French Open anyone? (1 Viewer)

[WhoDatPhan78]

Maybe they should decide how much of the prize money is for participating in press conferences, and how much of it is for the competition. Then the athletes can decide to opt out, and take a pay cut.

You can't have a competition that is about Tennis, and declare that the winner is the best tennis player if the only people who competed in the competition were those willing to subject themselves to the press after the match.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Maybe they should decide how much of the prize money is for participating in press conferences, and how much of it is for the competition. Then the athletes can decide to opt out, and take a pay cut.

You can't have a competition that is about Tennis, and declare that the winner is the best tennis player if the only people who competed in the competition were those willing to subject themselves to the press after the match.

While your 2nd paragraph is spot on
the 1st is apples and oranges
press conference, et al, is about branding/marketing - which requires control
advertisers don’t want to negotiate 30 different contracts - French Open tried clumisly to exert control and by doing so, pulled back the curtain showing it was never about the sport for them

the other layer to the irony is Naomi saying ‘fine, I just want to shut up and dribble’ and the shut up and dribble people fall all over themselves all “not like that! Not like that!!”

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

While your 2nd paragraph is spot on
the 1st is apples and oranges
press conference, et al, is about branding/marketing - which requires control
advertisers don’t want to negotiate 30 different contracts - French Open tried clumisly to exert control and by doing so, pulled back the curtain showing it was never about the sport for them

the other layer to the irony is Naomi saying ‘fine, I just want to shut up and dribble’ and the shut up and dribble people fall all over themselves all “not like that! Not like that!!”

Yea, the first part was mostly facetious, but i really hate to hear people say that it is part of their job. No it isn't, it may be part of the reason there is so much money paid to them for their job, but that part of the job is mostly so that people who aren't athletes can profit from the athletes.

It is a threat to the bottom feeder's bottom line, and that is the only reason a big deal is being made out of it.

 

[buzd]

I am a little cynical when it comes to this stuff, and while i think you make good points- I’d argue that the decline of tennis has more to do with the political climate in America than anything else.. I’m not going to get deleted, so I’ll be very vague- but we have an element of society that likes to show how ‘macho’ they are (ie every time i see a giant lifted pick up truck, whenever the driver gets out it’s inevitably a guy who is 5’6” and 150 lbs).. and for whatever reason, tennis isnt considered very ‘macho’.. which is silly, since I started playing a couple years ago and it takes great physical condition and a fair amount of strength to be any good... but i think the perception as a ‘country club sport’ turns off a lot of people.. all of which i think goes a long way to explaining the decline of the sport- EXCEPT the fact that golf has exploded in popularity over the same 30 or 40 yrs that tennis has declined.. that, to me, is the real head-scratcher, since golf is the original country club sport.. honestly i think that popularity explosion might be 95% attributable to the Tiger Woods factor... leading me back to the point about needing a male tennis superstar in America, which i have an incredibly hard time believing will ever happen.

I disagree that strength is a requirement for the casual tennis player. It certainly doesn't help, but I know plenty of fairly good players that don't rely on strength at all.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Yea, the first part was mostly facetious, but i really hate to hear people say that it is part of their job. No it isn't, it may be part of the reason there is so much money paid to them for their job, but that part of the job is mostly so that people who aren't athletes can profit from the athletes.

It is a threat to the bottom feeder's bottom line, and that is the only reason a big deal is being made out of it.

wow. well said

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I disagree that strength is a requirement for the casual tennis player. It certainly doesn't help, but I know plenty of fairly good players that don't rely on strength at all.

would you draw a distinction between strength and power?
like i can think of plenty of pitchers who have strong arms but would lose lots of arm wrestling matches

 

[buzd]

would you draw a distinction between strength and power?
like i can think of plenty of pitchers who have strong arms but would lose lots of arm wrestling matches

In tennis, not really. And arm wrestling is mostly about leverage.

And I'm talking casual players, not pros.

 

[Cage1]

Maybe they should decide how much of the prize money is for participating in press conferences, and how much of it is for the competition. Then the athletes can decide to opt out, and take a pay cut.

You can't have a competition that is about Tennis, and declare that the winner is the best tennis player if the only people who competed in the competition were those willing to subject themselves to the press after the match.

Sure you can. Similarly, if someone played in the nude and they DQed them because they wouldn't wear clothes, we wouldn't have a problem saying the best player won if only people willing to subject themselves to clothing played.

It is part of the job because I'm sure it's in the rules they sign to participate in the tournaments. I'm a lawyer. My job is winning court cases. But also part of that job is keeping the client informed or not releasing privileged information. You can have multiple duties as part of a job. And you know what, I don't think it's unreasonable to pile on more duties for ulta-high compensation. She doesn't want to do press conferences, great. The world needs ditch-diggers.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I disagree that strength is a requirement for the casual tennis player. It certainly doesn't help, but I know plenty of fairly good players that don't rely on strength at all.

I think you meant to say that ‘it doesnt hurt’.. but in any case, i specifically said *it takes being in great physical condition and a fair amount of strength to be any good*.. so yeah, you can play casual tennis without being ‘in great physical conditon’ or having less than ‘a fair amount of strength’.. but odds are you probably wont be very good.

