Naomi Osaka issued a statement today declaring her withdrawal from the ongoing 2021 Roland-Garros tournament. Fewer than 24 hours before its release, Osaka had sealed a first-round victory with a backhand winner down the line. Three times a loser in the third round at Roland-Garros, Osaka was halfway to that historical hurdle. She was beginning to build on her previously suboptimal clay season.
A mere day later, Osaka has withdrawn from the tournament. After a statement of veiled hostility from the Grand Slam Board (which I wrote about here) and alarmingly confrontational responses to Osaka’s move to skip press conferences during the tournament, the pressure on Osaka has proved too momentous.
Gilles Moretton, the president of the French Federation of Tennis, has responded to Osaka’s withdrawal with a brief, frustratingly vague statement.
It’s immediately clear how much more specific Osaka is in her statement. She mentions that she’s written to Roland-Garros, apologizing and offering to speak to them after the tournament. She says she never intended to be a distraction, and shows empathy in saying that it would be better for not just her own well-being, but for the tournament and other players for her to withdraw.
Moretton, meanwhile, coughed up two minute paragraphs with little substance. He states that tennis organizations are looking to improve player experience at Roland-Garros, but no responsibility is taken for the harsh statement directed towards Osaka, and no specific existing issues are included. He says that it is unfortunate that Osaka withdrew from the tournament, but this rings empty considering that had the threat of a default been followed up on, the same result of Osaka exiting the tournament without losing a match would have been arrived at.
All this is to say that Naomi Osaka was wronged. Her first statement, though clearly imperfect, was informative and an effort to explain that she felt there were issues with the press conference system, was a cry for help. But her mentions of mental health were responded to far too widely with skepticism and even hostility.
Imagine, for a minute, if Roland-Garros and the Grand Slam Board had answered Osaka’s initial statement with sympathy. “We’re sorry you’re hurting, Naomi,” they could have said. “By the rulebook, we’re obliged to fine you, and we’ll miss your press conferences, but we’re entirely in support of you taking the steps you need to in order to feel better. As such, there’s no need to worry about the traditional risk of larger fines or defaults, at least not until you’re completely better. Good luck with the tournament.”
This could have been an easy way to back up the claims that tennis organizations care about the mental health of their players. In the statement that was actually produced, the majors repeatedly expressed their desire to tend to the mental health of their players, but the reminder that sterner fines or a default could be in Osaka’s future undermined this concern.
What does it say about Roland-Garros and the Grand Slam Board that this was how a problem sparked by mental health concerns was handled? How many options will a player feel they have in the future if they are struggling with depression and want to take a step back from press conferences? Mental health has proven itself to be deserving of the utmost attention from society time and again, but tennis has reacted oppositely.
Now, Osaka will not take part in the rest of the Roland-Garros tournament due to this virtual smothering after her statement. Tennis organizations have committed their latest ghastly return unforced error when presented with a slow kick serve. The hope now is that Osaka recovers swiftly, in time to take part in the next tennis tournaments, but more importantly so that she feels happier. One might expect that after this debacle, the Grand Slam Board will learn from their mistakes and be prepared for the next time a situation like this arises.
But based on their level of competence in responding to Osaka, it isn’t wise to count on it.
The board could have handled this differently, but setting a precedent that athletes can opt out of tour obligations that are important to business/tv partners is unrealistic. Furthermore, as evident by her apology, declaring that she would not participate in her press duties w/o coming to the tournament first undercut their ability to work with her. In any work setting, mental health concerns should be taken seriously, but (in common terms) if you don’t work with management/HR and make decisions autonomously you put those decision makers in a no-win scenario. I’ve made accommodations for employees before but also run into issues when they make those accommodations themselves, without consultation, and end up disrupting the work environment. Perhaps RLG would have handled her request poorly no matter what, but we’ll never know as she never gave them the opportunity to fail.
Hi, John. Thanks for your comment and for adding some expertise as someone with employees. I think your point about acting unilaterally is a good one, as it definitely comes as a surprise to decision-makers and hurts the chances of cooperation and collaboration. With that said, I don’t think that by skipping press, Osaka made an “accommodation” since she was willing to accept and pay the fines. I also think that despite being blindsided by Osaka’s announcement, Roland-Garros could have still won by being very supportive, as I suggested in paragraph seven of the piece. My general take on this is that while Osaka’s first statement definitely had its flaws, the flaws in the response rendered them practically meaningless by comparison.