Southpaw 37: Full Court Press Conference
What we've learned from Naomi Osaka.
Dear Readers,
Occasionally a story emerges from the sporting world that collides so forcefully with the foundation of our political life that it simply explodes, sending fragments and shards ricocheting out in every direction, like a wine glass dropped on a hardwood floor. Inevitably, the majority of the shards end up as mere nuisances, sharp enough to hurt if you step on them but not dangerous enough to do real damage. Yet sometimes, a few of the shards manage to catch a glimmer of light, illuminating parts of our collective cultural consciousness that we hadn’t yet cared to explore.
Naomi Osaka’s decision to withdraw from the French Open this week was one of those stories, and the explosion of takes that emanated out from it is just beginning to subside. Sports-and-politics junkies like the two of us would be hard-pressed to design a story that so forcefully underscores the ways that American sports have come to embody—and in turn deepen—the political conflicts that are roiling American society more broadly: the insistence by Black and brown Americans that they be allowed to tell their own stories, without the intervention (and distortion) of traditional (i.e. white, male) gatekeepers; the backlash against this insistence by those very same gatekeepers, who are watching their power diminish in real time; the growing conflict between non-traditional “workers” and the people who still erroneously believe that they are the real producers of financial as well as cultural value; and, finally, the long-overdue incorporation of a supposedly “apolitical” realm of life—in this case, mental health—into broader political struggles.
Rather than add further to the noise, we thought we could be more helpful by sorting through the debris of the Osaka news cycle and pulling together the pieces we thought contributed something new and important to these discussions. By way of editorialization, we’ll just say this: it’s tempting for people to project their own political sensibilities, whatever they may be, onto politically-outspoken athletes, who are often our age or younger. Last year, Naomi Osaka delivered a powerful political protest at the U.S. Open, which she went on to win. Her protest launched her into a category of athletes who are recognized outside of their sport for their political beliefs. Her decision to withdraw from the French Open this year will likely fuel both sides of the narrative—one that says she is a hero for highlighting the importance of mental health, and another that paints her as an ungrateful villain for refusing to play in a tournament because of its press requirements. We would suggest that her withdrawal speaks less to any specific set of political ideas and more to her singular humanity. We should respect her decision because she’s a human, not because she’s a symbol.
Even more than usual, we’d love to hear your thoughts. Send us your comments or email us a link to a piece that shaped your thinking, and we’ll share it in next week’s newsletter.
-Ian and Calder
Full Court Press: What We’ve Learned from Naomi Osaka
“Naomi Osaka’s Complicated Withdrawal from the French Open,” by Louisa Thomas in The New Yorker.
“It has not, traditionally, been the job of the press, or the job of the public, to protect the feelings of prominent public figures. Athletes have long been praised for their stoicism. But, as ideas and attitudes about mental health have shifted, and as athletes have become more outspoken about aspects of the profession that many of them consider demeaning or dehumanizing, the dynamic between players and the press has changed, too. Mental health is, and perhaps always will be, imperfectly understood; there are, and probably always will be, arguments about what, if anything, professional athletes owe to the press and to the public, and what is owed to them. Athletes are entitled to their humanity, but not necessarily to perfect self-confidence.”
“Tennis Doesn’t Have To Taste This Bad,” by Giri Nathan in Defector
“If you don’t really care about a sport except for when the news cycle says you should, you’re more than content to treat the tennis court as a canvas for the psycho-social fixations du jour. Ignore the movement of the fuzzy yellow ball and go forth and pontificate on whatever issue struck you this week as the fulcrum on which Western civilization teeters.”
“In Naomi Osaka’s withdrawal, some see a ‘wake-up call’ for sports that neglect mental health,” by Liz Clarke in The Washington Post.
“‘I don’t think most people thought about a female athlete’s mental health in that interview room until now,’ [former Olympic swimmer and civil rights attorney Nancy] Hogshead-Makar said. ‘It was obvious Naomi Osaka didn’t like news conferences, but few appreciated that she is just 23 and that she found them torturous. She was expected to deliver substantive responses that many tenured professors would have struggled to provide. It is embarrassing that we are only now recognizing the humanity of our athletes.’”
“We’re not the good guys: Osaka shows up the problems of press conferences,” by Jonathan Liew in The Guardian.
[T]he modern press conference is no longer a meaningful exchange but really a lowest‑common‑denominator transaction: a cynical and often predatory game in which the object is to mine as much content from the subject as possible. Gossip: good. Anger: good. Feuds: good. Tears: good. Personal tragedy: good. Meanwhile the young athlete, often still caught up in the emotions of victory or defeat, is expected to answer the most intimate questions in the least intimate setting, in front of an array of strangers and backed by a piece of sponsored cardboard.
“Naomi Osaka and the Power of ‘Nope,” by Lindsay Crouse in The New York Times
“Anyone inclined to cynicism about Ms. Osaka’s concern about the media need only watch a question posed at a recent news conference at the French Open to the 17-year-old tennis sensation Coco Gauff: ‘You are often compared to the Williams sisters. Maybe it’s because you’re Black. But I guess it’s because you’re talented and maybe American, too,’ a journalist reportedly declared, bizarrely, before asking, ‘We could have a final between you and Serena. Is it something you hope for? I mean, 22 years separate you girls.’”
“Naomi Osaka and the Growing Backlash Against Athletes Who Dare to Speak Out,” by Dave Zirin in The Nation.
“There is a century-plus long history of tennis treating its women players like second-class citizens. For the few women of color that have ascended the ranks, the treatment has been even worse. Their response is about disciplining Osaka. This isn’t about press conferences. It’s about taking the player who used what in their minds is their platform to go off script and punishing her for it . . . This is what a backlash to activist athletes looks like: a generalized mood among white fans combining with conservative owners to send a message that 2020 is over and old hierarchies must return. No matter how messy, they want the wine back in the bottle just as sure as those jerseys and helmets with political slogans are back with the mothballs.”
“Naomi Osaka Is Part of a Larger War Within Sports,” by Jemele Hill in The Atlantic.
“Across all sports, top athletes are no longer willing to stay silent about anything—their own personal struggles or the social and political issues they care about. They want the full scope of their humanity considered, and they are willing to confront prejudice not only in sports but throughout society . . . The issues that Osaka has raised aren’t going away. These days athletes would much rather tell their own stories than let reporters do it for them. Not long ago, players couldn’t win any power struggles against the media, much less their own league. Now they can.”
RODNEY’S ROUNDUP
. . . the end of the NFL’s bizarre practice of “race norming”? “NFL Will Stop ‘Race-Norming’ Policy That Diminished Black Brain Injuries,” by Matt Stieb in New York Magazine (June 2, 2021).
. . . another reason to distrust the NCAA? “The NCAA threatened states over anti-transgender bills. But the games went on,” by Molly Hensley-Clanson in The Washington Post (June 3, 2021).
. . . when a hotdog isn’t just a hotdog? “Edge of Sports Podcast: The Politics of Tailgating,” by Dave Zirin for The Nation (June 1, 2021).