Participating in promotional activities is a valid part of a pro athlete’s duties. The fact that it is a valid duty does not imply that a scorched earth tactic of enforcement is justified.
As well, Osaka DOES promote tennis, she spoke with a reporter on court right after her match, she promotes tennis among minorities, in various countries, with girls. She promotes her own stardom, drawing fans to her matches and tournaments she is playing in, driving overall interest in the sport.
The idea that she is egregiously damaging the sport by being unable to participate in one aspect of promotion is, frankly, ridiculous.
I agree that the suggestions that people have been making about burning down Osaka’s house are going too far.
So as a practical matter, what are you suggesting should be the general policy? Should athletes have the right to choose what promotional activities they wish to participate in? If so, I’ve addressed that point and explained why I think this would be a bad idea.
Or are you suggesting we have a general rule for athletes but should allow some individuals to opt out? If so, what standard are you suggesting for determining who is an exception to the rules?
Pay an athlete to participate in the promotion the way you’d pay them to be in your deodorant commercial. They’re the same thing after all; they are popular due to their athletic prowess and you’re asking them to be your spokesperson. This would be like kicking someone out of a tournament because they don’t do a Nike commercial.
I’m okay with the idea of not paying someone if they don’t want to participate in something. I’m not okay with telling them that they can no longer compete because of it. It’s bad for the athlete, the sport, and the business.
The policy as spelled out in the rulebook is pretty good. Attend the conference or be subject to a fine up to $20k. Bingo, the overwhelmingly vast majority of your overpaid, pampered, egotistical stars will sit down for 20min to answer stupid questions rather than risk paying $1,000 per minute to do something else.
Where they crossed the line was to threaten to eject her from the French Open and bar her from competing in future Grand Slam events, because she thought protecting her mental health was worth the huge fine she would pay. That is the scorched earth policy, threatening to expel her from professional tennis.
I agree. The way it works today seems pretty good. Participate in the dog-and-pony show required by the tournament or else pay a fine. But I would make the fine be a percentage of winnings. A fixed amount will not be the same relative penalty for all competitors. It will be pocket change for some competitors and a year’s winnings for others. Instead, have each mandatory press conference you skip cause X% of your tournament winnings to be held back and distributed to the competitors who did attend the press conferences.
There is more than just one contract. The French Open also has a contract with NBC. It was signed in 2012 and will run through 2024. The financials weren’t covered but the contract was a “multiplatform contract” with “10 more hours of live coverage” over the last deal. NBC was clearly paying for live, multiplatform, content.
If I was paying for a service to clean my house and one week they said they can’t clean the bathroom because Joe gets anxiety when near toilets. I would tell them to get a new employee. The French Open got a new employee.
This thread reminds me of the Emilia Clarke, nudity, GOT, contracts, etc. thread. Where plenty of people said of course Emilia Clarke should be compelled to appear nude, because she had signed a contract to do so, and the Game of Thrones producers should of course fire her if she declined, no matter how badly that would reflect on the show.
I can properly clean a toilet but I don’t think I could properly compete in the French Open. Which is the whole point. This is why Naomi has leverage and why this was a huge blunder.
A better analogy would be if you run a late night talk show and you want to book a guest who runs a snake farm. Your host is petrified of snakes and can’t do it. So you just grab some nobody who doesn’t mind snakes and can read a teleprompter. Say goodbye to your ratings.
When they signed the contract, she was 14. They didn’t sign it for her, they signed it because they felt comfortable with tennis being able to make a star out of the next person up.
Then they’re getting what they wanted, a Major without the highly popular #2 women’s player. Like I said, they must be thrilled because whoever is replacing her will spend 10 minutes mumbling out some bland platitudes after her match.
I bet ESPN is equally thrilled that she may skip Wimbeldon, and they get to replace her with a more vociferous 97th best women’s player, because that’s where the ratings are.
You’re under the impression that Osaka is some great asset. The valuable asset is tennis’s ability to make more Osakas and Sharapovas and Azarenkas. You don’t whittle down your best asset to make a #2 player happy for one tournament.
When they sign a 12 year contract, they don’t know the names of the players. The average career of a top 10 tennis player is 16 years. Players will come and will go, they will retire and will be hurt. Tennis as a whole will still have tournament winners. They will still post a top 10 ranking, and will still have a world number 1. If Osaka doesn’t play in any majors this year she will slowly fade away.
Mmmhmm. Exactly. And if the only consequence of not doing that was withholding pay, I’d be fine with that, and I haven’t seen anyone disagree with that.
When they say she can no longer play as a result, that’s idiocy. That’s the problem. That’s the whole point here if you haven’t caught on yet.
USA Today suggests that the French Open may have opened themselves up to legal liability for threatening Osaka over her request for a reasonable accommodation for her illness.
…but this goes beyond just the “terms of the contract.” Following the terms of the contract would be detrimental to (in this case) the player’s health and well-being. There should be accommodation for that.