Arena The Self Importance of Sports Media

It's not a very accurate title but I went with it.

So Naomi Osaka has decided to skip press conferences at the French Open. Good for her.

I don't really care about her mental health, that's not what interested me or what this thread is about.

What did interest me is that tennis players, like other athletes, can be fined for skipping a press conference.

This is the stance of multiple sports organizations, including the NBA and the NFL.

This isn't the 1920s, when sports were only broadcast on radio. I don't think players doing press matters. I don't think it adds significant value. I don't think anyone watches press conferences. The ratings of pre-game and post-game shows (the latter often features a press conference) are minuscule in comparison to the actual sporting event. Most of the time, unless something outrageous is said (and players are coached not to say such things), I don't think anyone cares what is said during them. I've watched plenty of tennis but I literally can't tell you anything any tennis player has ever said during a press conference. I can think of a few exceptions in other sports, but they're very rare. My favorite athlete of all time is Barry Sanders, I've watched ever NFL game he has ever played, and I can't tell you anything he has ever said.

Since press conferences don't matter at all, they should be entirely voluntary. The colorful characters who like to talk will still do them and give good soundbites to promote the sport and themselves when they feel like it. Even then I think the structure of press conferences are outdated and unnecessary. Why should athletes bother answering the same mundane questions a million times when they can skip the press entirely and speak directly to their fans on social media? The latter seems to do more for athletes and their brands than boring press conferences no one watches. On social media they have control and can speak about whatever they want, however they want. They can even answer whatever fan questions they want, and skip the ones they don't. I guess this means they can skip "tough" questions, but they can do that already by giving it a non-answer.

When people like ESPN's Rachel Nichols defend mandatory press conferences as important to selling sports, it's just the press attempting to make themselves seem more important than they really are for their own self-interest. If athletes stopped doing press conferences, I don't think the revenues would suffer much, but perhaps some sports journalists would be out of a job. Even still, sports talk shows could still function, as they still have the games to discuss.

How much can an organization fine an athlete for merely not speaking to the press? I know each organization has it's rules, but just as a thought experiment, how far is it fair to go? Can it go on forever? At some point, there has to be a lifetime cap, no? Can an athlete be fined millions of dollars for it? I mean, is their non-communication really costing that much money in revenue? What if an organization has a large fine for non-communication, and it is applied to a lower salary athlete? What if the fine is literally an athlete's entire salary? Either yearly, or just one game check? Doesn't that mean the athlete worked and was not compensated? What if this went on for an athlete's entire career?

I wonder what would happen if an athlete decided to really challenge this and refused to speak to the press. I kinda want to see the Marshawn Lynch experiment go on for a player's entire career, to see what would happen. I wonder if they could push it far enough, rack up enough fines, to highlight the, uh, the needless authoritarianism, the illiberality of forcing people to speak to the press against their will in order to participate in an occupation that doesn't require it. Something for powerful athletes and players' unions to consider.

tl;dr: I don't think athletes should have to do press conferences, they're generally boring and no one watches them.

 

Well -- you're wrong in almost all cases.

The reason your wrong is because that in large part the players in most professional sporting conferences are in unions that have collectively bargained requirements. Hence, it's required for you to actually participate in the sport. It's why I was keen on Marshawn Lynch's "I'm just here so I don't get fined" -- because he was technically correct in his approach, that the CBA only required appearance and answering, not that he answer coherently/correctly. I was tickled at his interpretation.

Similarly, while the WTA may fine women tennis players for not appearing, it's not a requirement for Osaka to attend -- so long as she pay the fine -- because (women) tennis players aren't unionized. I think this is actually one of the things that came up with the men's tennis pros trying to unionize -- what the rules and bargained agreements would contain.

Players appearing in media is a huge, huge part of monetization of the sport, and any sport that has a team and which has an owner, is going to require this. Golfers and tennis players, on the other hand, can do whatever they want, so long as conduct of the tournament and/or organizing committees are followed. Being a professional athlete is a job -- and as such, jobs have certain requirements. IF the only penalty for not doing a part of your job is a fine, and you can pay it, don't do it if you don't want to. But if you're unionized, or you are part of an amateur organization with requirements (like the USOC), then you have no choice other than to not be an athlete.

 

I think if you’re getting paid ludicrous amounts of money, you can suck it up and answer questions at a presser. Whether or not they’re needed is a separate thing IMO, the sports organizations themselves seem to think they’re useful and they have a vested interest in the sport surviving. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t watch them for the most part but it doesn’t seem like a huge burden and yeah, if you’re contractually obligated (I guess not the case here), shut up and do it.
Sports media does have a giant chip on its shoulder though, I agree and can never take them seriously. Dressing up in suits and sitting around a news style desk to discuss adults batting around a ball or whatever is laughable on its face IMO.

