No.
Did the French Open do something they were not legally allowed to do?
If so then Osaka should sue them.
No, not as far as I know.
Then why the fuss?
Speaking for myself, the fuss is that the tournament organizers are being assholes, which I don’t like, and I like watching Osaka play tennis, so I’m disappointed that she’s left the tournament.
She didn’t back out, she followed the letter and spirit of the contract. If the French Open didn’t like that provision they shouldn’t have written the contract that way. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Every time a pro athlete speaks, there are sponsors behind. You get 10 million dollars for kicking a ball BECAUSE those guys pay up and they pay up BECAUSE you show their image.
…but you also believe 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 you also think that it is an issue that people think she is treated unfairly compared to others.
The fact that she “has legit issues” isn’t an issue for you. You’ve made that clear.
She entered a competition where she would have had to have paid a fine if she didn’t take part of the press conference. That the fine was a pittance isn’t relevant.
“Mentally not willing” is your latest effort to recontextualise what Osaka has said, and is experiencing.
Can I suggest reading the thread? I’ve outlined many examples. I’m not going to repeat myself.
Osaka has made a fortune from tennis. And she earned every cent. Nobody is claiming oppression.
LOL.
You are acting as if you’ve won the debate.
If she entered the competition knowing she wasn’t going to talk to the media and decided paying the fine was the pittance it is then yeah. Her issues are not a problem for me in this case. She used them to game the system when what she should have done is not entered the competition.
With you I certainly did.
…your entire position is predicated on the premise of not believing women, not believing the tournaments and the press have discriminated against women and women of colour for decades, of not wanting to take seriously the issues of depression and social anxiety in the workplace. You may think that you have “won the debate.” But all you have really done is demonstrate why mental health is such a difficult thing to talk about and address in our society.
A reminder that the thread is about athletes having to speak to the media is general, and Naomi Osaka and the French Open being the particular recent example. Is it not about personal sniping and accusations outside the discussion, or engaging in meta debate over who’s winning a debate, which a few of you are beginning to get into.
RickJay
Moderator
This is wrong in every respect.
I see the mod note so will have to leave it at that.
<paragraph cut because of mod note>
I’m not a mental health professional, and neither is the French Open. It’s understandable that they not just give an automatic, unlimited waiver as soon as someone claims depression.
Now, a dream employer would go out of their way to ensure the health and happiness of their employees (and likewise contractee / contractor). They would ideally say “OK, we’re not going to fine you, in fact we will help you find professional help”.
But I wouldn’t condemn them for not being a dream employer, the majority of companies / contractees fit in this bracket.
Osaka also managed all manner of interviews and press conferences in the past. She has a history of dealing with this. If her mental health has declined to the point a 10 minute press conference is triggering depression then I would think she has bigger issues to deal with and as such needs to deal with them.
Thanks.
You made the point I was after much more succinctly than I did.
…nobody has asked for an “automatic, unlimited waiver.”
I would condemn them for being dinosaurs. I will condemn them for failing over and over again to protect the players from racist and misogynistic conduct from the press at press conferences. I will condemn them for changing the rules on a whim for players like Serena Williams, when they banned the bodysuit she wore that helped with her circulation after she nearly died during her pregnancy. I will condemn them for failing to take action after the events of last week.
And I would condemn any employer that did exactly the same thing. It isn’t only “dream employers” that make accommodation for mental health. In NZ, and many other places in the world it is required by law, so every employer is required to do it.
…if her mental health is at the point where skipping a ten-minute press conference was what she needed to help alleviate it then it would be reasonable for the tournament to accommodate this.
The thing is, it is entirely reasonable for the French Open to tell its players they need to talk to the press for 10 minutes after a match.
Someone not able to do that has some issues they need to deal with.
We know Osaka can do this. She has done those pressers a lot in her career.
If she has become mentally unstable enough that she can no longer do them then fine. She can seek the help she needs.
She also should not enter tournaments where this is a requirement. She knows going in that she cannot meet the conditions of the contract she agreed to. Instead, she gamed the system.
If she isn’t capable of doing a 10 minute press conference then the promoters should be concerned with her ability to handle a stressful high-stakes tournament along with possibly thousands of people booing her. That’s a reasonable concern on their part.
I’d be surprised if French Open lawyers are not looking at ways to adjust the contract to prevent this in the future.
Osaka may win this round but made it worse for everyone who comes after.
Not in those words, but it’s implied in the suggestion that she shouldn’t have to do press conferences if she says she’s depressed. All I have said is that it is not as simple as that.
I would condemn them for all those things too (apart from “events of last week” depending on what thing you’re alluding to). Now, back on topic shall we?
You’d be condemning the majority of employers worldwide, certainly in the US.
Now, I would agree as a principle that employers should be more understanding about mental health.
But that’s not the same as condemning an employer for acting the same as most others.