…the fact that they (in the context of tennis) can’t do this now is a problem with the system that you previously said you were perfectly fine with.
I think we can quibble on the need for an “impartial third party” or even the need for a formal diagnoses, because when you are working with mental health there are issues here, especially around disclosure, that would need to be addressed. But I don’t think the system is working now. But I do think that it’s good that we are discussing this.
Who am I? Kawhi Leonard?
Yes, you have been very clear in expressing your opinion that the current system needs to be changed. I feel I have been equally clear in stating I feel the changes you’re proposing will create more problems than you are anticipating and that these problems will outweigh any benefits.
Do you feel there is some misunderstanding that exists between us?
I don’t know. Are you? On a related note, who’s Kawhi Leonard?
Okay, I’m joking. I just did a wikipedia search and I know he’s a professional basketball player. But I had no idea who he was five minutes ago and I don’t know how he relates to this topic.
I also had never heard of Naomi Osaka prior to reading this thread. I don’t follow professional sports all that much. I watch some NFL football and that’s about it.
…but you haven’t been very clear in expressing your opinion on whether or not the current system needs to be changed. For example here:
You are clearly advocating for a change to the system.
But here:
You seem to be saying that one of the systems I proposed (providing a doctors note) will cause more problems than I am anticipating and that these problems will outweigh any benefits.
So which is it?
And the scale of the problem here seems all out of whack. You are weighing up the health and well-being of the players against “potential abuse of the system.” You are weighing up the health and well-being of the players against “violating the contract.”
You haven’t made a strong case that change will create more problems than I am anticipating.You haven’t made any case that these problems will outweigh any benefits.
You just really don’t want change. Except you do. Or perhaps you don’t. I’m still not entirely sure yet.
I feel I’ve been pretty consistent. As far as I know, the existing system lets a player opt out of promotional activities when there is a valid need that has been demonstrated. I haven’t heard any examples to the contrary anyway.
This is not what happened with Naomi Osaka. I’ve read the articles and as far as they say, she simply announced that it would cause her mental health problems if she had to do press conferences. She provided no medical documentation to support this beyond her own public statement.
You say you want a policy of athletes documenting their health problems. But you’re also saying you support an athlete who chose not to follow this procedure.
To use your own question, which is it?
…cite? We aren’t in talking about generic promotional activities. We are specifically talking about tennis post-match press conferences.
There was no process to formally withdraw from the press conferences. There was no obligation to provide medical documentation because there is no process in place for that to happen.
That isn’t my position.
I don’t know the exact best way to change the system would be. I’m not an expert in industrial relations, I’m not an expert in mental health. I have been pretty clear that I think change is needed and that the health and the well-being of the players should be at the forefront of that change. But the exact nature of that change is one for the experts and the stakeholders to sort out the details, not me.
I think I’ve answered that. But if you feel I’ve been unclear, please let me know and I’ll expand on my answer.
Do you feel that promotional activities, including press conferences, serve to build up the public image of a professional sport and bring more money into the sport?
Do you feel that professional athletes benefit from there being more money in the sport they play in?
Do you feel it is reasonable to require professional athletes to participate in promotional activities if they benefit from the results?
Do you feel professional athletes should be able to choose to not participate in these promotional activities if they wish to?
Do you feel a professional athlete should be required to provide a reason for choosing not to participate in a promotional activity?
Do you feel any reason should be acceptable or are there reasons which are invalid?
Do you feel a professional athlete should be able to establish a reason exists by just saying the reason exists?
Do you feel a professional athlete should be required to demonstrate before some impartial reviewer that a reason exists?
You’re asking me to cite something that I say hasn’t happened? Okay, it hasn’t happened.
Now if you’re saying it has happened, then please cite those incidents.
…do you ever feel like you are overly invested in arguing against improving how we deal with mental health in the workplace?
…I’m asking for a cite that “the existing system lets a player opt out of promotional activities when there is a valid need that has been demonstrated”, specifically in regards to after match press conferences at the French Open.
We aren’t talking about the athlete missing the core duties of their job, though. If an employee takes so much sick time they cannot get their fundamental job done, they’ll lose their job. If they miss a peripheral meeting, but still get the core job done, they will not.
Osaka proposed to miss a tertiary duty. At most.
The fundamental issue that runs underneath all this is the tension between sport as sport, and sport as circus. On one view a national tournament is about sportspeople playing their sport and one of them winning and getting a prize. On another view it’s soap-opera-realityTV show which has sport as its Maguffin, the only unscripted bit being which particular participant or team wins.
People who take more of the former view look at this debate and say “well this sportsperson is good at this sport and plays the sport so that’s all there is to it really so why are they being penalised?”. And people who value the latter say “but they are a highly paid actor in a sport-soap-opera-RealityTV show and can’t expect to be paid if they won’t do one of the required scenes”.
Where do I stand? - "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
The more RealityTV-ified professional sport has become the less I watch it.
Most employers in the United States are required to make reasonable accommodations for a disability that would allow their employee to perform the essential functions of the job. And essential job functions are the basic duties an employee must be able to do in order to perform in that position. With that in mind, is talking to reporters an essential job function of a tennis player? I would argue that talking to reporters is not an essential job function for most athletes whereas playing their sport is.
No, I do not. I have no reason to. I know what my position is. I can clearly articulate it. And I can offer support for it.
A little biased in phrasing but what you’re saying is accurate.
But nobody is forced to be a professional athlete. If somebody wants to play a sport just for the pure love of the game, they can do so.
Professional athletes aren’t paid millions of dollars just because they play their sport well. The money they receive comes from the audience who are entertained by the sport. When they cash the check, they forego the right to disdain the audience.
I don’t know how it works in other countries, but here in the United States mental illness is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Generally speaking, an employee will need to provide documentation from their health care provider detailing the nature of their impairments, this need not be a formal diagnosis though, and how it prevents them from performing their job functions. Typically speaking, ADA records are not kept in an employee’s personnel file and information is not shared with others beyond the minimum necessary to make the accommodation.
…earlier in the thread you stated:
Do you still stand by this?
Assuming you stand by that position, in light of the issues raised by Osaka’s withdrawal from the tournament and the long documented history of toxic behaviour at tennis press conferences, especially in relation to women and women of colour, how would you support the position that “we should keep this system?”
But if this is no longer your position, can you explain what your new position is?
…I think that part of the problem that would need to be worked through is that it would be obvious if a player no longer appeared at press conferences that there is a reason why they were no longer available. So how that was disclosed, if at all, is really the issue at play here. I don’t think it is unreasonable for the press to ask “why isn’t this player available after the match?” A generic answer would probably suffice. But it may not. That’s why it’s outside my wheelhouse to come up with an answer, if that makes sense.
I don’t feel I can make my position any clearer to you. And I’m done trying.