The Naomi Osaka Rule
Here’s one… What role should we play, do we play or can we play in regards to protecting the mental wellbeing of the athletes we seek to commercialise? I’ve spent much of this week going over and over the recent concerns with Naomi Osaka and her withdrawal from the French Open. There are hallmarks in this example that point to the areas we should be doing a better job at as an industry and there’s a role we can all be playing in that.
ICYMI - Naomi Osaka announced prior to the French Open that she wouldn’t be taking part in the tournament's mandatory post-match press conferences citing concerns over her mental health. The news put the sports and entertainment industry into a tailspin of conflicting opinions, morals and judgement, but mainly just headlines about how much she was being fined
Owing to the resulting interest in her refusal to partake in the interviews, Naomi ended up withdrawing from the Major in the interests of removing the distraction she’d caused to other players, but it’s where we’re left as an industry that I find particularly important to discuss.
I must start by saying that our collective welfare, mental health and wellbeing has never been of more importance than it is today. The circumstances we’ve all endured and are enduring these past 18months have pushed us all to our limits, and beyond, and I find examples like Naomi’s particularly concerning.
What’s happened since the withdrawal? Well, of course the International Tennis Federation will undergo an investigation into the treatment of players in the hands of the media, but my worry is that this is only one part of the problem, and focussing just on the media will distract us from looking at the other key factors.
Yes the media play a huge card in this topic, but isn’t their job to ask the tough questions that help mere mortals realise these people are only human? Society looks to those in the spotlight as a source of comfort, inspiration and relatability. We need to see angst in order to learn how we can all overcome it.
I reached out to a good friend and WTA Board Member earlier this week to get their read on things. Like me, they felt the issue here wasn’t purely about the media but something that lay closer to home for Naomi; her representation…
As you’ll appreciate, agents nurture talent in order to find them commercial deals which supplement their on-court earnings through lucrative endorsements. In return, they are rewarded for their efforts. For the most part, this important relationship works very well, yet sadly there are an increasing number of examples where it doesn’t; and I fear in Naomi’s case that’s what we’re seeing.
Like many highly-strung athletes, Naomi is actually an incredibly shy person off court. She has a very sharp moral compass and deep interests in other areas of her life, but what she isn’t is the bulletproof marketing machine that she’s sold to be. It’s not that she shouldn’t be taking commercial opportunities (far from it), but more so that she be better guided and protected by those around her as she does so.
Setting expectations of the commercial realities of professional sport takes a back-seat to physical training and competing. It’s something I experienced first hand earlier this year when I was approached to work with young Aussie golfer Steph Kyriacou as she prepared to take her first season on the LET. It wasn’t until talking with Steph that it became clear that little time, if any was given to educating athletes on the commercial realities of sport. Media training, sure, but the gory details about what brands will expect if they sign deals with them, less so.
So what can we be doing better? Here’s a few thoughts:
Clearer communication. This will always lead to results. Better communication with the athlete around their purpose, principles and values in order to understand what is right and wrong for them, and doing this early enough in the journey to greatness for it to be embedded is vital. My work with Steph covered how to think of her brand, her boundaries, morals and values and also things to consider when being responsible for a brand's image other than her own.
Better guidelines. There are sadly occasions where the media overstep the mark in the nature of their questions and are then largely unaccountable to the ramifications. We see agents stepping in to cut off questions, but the damage is already done by that point. We need to help the media by shaping an appropriate approach where they’re able to elicit the insights they’re looking for without doing so at the expense of the athletes' wellbeing; if they do, there should be fair implications.
More authenticity. As athletes get more wise to the world of the commercial aspects, they’re better able to accommodate deals which may stray from their core beliefs. Setting clear frameworks for athletes early on in order to protect their welfare through appropriate deals is vital. The worry here is that they seem harmless on the surface, but have a highly negative compounding impact that hugely damages athletes' sense of self. ‘Selling out’ is a fear all athletes have, and recovering from this can take some time.
This is a difficult topic to unpack and likely to draw all types of opinions. For me, the most important thing we should be doing as an industry is to run towards the issue, not away from it. I’m not casting blame or doubt here, ultimately we’re all responsible for situations like we saw with Naomi, I just hope we can find better ways of connecting fans with their passions without being at the expense of such precious muscles such as the mind...