 

Given the stakes involved of professional sports, and the money that these athletes make themselves and the money they make for the organization, they ought to be held publicly accountable for their play. As any employee would have to be in any organization. And from the organization's perspective, if a player is not willing to do that, then they don't have to hire that player.

The athletes themselves need to understand the responsibilities bestowed on them as well. And should know that being held accountable for their performance is also part of the job. Any athlete who wants to have an attitude about that is not somebody you want to hire in your organization.

But I do agree, the circus that has become sports media in general, with everybody trying to get the hot take and be the one to say it or publish it first, is totally unnecessary. And I do often question what it is these people are doing with their lives dedicating so much of themselves, their time, and their energy, to watching a group of guys play a game.

 

DP, I'm glad you didn't fully read, or comprehend, my OP. I know there's a CBA. I'm not new. You should know I already know there's a CBA, particularly if you read the OP. I already mentioned that organizations have their own rules for this. I used the word "challenge". I said players' unions should challenge. To challenge implies that there's already an agreement in place to challenge.

Your response was worthless. You contributed nothing. I asked for people to consider this as a thought experiment. You didn't. I asked people to consider whether or not this was fair. You really didn't. You went straight to "well, they agreed to it in the CBA". But does that mean it's actually fair? It's perfectly possible for a union to agree to something that is unfair, but customary. You didn't consider this at all.

I'm not talking about CBAs. That's not interesting. I'm talking about challenging norms here.

And, no, players doing press conferences is not a huge, huge part of monetization of sport, especially since many of them are not broadcast and produce no revenue. The games themselves and their broadcast rights are the huge, huge monetization of the sport.

 

As a thought exercise, I see no way this will ever happen in a collectively-bargained sport -- because the owners will never allow it.

I comprehended your OP and thoroughly rejected it. Your premise of your assertion "Since press conferences don't matter at all, they should be entirely voluntary" is based on your opinion "I don't think players doing press matters. I don't think it adds significant value. I don't think anyone watches press conferences" which is false (and demonstrably so). The fact that anyone even knows who Riley Curry is lies largely due to the press conference scenario.

If you want to limit the scope of your thought exercise to where could reductions be made (i.e. does every player on every team have to be made available to the media every day), that's probably more doable (and, indeed, I do believe happens today in some circumstances) -- but you're still going to have star players, players who made key plays, starting pitchers, players with key errors, and managers being made available every game almost no matter what.

 

Sorry, I don't want to live in a world without Bobby Ramos.

 

I don't know who Riley Curry is. Using google, turns out to be someone who isn't even an athlete. Most NBA fans have no idea who Riley Curry is. Even those that do spend zero time thinking of her and don't tune in to see her. She's irrelevant.

If you believe press conferences are a huge, huge part of monetization of the sport, feel free to provide the figures proving it. Show me the revenue stream created by press conferences.

I mentioned certain exceptions. Shaq. Shaq was an exception. I remember several quotes by Shaq during press conferences or while he was talking to the press in the locker room. But these are rare exceptions that can still happen if doing press was voluntary. Shaq was going to talk even if he didn't have to, because he wanted to.

 

Not gonna lie, you pretty much lost me here.

I do care about mental health. I do care about job conditions that negatively impact mental health. It doesn't matter if it's a truck driver, a mechanic, a tennis player, or an NBA megastar. Mental health should matter, and things that get flagged as a detriment towards mental health should be removed or at least mitigated.

I also do care about quality of play. An athlete talking about things that routinely bring doubt into their mind (see the quote you used in the OP) is going to cause - for many of them - a drop in quality of play. A confident athlete is going to play better and in a more entertaining style than one who is doubting themselves. I am absolutely certain of that, except in cases where doubt is the motivator the athlete needs (and I think a lot of times that pretty much manufactured doubt - "ain't nobody believed in us" says coach of the #2 ranked team in the country who received 30% of the first place votes, for example).

I would be glad to drum up support to get rid of these press conferences for the benefit of the athlete's mental health and the quality of play on the field.

What I don't care about? Athletes wanting to not do something simply because ... they don't want to do it. I don't like attending finance reviews. They are largely not memorable to me. I can't remember 99.999% of anything I've ever heard at a finance review at work at any level.

