Then I can fire him. I’d be fine with just not paying him if he doesn’t perform but then he’s taking a spot on the roster so no performance, no job. That’s the way it works now.
I just want to give it my best shot, and the good Lord willing, things will work out.
I was hoping that Osaka would show up and give an interview Lou Reed style.
Do you not know many sports fans? All I see here is an argument from your personal incredulity and ignorance.
I’m not much of a fan, I don’t watch the interview or the game. But I do know quite a number of people who watch the interviews with great interest. Does that mean that they would refuse to watch the game if there were not interviews? I dunno, but it would be taking something away from them that they enjoy.
Do you think that actors shouldn’t do the talk show circuit to promote the movies and shows that they are in? That they shouldn’t go to conventions or other events for the fans?
If so, do you think that they’d be willing to take a significant pay reduction? Keep in mind, an athlete isn’t paid buckets of money because they can sportsball good, they are paid buckets of money because people want to watch them sportsball good.
I haven’t been watching lately, but in the past I’ve been an avid tennis watcher. I never stuck around to watch interviews after matches. I might be interested if something very unusual happened, to know the player’s reaction, but I don’t need to hear iteration one million of the standard post-match presser.
And plenty of athletes are happy to do it. It’s not like letting one skip will mean they all will.
Yes, I hope something can be worked out. I’m sure even most of her fans would rather see her play in the tournament and not see her interviewed than not see her in the tournament at all.
Maybe something can be worked out that has options – like, you can do short press conferences after each match, or do a long sit-down interview with one or two networks before the tournament. That way, they still have their clips, and you could get it out of the way. But in any event, an athlete should be able to opt out for real mental health reasons.
Never heard of Osaka, but I definitely agree with this.
nevemind…
Well, sure. But in this case, Naomi Osaka is the team.
Absolutely true. This is, after all, the entertainment business. Song and dance is what it’s all about.
But see below…
Yes. And I come back to what I said above – it’s basically child abuse to let someone turn pro at 15 (and effectively be a pro athlete in training for years before that).
So here we are. Ms. Osaka is, unsurprisingly, having mental health difficulties. Given the way she was raised, that was fairly predictable. So I think it’s absolutely reasonable to ask the governing bodies, tournament organizers, sponsors, etc. to give her a break.
It’s kind of a sick system. And every opportunity to fix it (in the case of Ms. Osaka) was blown years and years before this one player said she didn’t want to participate in press events, and dropped out of a tournament.
Yes. Or go the Bill Bradley route, and just decide not to do endorsements at all.
I wonder if this is another case of mental health issues not being taken as seriously as other kinds of health issues. If she had an injury or illness that, say, required her to have a lengthy treatment immediately after a match, so she could not attend the press events, would they have accommodated that?
It’s being discussed as a choice. But it sounds like she sought accommodation, was denied, tried to do it, couldn’t, got sanctioned, had to quit. If that was the sequence, but with a physical injury being the cause of her inability to attend, would there be much support for the tournament trying to force attendance?
I’m going to call a little bit of bullshit on this one. Severe social anxiety and depression have little to do with how someone was raised. Let’s not pretend that preventing athletes from going pro before 18 will do anything to solve this problem.
Absolutely correct.
In theory, the WTA (women’s tennis governing body) is a “player’s union”, in that it was originally formed by a group of players to advocate for their own interests among what was then a hodgepodge of different tournaments and circuits.
In practice, the WTA (and the ATP on the men’s side) have been pretty thoroughly captured by tournament/sponsorship $ and function as de facto “management” of the tour. Often, those who rep players have blatant conflicts of interests with tournaments or sponsors. This creates little impetus for change that might upset the money flow.
I should add there’s a movement to create a player-only association (largely on the men’s side thus far) that made a big splash last year but has done little yet in the way of concrete changes to the tours.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Naomi Osaka on this issue. I certainly think that it could have been handled by the tournament and the tour with a great deal more tact and discretion. A fine for missing a press avail seems to be a suitable penalty for not doing what is part of the job, but I think it’s a shame that such a big deal is made of it.