 

[Arathrael]

Sure you can. Similarly, if someone played in the nude and they DQed them because they wouldn't wear clothes, we wouldn't have a problem saying the best player won if only people willing to subject themselves to clothing played.

Well, we might if it was, say, Djokovic who suddenly adopted a nudist kick.

Because ultimately whether we can reasonably "declare that the winner is the best tennis player" depends on whether we think the best tennis players are taking part in the tournament. If they're not - and in this instance it's the women's no. 2 who's felt forced to withdraw? - then a case that we can't can certainly be made.

But that said, do you really think being unwilling to wear clothes is similar to being unable to face the press due to mental health?

It is part of the job because I'm sure it's in the rules they sign to participate in the tournaments. I'm a lawyer. My job is winning court cases. But also part of that job is keeping the client informed or not releasing privileged information. You can have multiple duties as part of a job. And you know what, I don't think it's unreasonable to pile on more duties for ulta-high compensation. She doesn't want to do press conferences, great. The world needs ditch-diggers.

As a lawyer, are there circumstances in which the terms of a contract can be seen as unreasonable?

Or is it the case that if the compensation is high, anything goes?

 

[Cage1]

As a lawyer, are there circumstances in which the terms of a contract can be seen as unreasonable?

Of course. There are plenty of ways a contract can be voided or voidable; duress, against public policy, illegal, unconscionable, mistake, and so forth.

But certainly the sophistication of the parties plays into this and also, yes, probably compensation.

But none of this really matters because not a court in this country would deem a contract unenforceable because of the burden of a party having to spend 5 minutes answering questions.

I've had to do a lot of miserable things for a lot less money than that at jobs. As have we all. Every last one of us, without exception. Cry me a river.

And the best part is, she can opt out. As she did here. I get it, don't want to go in to the job for a day? Take a day off. I get it. But it is in fact part of the job.

 

[Arathrael]

Of course. There are plenty of ways a contract can be voided or voidable; duress, against public policy, illegal, unconscionable, mistake, and so forth.

But certainly the sophistication of the parties plays into this and also, yes, probably compensation.

But none of this really matters because not a court in this country would deem a contract unenforceable because of the burden of a party having to spend 5 minutes answering questions.

Really? I'd say that's at least debatable.

Because don't there exist legal requirements to make appropriate accommodations in particular circumstances?

Like for disability. For example, the PGA Tour does not allow the use of golf carts. This is because walking the course is part of the game, in the rules people sign up to, part of the job, if you can't walk the course you can't play the game, and hey, if people don't like it, they can just opt out, right?

Except in reality, none of that is necessarily true, and when Casey Martin sued the PGA Tour accordingly, he won. Turned out having to walk the course wasn't considered to be intrinsic to the game of golf after all, and "the rules are the rules" and "the job is the job" don't actually cover all circumstances.

Mental health conditions can also be covered by disability rules and subject to reasonable accommodations, and given that "having to spend 5 minutes answering questions" is even less intrinsic to the game of tennis than walking the course is to the game of golf, there would certainly appear to be a case that an inability to take part in an aspect of the requirements that are not an intrinsic part of the sport due to mental health should be accommodated. And if mental health conditions are being taken seriously as they should be, that case should be taken seriously.

That said, I'm neither a lawyer, nor in that country. And nor is the French Open. But that aside, I wondered if this argument has been put forward by people who'd know more than I (who just googled most of this stuff just now) do, and turns out it has:

Op-Ed: Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open was a stand for disability rights

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

www.latimes.com

OK, he's not a lawyer. But this guy is:

Naomi Osaka And The French Open: A Tale Of Disability Discrimination

The Roland-Garros tennis tournament’s brusque treatment of Naomi Osaka would have likely run afoul of the disability discrimination laws had it taken place in the U.S.

www.forbes.com

That said, I don't think it should be, or will be, a legal question at all. I would say it's not reasonable to expect, or require, someone experiencing mental health issues to have to pursue legal action to gain reasonable accommodation, but reason sadly often comes after legal action rather than before.

But legality isn't the only thing at play here. Answering questions, let alone answering questions in circumstances that can't be tolerated due to mental health, is very obviously not an intrinsic part of the game of tennis, and clearly does not have to be part of the job. Given the support for Naomi Osaka I've seen, and the criticism of the organisers, I think we'll be seeing appropriate accommodations made sooner rather than later.

Our perception and support of mental health issues may lag behind our perception and support of physical health issues, but it's still getting there.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Really? I'd say that's at least debatable.

Because don't there exist legal requirements to make appropriate accommodations in particular circumstances?

Like for disability. For example, the PGA Tour does not allow the use of golf carts. This is because walking the course is part of the game, in the rules people sign up to, part of the job, if you can't walk the course you can't play the game, and hey, if people don't like it, they can just opt out, right?

Except in reality, none of that is necessarily true, and when Casey Martin sued the PGA Tour accordingly, he won. Turned out having to walk the course wasn't considered to be intrinsic to the game of golf after all, and "the rules are the rules" and "the job is the job" don't actually cover all circumstances.

