Maybe she should just meet her media obligations and get better on clay.
Maybe she should just meet her media obligations and get better on clay.
She can do whatever she likes
I expect the tournaments will change their stance as the 3rd or 4th tier sport of tennis needs the big names to stay relevant.
Nike is paying her 8.5 million per year. Nissan, Yonex, Citizen watches, and others also are sponsors. They pay her to play, not to sit out of tournaments. If she refuses to play, they drop sponsorship. No money from sponsors, no money from tournaments ... the inevitable ending is she will play whether there is any change or not. If Wimbledon has 9 of the top-10 players in the world, are they really going to care if she plays or not? It isn't like she is so valuable to the sport that it would have an impact. Tiger Woods pulling out of tournaments in the 1999-2004 range would have resulted in changes; Osaka does not have 5% of his influence.
Never said she couldn’t do what she’s doing.
But like others have stated, there can and should be financial consequences for her actions.
Nut jobs are free to be nut jobs. More power to her.
Yawn^2 wrote:
Never said she couldn’t do what she’s doing.
But like others have stated, there can and should be financial consequences for her actions.
Nah - this is a good stance and good publicity for her. I respect people that stand up to the entrenched media elites. This will probably come out as net positive for her in the long run.
Joe and Kamala have been quite hesitant to address the press corps too.
As far as tennis players go, where do they think the prize money they are competing for comes from? It just materializes out of thin air? The tennis tournaments need to drum up interest in their product in order to sell tickets and broadcast rights. That is why they need players, especially the star players, to get in front of the media.
2600 bro wrote:
Yawn^2 wrote:
Never said she couldn’t do what she’s doing.
But like others have stated, there can and should be financial consequences for her actions.
Nah - this is a good stance and good publicity for her. I respect people that stand up to the entrenched media elites. This will probably come out as net positive for her in the long run.
If she signed a contract to speak to the media, she deserves to suffer for breaching the contract.
If I’m a potential sponsor, I stay clear of her because she’s clearly a drama queen.
Overall, it shows she is immature. If she can’t handle some press then I can’t expect much from her at all.
Yawn^2 wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Nah - this is a good stance and good publicity for her. I respect people that stand up to the entrenched media elites. This will probably come out as net positive for her in the long run.
If she signed a contract to speak to the media, she deserves to suffer for breaching the contract.
If I’m a potential sponsor, I stay clear of her because she’s clearly a drama queen.
Overall, it shows she is immature. If she can’t handle some press then I can’t expect much from her at all.
I don’t understand why athletes dislike talking to the press about the game they love. Who cares if the press ask “tough” questions you don’t want to answer. The press cannot fire or discipline the players, they have no authority.
Mental health is still very stigmatized. I applaud Osaka's latest post where she points to her long term struggles with her mental health issues. The NCAA has campaigns aimed at beating the stigma regarding mental health.
I work with the media a lot in my job. I have a pretty good relationship with them, but I would say half the stuff I put out there as a public information professional is completely wrong not due to my fault but them twisting what I say or not understanding the subject matter, and more recently it’s just a big game of gotcha with them trying to get me off guard and found something.
The freedom the press is important, but I’m not sure getting sound bytes right after a tennis player wins or loses is part of that. I love soccer and watching those press conferences, but not for the information but for what ridiculous question / response sequence will occur. But really, is that what we want journalism and media to be going forward?
Yawn^2 wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Nah - this is a good stance and good publicity for her. I respect people that stand up to the entrenched media elites. This will probably come out as net positive for her in the long run.
If she signed a contract to speak to the media, she deserves to suffer for breaching the contract.
If I’m a potential sponsor, I stay clear of her because she’s clearly a drama queen.
Overall, it shows she is immature. If she can’t handle some press then I can’t expect much from her at all.
Or she realizes she has tremendous power due to high visibility and following of new markets in tennis and using this power to change the system. Most pre/post game conferences are boring and useless.
Obviously she has to follow the rules of the tournaments but I suspect the tournaments will be changing the rules soon. Traditional media is DEAD.
Good for her.
