…and?
Skipping one everyone would shrug and let it pass with minor comment.
Skipping them all kinda breaks the system that generates money for the event.
I have a hard time believing you actually think that.
…can you quantify how much money a ten-minute press conference after a first round match with a qualifier that is used by the press in an article on page 3 of the sports pages for a single quote makes for the tournament? Just a ball-park figure here.
And can you compare that to the money she brings into the game just by playing the tournament alone?
The game has evolved. The press conferences are essentially for the press now.
This one instance?
No.
But then all the sports figures who hate doing pressers just say fuck it and skip them. Now there is a problem. Sports channels aren’t going to pay as much when that happens since they have to find something else to fill their time.
You made the claim. You support it. It’s not on me.
How much less do you imagine the broadcast rights would be worth without press conferences? As a percentage of the current rights.
I have no idea. I am not in that business.
But clearly the French Open thinks they are valuable.
…is what defined?
Why would you expect a “bright line” law?
Of course it is enforceable.
Here is the act.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304635.html
And here is a real life case-study on how it works in practice.
(Scroll down to " Example of a successful discrimination claim in court")
You made the claim that “skipping them all kinda breaks the system that generates money for the event.”
What is “the system” she is breaking? And how does that system “generate money for the event?” Can you quantify how much money this system makes?
Surely you have some idea. You have asserted that by skipping press conferences, Osaka is “breaking the system that generates money for the event.”
Really? We’ll have to leave this for another thread because you seem to think vague laws are fine. I don’t know where to begin with that and this thread is certainly not the place for this particular discussion.
The French Open seemed to think it was really important.
I am not in that business. Ask them. But it is without doubt that they feel these things are important to their money-making scheme. If it was not why would they bother to hire lawyers to put them in contracts and sign contracts with the media?
She entered a competition knowing the rules and what was expected. She has been in that situation many, many times before. There is nothing new to her in this. Then she decides, out of the blue, that she wants to just blow-off some parts. That is bucking the system.
If she wanted no part then fine…don’t participate. No one is making her. Instead she participated then went her own way.
My issue is not that she doesn’t want to do pressers. My issue is two-part: 1) That she entered the competition knowing what was expected, then bowed out and then gets people like you to defend her because she has mental problems and 2) that some here think she was somehow treated unfairly compared to others.
If she wants no part of the media fine…don’t enter tennis matches where that is part of the contract for entering.
If she thinks that is super unfair she can try and start her own tennis league where the press is not allowed. If there is no value there I am sure she will have no problem with it. Indeed, I would LOVE to see how that played out.
The contract says she has to do the press conference, or she has to pay a fine. She decided to pay the fine.
Yes…and people here are griping about that saying she was penalized more than some guy. (see above)
I guess I don’t understand your post then. You seemed to be under the impression that she had entered a tennis tournament with a contract requiring her to do press conferences.
Yes. She did that.
If she did not do that then what do you think the issue is?
The issue is that she decided to exercise the contractual option to pay fines rather than do press conferences, and the people running the grand slam tournaments reacted by saying they would try to end her career.
Did they do something they can’t? If so she should sue them.
…the law isn’t vague. Relying on precedent is an entirely normal part of the legal process.
And reasonable accommodation is relevant to this discussion. Some have argued that under French law the tournament should have made accommodation here.
I’m not entirely sure if I buy the Law Professors argument. Players are contractors, not employees. But I think that regardless of the law the tournament should at least make some effort to accommodate Osaka here.
The French Open isn’t here in this thread, claiming “skipping them all kinda breaks the system that generates money for the event.”
What contracts have they signed with the media?
And you continue to belittle those that experience depression and social anxiety. Please, I beg you to stop doing that.
She participated in playing the game of tennis. And she was willing to pay the fine.
So the issue really is:
-
You don’t actually believe she has issues with mental health, depression and social anxiety. And that she just invoked that defence so that people like me would defend her.
-
That you don’t understand the way that women, and women of colour have been historically treated by both the tournaments and the press in the game of tennis.
Gotcha.
“If women don’t like the sexy body design of Lara Croft they should just make their own games.”
Your line of argument is tired and should be retired. There is nothing wrong with advocating for change from within.
[quote=“Whack-a-Mole, post:337, topic:943351”]
Did they do something they can’t?[/quote]
You mean legally? I don’t believe so. They issued a fine, and made statements.
Nope nope nope.
I believe she has legit issues.
My problem is she entered into a competition which required certain things from her and then she backed out. Yes she was willing to pay the fine per the rules but we all know that fine is a pittance to her.
If she was mentally not willing to meet the media then she should not have entered the competition. Simple as that. None of this was new to her. She was abundantly aware of her obligations but you want to just giver her a pass.
I do not know how women of color have been historically treated in tennis. Feel free to enlighten us. More importantly, spell out how Osaka was treated unfairly compared to other players? We’ve put to rest the Djokovic thing I think.
Osaka has made a fortune from tennis. I am not seeing how she has been oppressed.
Got anything else?
Did she do something the contract said she couldn’t? If so the tournament should sue her.