Mental health conditions can also be covered by disability rules and subject to reasonable accommodations, and given that "having to spend 5 minutes answering questions" is even less intrinsic to the game of tennis than walking the course is to the game of golf, there would certainly appear to be a case that an inability to take part in an aspect of the requirements that are not an intrinsic part of the sport due to mental health should be accommodated. And if mental health conditions are being taken seriously as they should be, that case should be taken seriously.

That said, I'm neither a lawyer, nor in that country. And nor is the French Open. But that aside, I wondered if this argument has been put forward by people who'd know more than I (who just googled most of this stuff just now) do, and turns out it has:

Op-Ed: Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open was a stand for disability rights

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

www.latimes.com

OK, he's not a lawyer. But this guy is:

Naomi Osaka And The French Open: A Tale Of Disability Discrimination

The Roland-Garros tennis tournament’s brusque treatment of Naomi Osaka would have likely run afoul of the disability discrimination laws had it taken place in the U.S.

www.forbes.com

That said, I don't think it should be, or will be, a legal question at all. I would say it's not reasonable to expect, or require, someone experiencing mental health issues to have to pursue legal action to gain reasonable accommodation, but reason sadly often comes after legal action rather than before.

But legality isn't the only thing at play here. Answering questions, let alone answering questions in circumstances that can't be tolerated due to mental health, is very obviously not an intrinsic part of the game of tennis, and clearly does not have to be part of the job. Given the support for Naomi Osaka I've seen, and the criticism of the organisers, I think we'll be seeing appropriate accommodations made sooner rather than later.

Our perception and support of mental health issues may lag behind our perception and support of physical health issues, but it's still getting there.

game, set, match

 

[Cage1]

Really? I'd say that's at least debatable.

Because don't there exist legal requirements to make appropriate accommodations in particular circumstances?

Like for disability. For example, the PGA Tour does not allow the use of golf carts. This is because walking the course is part of the game, in the rules people sign up to, part of the job, if you can't walk the course you can't play the game, and hey, if people don't like it, they can just opt out, right?

Except in reality, none of that is necessarily true, and when Casey Martin sued the PGA Tour accordingly, he won. Turned out having to walk the course wasn't considered to be intrinsic to the game of golf after all, and "the rules are the rules" and "the job is the job" don't actually cover all circumstances.

Mental health conditions can also be covered by disability rules and subject to reasonable accommodations, and given that "having to spend 5 minutes answering questions" is even less intrinsic to the game of tennis than walking the course is to the game of golf, there would certainly appear to be a case that an inability to take part in an aspect of the requirements that are not an intrinsic part of the sport due to mental health should be accommodated. And if mental health conditions are being taken seriously as they should be, that case should be taken seriously.

That said, I'm neither a lawyer, nor in that country. And nor is the French Open. But that aside, I wondered if this argument has been put forward by people who'd know more than I (who just googled most of this stuff just now) do, and turns out it has:

Op-Ed: Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open was a stand for disability rights

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

www.latimes.com

OK, he's not a lawyer. But this guy is:

Naomi Osaka And The French Open: A Tale Of Disability Discrimination

The Roland-Garros tennis tournament’s brusque treatment of Naomi Osaka would have likely run afoul of the disability discrimination laws had it taken place in the U.S.

www.forbes.com

That said, I don't think it should be, or will be, a legal question at all. I would say it's not reasonable to expect, or require, someone experiencing mental health issues to have to pursue legal action to gain reasonable accommodation, but reason sadly often comes after legal action rather than before.

But legality isn't the only thing at play here. Answering questions, let alone answering questions in circumstances that can't be tolerated due to mental health, is very obviously not an intrinsic part of the game of tennis, and clearly does not have to be part of the job. Given the support for Naomi Osaka I've seen, and the criticism of the organisers, I think we'll be seeing appropriate accommodations made sooner rather than later.

Our perception and support of mental health issues may lag behind our perception and support of physical health issues, but it's still getting there.

Then no one has to do anything for their job if it stresses them out because mental health. The death knell of capitalism, and therefore productivity. Man, if only I could have kept my $7.50 an hour job back in college by whining about how much sweeping floors stresses me out and I just can't even.

Again, there are tons of jobs out there where she never has to answer a single question. She can be a tennis pro at a country club, work part time, and still make more than most of us and never talk to the media again. Not a bad life.

 

[Arathrael]

Then no one has to do anything for their job if it stresses them out because mental health. The death knell of capitalism, and therefore productivity. Man, if only I could have kept my $7.50 an hour job back in college by whining about how much sweeping floors stresses me out and I just can't even.

I mean, again, I'm not an expert in the ADA or anything, but I'm pretty sure it allows for reasonable accommodations taking into account what is and isn't an intrinsic part of a job, as I just addressed, rather than allowing a free-for-all that results in the "death knell of capitalism".

And I don't think making reasonable accommodations for people who need them leads to everyone else faking conditions, consequently killing "capitalism, and therefore productivity" either, any more than Casey Martin successfully suing the PGA Tour resulted in every professional golfer faking a limp so they could use a cart.

So, well, no. That's not a thing. At all.