The young lady has more balls than all of you sniveling “ just meet your media obligations!” turds. Glad she took a stance. She’s there to play.
She probably was sick of answering stupid questions like this:
i honestly feel for her. in a vacuum, she is correct. the media obligations these players have are nonsense.
but the game is not played in a vacuum, and players are paid based on publicity that comes from media availability.
you want players who get to hide out and skip out from facing the competition, track and field is what you get. obscurity with very little money.
2600 bro wrote:
Yawn^2 wrote:
If she signed a contract to speak to the media, she deserves to suffer for breaching the contract.
If I’m a potential sponsor, I stay clear of her because she’s clearly a drama queen.
Overall, it shows she is immature. If she can’t handle some press then I can’t expect much from her at all.
Or she realizes she has tremendous power due to high visibility and following of new markets in tennis and using this power to change the system. Most pre/post game conferences are boring and useless.
Obviously she has to follow the rules of the tournaments but I suspect the tournaments will be changing the rules soon. Traditional media is DEAD.
You seem to think I’m arguing the media is fair and that the conferences are useful. I’m not. I love mma conferences because they are funny, not because they are insightful.
I’ll say again, if you sign a contract or play in a tournament where they expect n number of appearances, you owe them that many. Whatever happened to people holding up their end of a deal? Is that just thrown out the window.
If she doesn’t want to do media, then avoid agreeing to do media. But don’t act like a saint for it and expect sponsors to not be pissed when you flake out on them.
Yawn^2 wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Or she realizes she has tremendous power due to high visibility and following of new markets in tennis and using this power to change the system. Most pre/post game conferences are boring and useless.
Obviously she has to follow the rules of the tournaments but I suspect the tournaments will be changing the rules soon. Traditional media is DEAD.
You seem to think I’m arguing the media is fair and that the conferences are useful. I’m not. I love mma conferences because they are funny, not because they are insightful.
I’ll say again, if you sign a contract or play in a tournament where they expect n number of appearances, you owe them that many. Whatever happened to people holding up their end of a deal? Is that just thrown out the window.
If she doesn’t want to do media, then avoid agreeing to do media. But don’t act like a saint for it and expect sponsors to not be pissed when you flake out on them.
The contractual agreement was with the French Open. As long as she was playing in matches she had to keep doing press conferences. So no that shes not playing in matches... no more obligation. I don't she has any civil liability here.
Her sponsors probably aren't too pumped she dropped from a major... but I'd be surprised if there is liability there too, surely the focus is on getting her in a position to play again.
I swear you are just trying to be argumentative. Please reread my posts. I stated multiple times that she needs to fulfill obligations, be they with the tournament organizers or sponsors or her cousin’s roommate. You keep missing the overall point. Do what you signed up to do.
If she is to weak to hack it, then just fade off instead of seeking attention.
high school xc coach wrote:
i honestly feel for her. in a vacuum, she is correct. the media obligations these players have are nonsense.
but the game is not played in a vacuum, and players are paid based on publicity that comes from media availability.
you want players who get to hide out and skip out from facing the competition, track and field is what you get. obscurity with very little money.
How much of her revenue for her sponsors comes from third party media like post match interviews versus direct media from her social media presence etc.
Like I said, these media obligations are excessively pandering to a dying field.
Yawn^2 wrote:
I swear you are just trying to be argumentative. Please reread my posts. I stated multiple times that she needs to fulfill obligations, be they with the tournament organizers or sponsors or her cousin’s roommate. You keep missing the overall point. Do what you signed up to do.
If she is to weak to hack it, then just fade off instead of seeking attention.
I may be misinterpreting you, but you see only two possibilities: "do" or "fade off" ? She asked for an accommodation. She admitted that she has this social anxiety weakness. She hoped the people in charge would cut her some slack. She asked. They refused. She said OK.
You may be right, but I don't follow your logic that a woman who doesn't want to do press conferences is "seeking attention." Isn't she seeking inattention? Are you suggesting that she has an ulterior motive? She's doing pretty much what you want, isn't she?By fade off, did you mean drop out of pro tennis and not give an explanation?