Are Djokovic and Osaka equivalent here? Djokovic not only got a fine but was disqualified.
Also, given the circumstances, one can see why, in those charged circumstances, Djokovic would want to skip a presser. Osaka was more she just did not want to do it.
As an organization I would be more worried about the precedent Osaka is setting than Djokovic. I know Osaka said she had mental health reasons for not wanting to do a press briefing but this is nothing new to her at all. All of a sudden this is a problem or all of a sudden she figures she can afford the penalty?
Osaka earned nearly $55 million last year and is one of the highest paid athletes in the world (top 30). That fine to her is peanuts.
So, if she is so wealthy that she feels a $7,500 fine is totally worth paying to skip meeting the press I can see why the organization would want to nip it in the bud and stop that. Of course, $15,000 is not really a problem for her either.
Djokovic in the heat of the moment skipped a presser. Osaka announced she wasn’t going to do any press for the whole tournament.
Now, we could argue that the organizers should be more understanding of Osaka’s mental health disclosure and not fine her anything. That’s definitely something worthy of debate. My own view is that mental health problems should be enough to get a waiver, but just the athlete making such a claim is insufficient; they need to be actually seeking help.
But a rhetorical thing of asking why her fine was different, coupled with the implication that it was racist is not a good argument as of course there are differences.
More importantly of course, complaining about the relative sizes of fines is largely besides the point. The thread is supposed to be about the rights and wrongs as whether such a rule can exist and whether fines should be possible.
We can argue about how they are calculated after that.
He got a fine and DQ for something he did on the court, not for skipping the press conference. For that, and this would have been a highly anticipated press conference, he was fined $7,500.
She did not want to do it to the tune of voluntarily withdrawing from a tournament where she could have won over $1,000,000. Nobody withdraws from a Grand Slam event because they “don’t wanna” something that lasts 10 minutes.
Why does this matter in a contractual dispute? Do contractual damages increase when something is announced? The higher fine and threats were not because Osaka was damaging tennis more than Djokovic, it’s because they felt she was challenging their authority. That’s the thing they couldn’t have happen.
For the most part these fines are a non-issue. A few times a year an athlete decides not to talk and gets a fine they can easily pay, then they show up after the next game. This time, and basically the only time I know of, the league threatened to suspend the player.
She also actually DID an interview on court right after the match.
The point, I think, is that she decided something for herself that didn’t line up with the French Open’s plan for the tournament. They wanted to make it clear that THEY decide things, not her. I’m OK with enforcing the contract, I’m not OK with the power play.
They punished her for saying she would not fulfill her contractual obligations. These obligations were nothing new and something she had fulfilled many times in the past, seemingly without complaint. They were not onerous. They were not unfair. She was making stellar money.
I am all for protecting the oppressed. She is not one of them.
Maybe the French Open was ham-fisted in how they handled this but I am missing how Osaka is being unfairly treated here.
…she has just withdrawn from the Berlin Tournament, which means she is likely to withdraw from Wimbledon. Osaka said in her statement that she has suffered bouts of depression since 2018. She said she has had a hard time coping with that. This isn’t something that happened “all of a sudden.”
Another person who wants to belittle people’s experiences with depression and social anxiety. This isn’t about “oppression.” It’s about mental health.
Because every workplace should be able to make accommodation for a players mental health and well-being.
I shared my story about my social anxiety before. Feel free to scroll up and read it. I had to hire somebody to post and reply on Facebook for me because doing it myself was causing me physical distress.
That doesn’t mean I haven’t posted on Facebook, or that I don’t occasionally post on Facebook when I have no other choice. But when I do it causes me distress. I have to post something on Facebook today but instead I’m posting here to distract me and to calm myself down. And when I eventually do post on Facebook nobody will know how hard it was for me to do it.
So the fact that she has done press conferences before says absolutely nothing about whether she has depression or social anxiety. Nothing at all.
Allowing a player to skip a press conference for the sake of her mental health and well-being is an entirely reasonable accommodation. The goal of a tennis player is to play tennis. In addition to playing tennis it is reasonable to expect a player to help promote the game and there is no bigger name in womens tennis right now than Naomi Osaka.
I’m not sure you read the cite that carefully. The " employer has to take reasonable measures, ie provide services and facilities where this is reasonable, to meet an employee’s needs under the Human Rights Act 1993." This is enforceable under the law. Because it is law. The page provides guidance on what reasonable accommodation can look like to help prevent employers breaching the Human Rights Act.
