Naomi Osaka, Press Conferences and Mental Health

Timeline

1. May 26, 2021Osaka says she will not do press at the French Open.
2. May 30, 2021She wins her first match, skips media and is fined $15,000; the Slams warn of expulsion.
3. May 31, 2021Osaka withdraws, disclosing depression and social anxiety.
4. Jun 17, 2021She withdraws from Wimbledon.
5. Jul 8, 2021In a Time essay, she proposes press-free "sick days."
6. Jul 23, 2021She lights the Olympic cauldron in Tokyo.

The ethical issues

• Contractual obligations: mandatory media duties.
• Athlete mental health and disclosure.
• Media access and the public interest.
• Power: the response of governing bodies to a star athlete.
• Privacy: whether athletes must explain health reasons.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Naomi Osaka	Health, privacy and career.
Other players	Fair and consistent rules.
Tournaments	Media coverage and rule enforcement.
Journalists	Access to athletes.
Sponsors and broadcasters	Exposure and image.
Fans	Connection to athletes.

The case

By 2021, Naomi Osaka had won four Grand Slam titles, was ranked No. 2 in the world and was one of the highest-earning women athletes ever.^[1]

Background

Osaka’s 2021 decision came at the peak of her career. She had won two more major titles in the previous two seasons and arrived at the Tokyo Olympics ranked second in the world.^[1] She was also one of the most commercially valuable athletes in any sport, which raised the stakes of her relationship with the media and tournaments.^[1] Her withdrawal statement said that her depression dated back to the 2018 U.S. Open, her first Grand Slam title.^[3]

The rules and governance

Media obligations are written into the rules that govern the Grand Slams. Players must attend post-match press conferences, and the referee can fine those who do not.^[1] The joint statement issued by the four tournaments set out escalating consequences under the code: higher fines, possible default from the tournament and possible suspension from future Slams.^[1][2][4] The rules did not provide an exception for mental health that would let a player skip press without revealing personal reasons. That gap was what Osaka’s “sick days” proposal targeted.^[4]

Fines were handled within the existing structure; there was no separate hearing process. Osaka’s withdrawal ended the matter at the tournament before any further penalty was imposed.^[2]

The announcement

Shortly before the 2021 French Open, Osaka announced she would not do her mandatory media sessions at the tournament, saying she wanted to protect her mental health.^[1][2] Grand Slam rules require players to attend post-match press conferences, and violations can bring fines.^[1]

The fine and the threat

According to the tournaments, Roland-Garros staff asked Osaka to reconsider after her announcement. They said they tried without success to speak with her about her well-being and what might be done on site. The four Slams then wrote to her jointly, offering support and reminding her of her obligations.^[5] On May 30, Osaka won her first-round match in straight sets and did not attend the press conference. The referee fined her $15,000 under article III H of the Code of Conduct.^[2][5]

The same day, the four tournaments issued a joint statement. It said the players’ responsibility to engage with the media, “whatever the result of their match,” was “a core element of the Grand Slam regulations.”^[5] Repeat violations, it warned, could bring default from the tournament under article III T. They could also trigger a “major offence” investigation under article IV A.3, leading to larger fines and future Grand Slam suspensions.^[5] The statement framed the issue as fairness. It said a player who skipped media while “the others all honour their commitments” gained “an unfair advantage.” Rules exist, it said, so that “all players are treated exactly the same, no matter their stature, beliefs or achievement.”^[5] It also said the mental health of players was “of the utmost importance.”^[5]

The withdrawal

On May 31, Osaka withdrew. “I never wanted to be a distraction and I accept my timing was not ideal and my message could have been clearer,” she wrote. “The truth is I have suffered long bouts of depression since the US Open in 2018 and I have had a really hard time coping with that.” She said she was introverted, wore headphones to “dull my social anxiety,” and got “huge waves of anxiety” before speaking to the media. She said she had announced her decision publicly “because I do feel like the rules are quite outdated in parts.”^[3]

The French federation’s president called the withdrawal “unfortunate” and said organizers remained committed to “athletes’ wellbeing.”^[2] Many athletes and sponsors supported Osaka, though reactions in tennis were mixed.^[1] Osaka also withdrew from Wimbledon, then returned for the Tokyo Olympics, where she lit the cauldron.^[1]

A change of tone

On June 1, a day after the withdrawal, the four Slams issued a second statement in a different register. They offered Osaka “our support and assistance in any way possible as she takes time away from the court.” They called mental health “complex and personal” and commended her “for sharing in her own words the pressures and anxieties she is feeling.”^[6] The statement promised to work with the WTA, ATP and ITF “to advance mental health and wellbeing through further actions” and to improve the player experience, “including as it relates to media.” It kept the principle of the first statement, though: change “should come through the lens of maintaining a fair playing field, regardless of ranking or status.”^[6]

