The French Open incident should not go down as a gender or race issue or make for keyboard activism, but it should be a catalyst for real change in tennis.
If there is one thing that all parties involved in the episode of Naomi Osaka withdrawing from the French Open over media boycott can agree on, it should be this – that could have gone better. The world No 2 could have worded her initial statement better. She admitted as much in her second. The French Open organisers could have tried to understand and accommodate her better. Their initial reaction was emphatic. Osaka’s management and coaching team could have tried to initiate a discussion before the tournament began to find a middle ground after the player was approached to reconsider. The lack of dialogue became a turning point. The four Grand Slams could have been less threatening in their joint response. The word ‘default’ became the trending phrase. Essentially, both sides have been at fault and both parties have valid points. Perhaps a simple one-on-one conversation instead of public declarations could have stopped the situation from escalating. But instead, we witnessed a saga of one-upmanship and entitlement, warnings and snarky social media posts, misrepresentations and polarisation. As things stand, there is little point in a post-mortem. Instead, the focus of all the stakeholders should be on what we learned from the whole incident, as uncomfortable as it is. The most important takeaway is that Osaka’s message should not be lost because of the medium or method. There has to be a change somewhere. Naomi Osaka, a four-time Grand Slam champion and one of the sport’s most prominent ambassadors, admitted to having a mental health problem.
