, and all the post game analysis
Also this highlights the different expectations of team vs individual sports - people celebrate a footballer for 'staying out of the spotlight and focusing on his game' or a manager for 'protecting his players from the glare of the media'. Any football fan will have just seen half of social media praising e.g. Ngolo Kante for being such a humble guy who isn't interested in the media whirlwind. But a solo athlete has no such leeway, or they risk a ban.
The French Open have really made themselves look like a bunch of numpties with this one. And if it's all down to money/sponsorship/media attention, then holding a grand slam without the world's top players isn't a smart move either.
Also a note to those who think she should just suck it up and do what she's told: you're on the same side of this debate as Piers Morgan
The French Open have really made themselves look like a bunch of numpties with this one. And if it’s all down to money/sponsorship/media attention, then holding a grand slam without the world’s top players isn’t a smart move either.
Think this isn't quite right as it isn't just the French Open but all 4 of the Grand Slam groups - they've all teamed up for this statement so they are all looking rather poor.
you’re on the same side of this debate as Piers Morgan
fast become the modern day "Ann Widdcombe paradox" ie Whatever Ann thinks is right, most other folk will agree that the opposing view is more preferable/kinder etc.
I heard something the other month that has changed my thinking. It was related to age and how when people are growing up life is one big experiment. They make mistakes with their actions and their words, they don't have a fully formed identity yet. It's called growing up. The point being made was that people don't really know who they are until they are about 23. How old is Naomi Osaka out of interest?
Sportspeople are young, it comes with the job. That we put what are essentially children through a media grinder for our own entertainment is really weird when you think about it. We should feel embarrassed criticising some 20 year old athlete for something they said, did or didn't do. The psychological toll must be massive, and not only for the athletes but for society in general. Too much is asked and expected of young performers and I think it has a detrimental effect on younger fans (and some of the older fans on here).
To those who get anxious if they can't get their fix of inane and intrusive questions put to sportspeople I say get a life. Cancel your sky subscription or whatever but don't think that just because some kid is paid millions to kick or hit a ball that they should surrender their sanity and that it gives you a right to behave like a child.
One of the reasons the interviews are so boring is that the interviewees are often just kids growing up, they don't even know who they really are yet so they can't confidently answer the questions. They haven't thought out their own thoughts yet so become terrified of making a faux par.
If it's in her contract and she's unable to fulfill her contract, it seems fair enough that the organisation has excluded her. She wouldn't get a free pass to the second round if she couldn't play due to a wrist injury, why should any other health issue be treated differently?
There's certainly a reasonable argument for getting rid of the post-game press conference, but if all her rivals are forced to sit through them she'd be getting an unfair advantage if she can skip them.
That we put what are essentially children through a media grinder for our own entertainment is really weird when you think about it.
Agreed, we do the same sorts of things with young (and mostly) female pop-stars and film stars as well. Commenting publicly about their figures, clothes ,who they're dating and on and on and on, and then are "astounded" when they crack-up which ironically sells more print and pictures...It's pretty disturbing.
We have ? Or you have ? I’m sure tennis fans find them interesting, in the same way cycling fans find the interviews after a rider wins or indeed loses interesting in the racing. Don’t they ?
100%. I find football and tennis interviews tedious, but I love watching the cycling ones. I guess perhaps just because I understand it better.
Even if you don't watch the press briefings / follow social media, you will probably recognise various personalities of athletes. All of that relies on athletes engaging with the outside world. Now perhaps that doesn't have to be in a formal press conference, but sport would be very dull if all we saw of sportspeople was their athletic performance.
fair enough that the organisation has excluded her
"Fair"... but perhaps the wrong move, for the events (and the sport) as well has her.
Also a note to those who think she should just suck it up and do what she’s told: you’re on the same side of this debate as Piers Morgan
Cold War Steve's take on that:
There’s certainly a reasonable argument for getting rid of the post-game press conference, but if all her rivals are forced to sit through them she’d be getting an unfair advantage if she can skip them.
That the position I think. Hopefully this will be a catalyst for positive change, and it's just a difficult bump on the road to the solution.
She's not the first to have issues with post match interviews, Marshawn Lynch (above) was vocal about his dislike of them and that players should look after their mental health.
I'm pretty sure most of us would struggle having our performance dissected by the media in person for an hour after a game.
Kelvin's point about the PM getting a free pass with regards coming under press scrutiny is a very important one.
The reason so much money is involved in sport is because media moguls like Mudoch and Berlusconi pumped money into the game so they could conflate the front and back pages of their newspapers and segue sports coverage on their TV channels with anti democratic political bile. The Fox media vampire was built on sports for example, and that network is doing it's best to destroy the world.
The last time in history that sport had such a huge economic and social impact on the world was at the end of the Roman Republic, when the will of the Senate was replaced by the will of the Emporor. When what little democracy there was was sacrificed at the alter of entertainment. They don't build Cathederals any more, they build football stadiums, modern day gladitorial Colluseums and we've got a box seat to the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. History is just repeating itself.