The proposal

In a July 2021 essay in Time, Osaka wrote, “I love the press; I do not love all press conferences.”^[4][7] She said the issue was “never about the press, but rather the traditional format of the press conference.” She noted that she had missed one press conference in seven years on tour.^[7] She also described the cost of disclosure. “I felt under a great amount of pressure to disclose my symptoms—frankly because the press and the tournament did not believe me,” she wrote, and she asked the press “for some level of privacy and empathy.”^[7] Her main proposal was to allow “a small number of ‘sick days’ per year where you are excused from your press commitments without having to disclose your personal reasons.” She added: “In any other line of work, you would be forgiven for taking a personal day here and there.”^[4][7] She said she felt “uncomfortable being the spokesperson or face of athlete mental health.”^[7] She also described the response from other athletes: “Michael Phelps told me that by speaking up I may have saved a life.” “If that’s true, then it was all worth it,” she wrote.^[7]

Aftermath

At Tokyo, she became the first tennis player to light the Olympic cauldron.^[1] Her ranking later fell to 85, partly because of her absences from tournaments in 2021.^[1] In a May 2022 interview she said that, despite ups and downs, she felt content with her mental health journey.^[1]

The core dilemma

Press conferences help tournaments, sponsors and media and are part of what players agree to. Osaka argued that forcing an anxious athlete to speak harmed her health and that she should not have to disclose her condition to be excused. How should a sport balance obligations with welfare?

Competing values

• Rule consistency vs. individual accommodation.
• Media access vs. athlete privacy.
• Commercial obligations vs. health.
• Institutional authority vs. athlete voice.

Strongest arguments

For the tournaments: rules apply to all players, media coverage sustains the sport and its prize money, and exemptions for stars would be unfair.

For Osaka: mental health is health, press conferences have little competitive purpose, and threatening expulsion forced her to disclose private information.

Applying the frameworks

Ethics of care

The care lens begins with a young athlete who said she was struggling, and asks whether institutions responded with attention and support or with escalating threats. It favors flexible rules that let athletes protect their wellbeing without public disclosure of private health.

Rights

A rights lens weighs the athlete’s privacy and autonomy over her health against the press’s role and the contractual obligations that come with tournament participation. It asks whether rules requiring media appearances should include accommodations, as workplaces do for health conditions.

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh the value of press access to fans, sponsors and the sport’s economics against the cost to athletes’ wellbeing and the loss when a star withdraws. A policy that occasionally excuses players may produce better outcomes for everyone over time.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are the referee at the 2021 French Open after Osaka skips her first press conference. The stakeholders include Osaka, other players, the media, the tournament, sponsors, fans and the other Grand Slams. The codes in play are the Grand Slam rulebook and its media obligations.
2. Gather facts. What does the rule require, and what discretion do you have? What has Osaka said about her reasons?
3. Test options. Options: (a) fine and warn of escalation; (b) fine without a public threat and seek a private conversation; (c) seek a temporary accommodation. Weigh consistent enforcement against the player’s health and privacy.
4. Check codes and law. Are you treating a mental health concern as a discipline problem? Would your response look appropriate if the facts were fully known?
5. Decide and document. Record the decision and any conversations held.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate privately with the player first, and propose reviewing the rules on media duties with player representatives.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the fine; the joint statement; the withdrawal and her stated reasons.
• Contested: how media obligations should be structured; whether the Slams’ response was appropriate.

Why this case matters

Osaka’s withdrawal, alongside other athletes’ disclosures in 2021, made mental health a central issue in sport governance.

Key terms

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Journalism ethics (SPJ principles)

Seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent.

Consent and autonomy

Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should media duties be mandatory for professional athletes? Why do they exist?
2. Were the Grand Slams right to threaten expulsion?
3. Should athletes have to disclose health reasons to be excused?
4. Is it fair to other players to exempt a star from rules?
5. How should journalists adapt press conferences?

Sources

1. Naomi Osaka — Wikipedia
2. Naomi Osaka withdraws from French Open & reveals 'bouts of depression' — BBC Sport
3. Naomi Osaka: French Open withdrawal statement in full — Al Jazeera
4. Naomi Osaka Calls For Revamped Press Conference Format And 'Mental Health Days' For Pro Athletes — Forbes
5. Statement from Grand Slam tournaments regarding Naomi Osaka (May 30, 2021) — Roland-Garros (French Tennis Federation) on behalf of the four Grand Slams
6. Statement from the Grand Slam tournaments (June 1, 2021) — Roland-Garros (French Tennis Federation) on behalf of the four Grand Slams
7. Naomi Osaka: 'It's O.K. Not to Be O.K.' (July 8, 2021) — TIME