You don't get to pick and choose the aspects of your job that you do based on what you like and what you don't like, unless you're like Jeff Bezos or something. And, the money that drives most of these sports comes from sports media contracts, which are full of these obligations for press conferences. Because, while the ratings are minimal compared to the actual, live event ... they are still ratings, drive eyeballs, give content, and generate revenue. And they give the media partners with the rights some sort of exclusivity or publication access, which - again - is important to their business model.

 

Sports media in the US is an $80 billion (with a B) dollar business a year -- that's higher than the GDP of 10 states, mind you -- and that's largely driven by network contracts to show sports. So, it absolutely makes sense that they (networks) require access to players as a function of them (owners and players) getting paid by the networks.

The TV contracts largely drive revenue sharing and contracts (i.e. why the Yankees, with YES, were able to pay so much more in general in contracts plus luxury tax, because they could offset everything with TV revenue). I don't recall if the CBA covers streaming rights and revenue sharing, or if that's just "free money" to the owners like the late-1990s/early-2000s WGA strike in Hollywood...

There's a decent correlation between TV revenue and team payroll, which drives salaries... clearly this isn't the case in individual sports, which (one presumes) why there's less impetus to unionize there.

Spoiler: Large graphs

Again, like Inty I'm sympathetic to a player's mental health, but on the other hand you get into the business knowing what's required, right? It's why we don't want doctors to be able to prescribe or not prescribe medicine, or refuse procedures, based upon their religion.

Going back to Osaka's case, WTA requires press conferences as a part of the tour -- but I believe it's just a fine (i.e. they cannot prevent her from playing). So she's fine (no pun intended) to simply pay it and go about her business, no harm no foul.

 

Or just do what Bill Belichick does and answer the stupid questions with equally stupid replies and have fun with it.

 

It’s definitely true that you could replace most press conferences with a robot reading from a randomized list of vapid sports cliches and nobody would notice the difference. So I get the frustration.

Still there’s the occasional gem that comes out of them. Like for instance we recently found out that Tony LaRussa is so obsessed with unwritten rules that he’s in favor of his own players getting beaned.

 

you talking about practice?

Those occasional gems are far beyond just gems.

 

Most press conferences are insanely pointless/annoying (do we really need to hear from Dave Roberts after every Dodger game? No!), but to be honest, is it such a great strain on the mental health of an athlete? That serious? I'm not entirely sure on that.

 

I mean, beyond press conferences, there is some purpose in allowing experts of the sport to provide analysis of specific game play, of the strengths and weaknesses of players and teams, and of possible outcomes for future games. I would even say off the field topics like player trades and coaching changes are subjects worthy of discussing, especially in how they will impact on field play. I have that kind of stuff on all the time.

It's all the radio and television shows, with these over the top media personalities who offer nothing except gossip talk, that need to go away. Everywhere you turn there's some manufactured personality trying to tell you the hottest take. And they're all trying to outdo each other too, and it's just completely cringey, ridiculous, and unnecessary. But unfortunately, that side of it has just exploded in the last decade, and has bled into every aspect of sports media including the legitimate aspects of it.

 

It's also worth noting that such interactions function as a sort of check on the press themselves; you're not gonna slander LeBron James if you know you're gonna have to look him in the eye tomorrow night.

 

I'm not saying players shouldn't have to do press conferences simply because they don't like them. I'm saying they shouldn't have to do them because they provide little to no value. I don't think they are important to anyone's business model. This is what I'm challenging. I think it's sports media being self important. The obligations for press conferences exist because sports media wants to pump up it's own importance. I've seen sports talk shows: the vast majority of time isn't spent on what is said during press conferences, unless something crazy is said, which is rare. Most of the time is spent on the games and the players' on court contributions or lack thereof.

And, again, making them voluntary doesn't mean they'll go away entirely. It means the boring ones where players rattle off cliches to fulfill their obligations will go away. And, yes, we'll miss out on meltdowns, too, but that might be a good thing. I don't know if we should be putting that pressure on athletes hoping they'll crack. That's basically just baiting/trolling for our own amusement.

To branch outside sports: I also challenge worthless mandatory activities in the common workplace. If it's worthless, I don't think employees should have to do it. It's soul-crushing and totalitarian. Mandatory press conferences where players recite cliches are the TPS reports of the sports world. We should object to things like this.

I thought we hated things like this? Why is it suddenly okay when athletes are being coerced into doing pointless things like this? Just because I'm being coerced into doing it, doesn't mean others should also be coerced into doing it. I certainly don't want them to be coerced into it. If I was a billionaire athlete, maybe I could take this on. If I was part of a powerful players' union, maybe I could challenge this and win (or not). But I'm not.

Forcing players to do press conferences is totalitarian control. It's just a power play. It's coercing people into doing something stupid and pointless that makes them completely miserable, for little to no gain.