Bread and Circuses I tell ye, bread and Circuses.......
EDIT:
That should have read 'Fox Meda Empire', though it seems my spell check knows better when it suggests 'Fox Media Vampire'.
Can I also say that Morgan's history of behaviour in this regards seems to be pretty close to the definition of stalking. he gets obsessed with a young woman (often described as a "feud" in the press) has a huge platform which he then abuses to get women to concede to him, placate him, and pretend they are his friends, just to get him to stop.
Weird and ****ing creepy.
Pier's Morgan isn't happy - I support Osaka on principle
Also, these press conferences are the ones straight after a match when an exhausted player is asked meaningless questions about the match that has just happened, with a few misogynistic/racist questions chucked in for good measure. Does anyone get anything of value from them? The world has moved on and hopefully this will start the authorities to start thinking about a system that works better
Also a note to those who think she should just suck it up and do what she’s told: you’re on the same side of this debate as Piers Morgan
It's the way she's gone about it I have most issue with, you can't sign a contract and then decide later you don't like some of the terms of that contract, decide you therefore won't fulfil them and then not expect the other party to consider the contract has been broken.
I don't know if there is a player's union and what the general feeling is amongst the other player's but if there's a consensus that something needs to change about the post-match press conferences then the way to do it is via their union, not individually (and if they don't have a player's union then they should form one).
If the issue is limited to one or a handful of players then they obviously don't have much negotiating power and the affected players need to decide (if no concessions are made by the tournament organisers) whether they attend those tournaments under those conditions or not (and if they do attend whether they choose to make an issue out of it like quite a few NFL & NBA players do by giving single word answers etc. to questions to show their disdain but still meet their contractual requirements).
Until such a time as the media coverage and specifically post-match press conferences are deemed not important by the decision makers/sponsors then unfortunate as it is you do have to make a choice between playing in those tournaments (and risking your mental health by attending the press conferences) or not playing (and likely losing personal sponsors/income) it's a crap situation and anyone in it has my sympathies but it doesn't mean I wholeheartedly support them just changing contractual terms as they see fit.
It’s the way she’s gone about it I have most issue with, you can’t sign a contract and then decide later you don’t like some of the terms of that contract, decide you therefore won’t fulfil them and then not expect the other party to consider the contract has been broken.
I'd have sympathy with that if I thought players in any way could even debate what is and what is not in the contract. I would also gently suggest that her feelings around this go a little further than "don't like" - why is mental health considered any less than physical?
Wonder if the post match interviews are so 'important' to media becuase its basically all some channels (ie BBC etc.) can show of a player as they're not allowed actual footage of them playing because <insert paying customer> has got exclusive rights to the matches?
I've not seen it mentioned anywhere but would be interested to know how much media coaching pro's get. I'd almost see it as a given that any promising young athlete would be given support and guidance from a very early age on exactly how to handle media and PR either to further their brand or support their well-being.
decide you therefore won’t fulfil them and then not expect the other party to consider the contract has been broken.
AFAIK, Ms Osaka hasn't protested about the French Open decision, and chose to withdraw after they fined her.
There’s certainly a reasonable argument for getting rid of the post-game press conference, but if all her rivals are forced to sit through them she’d be getting an unfair advantage if she can skip them.
Or all her rivals could show some unity and also refuse to attend / attend and refuse to say anything. The organisers might then remember why the event exists.
It’s the way she’s gone about it I have most issue with, you can’t sign a contract and then decide later you don’t like some of the terms of that contract, decide you therefore won’t fulfil them and then not expect the other party to consider the contract has been broken.
Lots of people enter contracts and then change their mind, especially if the terms are generic rather that negotiated for them personally. I don't think she is necessarily saying the other party shouldn't regard it as breach of contract; rather she's "big enough" that she can just say "I don't need to do this, if you want the best tennis players you've got my number, in the meantime I'll be working out how to spend last year's winnings"
Wonder if the post match interviews are so ‘important’ to media becuase its basically all some channels (ie BBC etc.) can show of a player as they’re not allowed actual footage of them playing because <insert paying customer> has got exclusive rights to the matches?
You might be right - but that's not the player's fault it's the event/media's fault for not negotiating more sensible arrangments.
The organisers might then remember why the event exists.
To make lots of money through brand sponsorship, if we're being realistic.
I get that this is a contractual issue but I thought the whole point of the Grand Slam tournaments was to attract the best players. Ive never understood why the tournament are so wedded to the post match press conference, I do my best to avoid them. When I have caught them they seem utterly pointless with journalists asking dumb questions and getting answers that are as dull and predictable as the question.
The fact that Morgan thinks she is wrong just proves she is correct and having read his attempt at an article it makes her case brilliantly