The Best Decision For All

In the end, Naomi Osaka did the thing that was probably best for everyone by withdrawing from the French Open.  She wasn't gonna give press conferences, no matter how much she was fined.  The tournament organizers weren't gonna let her get away with it, so they were gonna keep fining her and threaten her with even stronger discipline.  And the story, which had taken on a life of its own, wasn't gonna go away as long as she was still playing.

Personally, I think a lot of people did a lot of things wrong here.  What did Osaka expect when she released her preemptive statement on Twitter?  She had to know that it would draw a reaction and that not everyone would take it kindly.  For all the support she got (from a lot of people who didn't bother to try and understand the whole story), she had to expect the negative response from others.

Likewise, she was putting the tournament between a rock and a hard place.  The fact that she's Naomi Osaka, the winner of the last two Grand Slam tournaments and the most well-known women's player this side of Serena is irrelevant.  The rules are the same for everybody, and the rule is that players must make themselves available for press conferences if asked.  They don't all like it, but they also know it's part of the job, so they do it.

Meanwhile, the FFT (French Tennis Federation) was left with an unpleasant choice of imposing the penalties that are on the books and everybody knows or letting her get away with it and suffering no consequences at all.  Neither option was great.  The first makes it look like they don't care about the mental health of players.  The second could be interpreted as giving her special treatment, which could potentially prompt resentment and claims of favoritism.

Worse, it would've opened up a dangerous can of worms.  If Osaka was given a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, what would stop other players from wanting the same treatment on days they didn't feel like speaking with the media?  And if everybody's skipping press conferences, what's the point of even having them?

And, yes, it would've given her a competitive advantage.  The press commitments can be burdensome, especially after a long match.  But everyone has to do them!  Novak Djokovic, for example, played the night match yesterday.  Between his press commitments and his postmatch routine, he probably didn't get back to his hotel until well after midnight.  It obviously would've been much easier if he didn't have the press responsibilities and could just leave right after the match, but that's not how it works.  But, by simply ignoring that press responsibility part of the job, Osaka would've been able to do exactly that...while everybody else had to add that extra half-hour to their list of things to do.

I'm not gonna get into her mental health issues and whether or not I think they're legitimate.  It's not my place to even try and make a diagnosis.  If she says they are, then they are.  But her initial statement came off as selfish and self-indulgent.  She was taking the easy way out because she didn't want to answer tough questions.  It's obviously not that simple, as Osaka and her sister both explained in separate statements, but that's the way it looked to a lot of people.

Osaka's also doing herself a great disservice with her media boycott.  She's the only one out there on the court, so she's the only one who can explain certain things or her mindset in a particular situation.  It's the press's job to try and understand so that they can promote the sport...which is something they can't do if they don't have that access!  And if they don't have that access, they can't do their jobs and they'll stop covering the sport.

Blaming the media wasn't the answer, either.  None of this is their fault.  They have a job to do, which most players understand.  And, again, the only reason players have to give press conferences is because there are members of the working press their covering the tournament.  Press conferences exist so they can do their jobs.  Are they sometimes unpleasant?  Yes.  But they're also your only chance to have your say and give your perspective.

The four Grand Slams have suggested they'd like to work with her to come up with some sort of solution moving forward, but I'm not sure what that would be.  Because press conferences are necessary.  They aren't just necessary, they're very important for the sport.  What type of alternative would there be that still achieves the same objective?  I'm not sure there is one.

A lot of articles about this have made an interesting comparison between Osaka and Ronda Rousey.  Ronda Rousey was a media darling until she lost and didn't know how to handle it.  They've suggested that the same thing is happening here.  Osaka has known so much success early in her career.  She's 4-0 all-time in Grand Slam finals.  But those are all on hard courts.  Clay is a different story, though, and her struggles on clay could very well be in her head, which only adds to the problem.

So, I agree with Osaka that the best thing for everyone involved would be for her to withdraw from the tournament.  Frankly, she should've done it earlier.  That way, her media boycott wouldn't have taken on a life of its own the way that it did.

She said that she's gonna take some time away from tennis, which may be the best thing for her, too.  It's anybody's guess how long that break will be, but when she comes back, she'll need to have a different approach.  Because she'll still be expected to give press conferences.  Just like every other top player.

Things didn't have to happen this way.  Osaka shouldn't have made the media out to be the enemy.  The FFT and WTA Tour should've been more willing to have a conversation and address her concerns.  But, in the end, Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open puts the attention back where it should be.  On the tennis.