Tennis star Naomi Osaka withdrew from the 2021 French Open and resulted in a mix of support and criticism.
Support from people and athletes that sympathize with the need to address one's mental health and well-being, and criticism from people and athletes that have less sympathy to professional athlete's contractual obligations to appear before the media.
I wonder how much emphasis we've placed on the commoditization of raw emotions especially when it comes to sports and sports entertainment. We seem to have convinced ourselves that it isn't sufficient enough to watch top athletes compete against one another. We need close up access to their raw emotions, not only during the competition, but most especially afterwards.
For every post-game or post-match press conference question that asks about strategy in the game, or the preparation needed, there are questions that can stray or wander from what happens on the court. And whether it's unintentional or in the worst cases, deliberate, it can seem to be an attempt to get the best video clips or sound bites to drive traffic to your news site.
Very rarely will you hear a sports fan tell you that they became a fan of a sport or a player because of a press conference. Yet, we've created a closed loop where sports leagues, broadcasters and corporate sponsors tell us that media availability is important because we've indirectly told them it matters.
But does it?
How many fans watch unedited press conferences? You may have media members trying to discover interesting angles to write an interesting story, where players and coaches will either be naturally charismatic and oozing with personality, or trained to spout out sports clichés. Ideally, a sport or a team will have a set of beat writers that build a relationship and perspective over time. Of course, whether it's a sports locker room, or a press conference at a city or national level, there's always going to be one or more journalists trying to ask a question that will write a headline or a chyron.
Not all media is bad, not all players and coaches are bad, but do we really need every detail behind every emotion, every time? Should our money dictate that we get all-access not just to how athletes perform on the court, but to their thoughts and emotions afterwards? And just because it's a stated job obligation, do we need every athlete to go through it, especially if it's potentially damaging to their mental health and well-being?
People dislike the notion of someone being paid lots of money that selectively chooses to decline professional obligations. But, people love the notion of having enough eff-you money...enough money to say eff-you to things you don't like. When an elite athlete makes decisions that cost them money, they're using their voice to make themselves heard.
To break the mindset, we have to starve the beast that feeds on raw emotions. That means minimizing our need to approach every sports story with a sports radio mindset. We don't need a hot take on everything. We don't need to cast every story as heroes and villians. Sports is plenty entertaining on its own.
Support from people and athletes that sympathize with the need to address one's mental health and well-being, and criticism from people and athletes that have less sympathy to professional athlete's contractual obligations to appear before the media.
I wonder how much emphasis we've placed on the commoditization of raw emotions especially when it comes to sports and sports entertainment. We seem to have convinced ourselves that it isn't sufficient enough to watch top athletes compete against one another. We need close up access to their raw emotions, not only during the competition, but most especially afterwards.
For every post-game or post-match press conference question that asks about strategy in the game, or the preparation needed, there are questions that can stray or wander from what happens on the court. And whether it's unintentional or in the worst cases, deliberate, it can seem to be an attempt to get the best video clips or sound bites to drive traffic to your news site.
Very rarely will you hear a sports fan tell you that they became a fan of a sport or a player because of a press conference. Yet, we've created a closed loop where sports leagues, broadcasters and corporate sponsors tell us that media availability is important because we've indirectly told them it matters.
But does it?
How many fans watch unedited press conferences? You may have media members trying to discover interesting angles to write an interesting story, where players and coaches will either be naturally charismatic and oozing with personality, or trained to spout out sports clichés. Ideally, a sport or a team will have a set of beat writers that build a relationship and perspective over time. Of course, whether it's a sports locker room, or a press conference at a city or national level, there's always going to be one or more journalists trying to ask a question that will write a headline or a chyron.
Not all media is bad, not all players and coaches are bad, but do we really need every detail behind every emotion, every time? Should our money dictate that we get all-access not just to how athletes perform on the court, but to their thoughts and emotions afterwards? And just because it's a stated job obligation, do we need every athlete to go through it, especially if it's potentially damaging to their mental health and well-being?
People dislike the notion of someone being paid lots of money that selectively chooses to decline professional obligations. But, people love the notion of having enough eff-you money...enough money to say eff-you to things you don't like. When an elite athlete makes decisions that cost them money, they're using their voice to make themselves heard.
To break the mindset, we have to starve the beast that feeds on raw emotions. That means minimizing our need to approach every sports story with a sports radio mindset. We don't need a hot take on everything. We don't need to cast every story as heroes and villians. Sports is plenty entertaining on its own.