It seems to me that many athletes love interacting with sports/news media and creating controversy. And even when they’re not fond of press conferences and interviews, they’re posting tons of stuff on social media (good, bad and incredibly stupid) because very often they’re into me, me, look at me, pay attention to me. Fans can get a glut of that stuff without tuning in to ESPN.
The relative few athletes who are intensely private enough to generally avoid such contacts are not in my opinion hurting sports; they’re a welcome change from the norm. They could very well make more money by hyping themselves via various outlets, but if they don’t want to I’m happy to excuse them from doing so.
I don’t think athletes should be forced to speak to (stoopid) media, their questions are mostly dumb anyway, it is a vacuous exercise. Even worse are the interviews just after the game, when athletes have too much adrenalin and too little oxygen in their brains and bodies to be coherent and interesting.
There are enough who want to talk anyway, so let them. If only they were all as funny as Yogi Berra or as dumb as Lothar Matthäus!
I’m inclined to agree. How often do athletes who really don’t want to talk to the media have anything worthwhile to say?
ESPN is a 50 billion dollar company. It’s flagship program, (Sportscenter) and the majority of it’s other programs are about sports on-and-off the field. They create content out of interviews. They build interest and controversy.
ESPN began in 1979. In 1984-85 three NFL teams changes hands with a purchase price of 70 million each, prior to that no team had ever sold for more than 15 million. The current average value of an NFL team is over 3 billion dollars. Sports as a 24/365 content creator is a valuable thing.
I still think there’s a difference between the post game interviews for sports and other entertainment roadshows.
For a movie or tv show, the actor does the rounds to promote that movie or tv show. Rachel Weisz is on Kimmel this week. I assume she has a movie coming out - her appearance might entice me to see that movie*, meaning more money for the film and more money for her. Without those appearances, people might not even know about the movie or they might not know enough about the movie to make the decision to go see it. There’s a direct line from the press events to revenue.
OTOH, for sports, the post-game interviews don’t sell more tickets. Fans know when the games are (the French Open is not a surprise. It’s every year in May. US football is “Any Given Sunday” (among other days of the week). I’m not entirely certain when “Hockey Night in Canada” is, but I’m sure that hockey fans know. (Saturday? maybe?)) These interviews aren’t needed for the events because hardcore fans of the sports are going to see the games/matches/etc. anyway. If it’s about the endorsement - that’s between the team (or player) and their endorser. Nike can and possibly should pay less if their endorsee doesn’t show up to press conferences, but how is that any business of the French Open? The FO still has butts in seats without the press conference and there’s still plenty of ad revenue.
The only way it makes sense is if the tournament is saying that they make so much in ad revenue during the press conference that the players are worth more to them in a press interview than they are in the game. In which case, they should pay players explicitly for showing up to post game press.
*Probably not, I’m not entirely sure who Rachel Weisz is and I don’t watch Kimmel - but I can see a clear connection between her appearance and more money for the film.
Naomi is active on social media. It’s not like she’s in a cave hiding from the world until it’s time to compete. She just doesn’t want to be hounded at a press conference or on camera for an interview. The rules about forcing players to talk to the media were created when that was the only way for athletes to speak to the public and are obsolete.
Sheesh, talking to reporters can be hazardous to your physical as well as mental health.
Do you watch sports? For the most part (at least in America), on-field performance has little to do with whether a team makes money. The Dallas Cowboys and Washington Indigenous Persons have been reliably bad to mediocre since the mid-90s (especially Washington), yet they are by far the most profitable U.S. sports franchises. The L.A. Clippers made tons of money in the 1990s and 2000s despite never even trying to get good.
Besides that, sports teams derive relatively little revenue from ticket sales. The money is in TV rights and merchandising, and it is personalities that fans buy into. Tim Tebow is selling more jerseys than anyone in the NFL even though he probably won’t make the Jaguars’ roster.