A case where I'm actually interested in the actual details: Osaka will apparently be fined $20k for skipping the press conferences.

Does this fine apply if one refuses to speak to the press after the tournament begins? Could an unranked player be fined the same amount if she pulls off an upset and becomes a story during the French Open, but refuses to speak to the press? Some of these unranked players getting in on qualifiers are making peanuts. $20k is a lot to them, and actually a significant chunk of the payout for an early round exit. If unranked players are exempt, then cool.

 

So far, the only proof you've provided that press conferences provide "little to no value" is your own opinion stating that. Others in this very thread have posted where there is value to be found.

 

No one has posted the numbers for how much revenue press conferences generate. It looks like dp tried and failed. I feel confident in stating that they are a meaningless fraction in comparison to the revenue generated by the games themselves. I think you know this is true, but are resisting in bad faith anyway. And, again, because you're participating in bad faith, you haven't acknowledged that press conferences can (and do) happen anyway even if they're not mandatory. Even if press conferences generate revenue, they can do so without being mandatory. You refuse to acknowledge this. You haven't responded to that at all. You won't acknowledge anything I'm saying. Why should I even bother responding to you?

Steph can introduce fans to Riley Curry over social media. Doesn't have to involve a mandatory press conference. Shaq can call his opponent the Sacramento Queens on social media, or he can tell the press voluntarily.

I don't actually feel any need to look up the numbers. If someone wants to in order to prove me wrong, then go ahead. Even if they do generate revenue, that doesn't mean they have to be mandatory.

 

I guess your feelings just got hurt.

 

I'll post another possible exception: boxing and MMA. Showing that you're a crazy savage during the press build up has proven to be a big generator of revenue. See: Mike Tyson and Conor McGregor. I don't like it, in fact **** like that turned me off fight sports for good, but it makes money.

Even so, people only paid attention to Tyson in the first place because of his vicious knockouts. Without those, no one would have cared that he bit a guy during a press conference, or that he said crazy things. You need the performance first, or the hype doesn't matter. That said, saying and doing crazy things kept him making peak money even after he was past his prime. He was savvy enough to know those moments increased his income, and so he usually made sure to give the media one of those moments on his own accord. He also skipped several mandatory press events and the ensuing fights still made huge money, but I'm still willing to concede those two sports for the sake of this discussion, even though press conferences don't need to be mandatory for a fighter to do crazy things during one.

There are still plenty of fighters who don't generate anything during press conferences, so I don't see why they should be forced to do them. Put mandatory press in the contracts of fighters like Tyson and McGregor, leave it out for the fighters who never say anything interesting and don't have any interest in doing so. You're just wasting everyone's time hoping something will happen, and there's a good chance that something will be a negative, or something that shouldn't be sought, imo.

 

Have you seen a player's face during these conferences? They look like they're ready to kill themselves. They're sorta like having a little kid ask you ten million questions and talk your ear off, except instead of being understandable because it comes from a kid (presumably one you care about), it's coming from adults trying to justify unnecessary pestering by claiming exaggerated self importance and dubious revenue generation. Maybe we shouldn't coerce athletes into doing them. Because forced work is so pervasive, because so many of us don't control our work (we would be a lot happier if we did), no one seems to mind people being coerced into doing work they don't want to do. The work in question here isn't necessary and is of dubious value. Even if they generate revenue, "because they make money" isn't actually always a good reason to coerce people into doing things that harm them. The only thing that's actually necessary is for players to perform athletically.

You never hear anyone talking about ratings being up or down for press conferences or pre or post game shows. Perhaps because they don't actually matter? And if they don't matter, why should they be mandatory?

What actually matters is the games, and that's why you see reports on the ratings of the games all the time.

I'm just not sure why I'm getting so much pushback on what is basically the same point being made by Office Space.

 

Press conferences aren't just about generating hype and ratings though. When you have a business model that so openly displays your product to fans and investors, both of whom are continually pumping huge amounts of money into your organization, there is an obligation that exists to provide a certain degree of transparency. Especially when that product is not what the fans or the investors paid for. There needs to be accountability, as well as assurance to the public and to investors that this organization isn't just going to tank, which needs to happen on a continual basis. And one way to do that is through press conferences.

Now, it can be said that press conferences have gotten out of hand. And that there's too much emphasis now on hype and viral moments. But that still doesn't eliminate the need for them entirely.

And if a specific player has something like extreme social anxiety and can't do press conferences, that needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. But it also doesn't mean that that player won't ever be held accountable either. It would just have to be done in different ways.

 

That’s fair.