Someone might want to play tennis at the highest level and at the same time only be in the "public eye" to a medium extent (spectators and broadcast of the actual match) rather than to the extreme. That shouldn't be an unreasonable ask.

> Someone might want to play tennis

Then play tennis.

But when you sign endorsement deals that has your face on billboards that are several stories tall, complaining about being the public eye is disingenuous:

* https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv4DGMdJgcm/

* https://tennistonic.com/tennis-news/60258/naomi-osaka-takes-...

Perhaps she reasonably assumed that if someone pays to put your face on a billboard while wearing your product, then they are paying to put your face on a billboard while wearing your product. Transaction complete.

The expectation that they should accept further exploitation (paparazzi, forced interviews, etc) is a societal disease; these people are human as well.

The only reason why she is paid to have her face on a billboard is because of her activities in the tennis world. If she is unknown to the general public for being a tennis star, then there is no value to the companies paying her for the use of her image.

If she wants the endorsements she has to put up with the fame. The two go hand in hand. She is trading the hassle of extra attention for a big cheque. Besides perhaps Tiger Woods, I doubt a random person of the general public could name a golf player. Which is why Tiger Woods has/had the endorsement contracts.

If have no problem with her just wanting to play tennis, or not wanting to be in the public spotlight. But to agree to be on public billboards, and not-agree to do public interviews, is an inconsistent position IMHO.

Stop taking the multi-million dollar cheques if you don't want the attention. You'll fall into obscurity quite quickly: how many people pay attention to Andre Agassi or Steffi Graf nowadays?

The reason she is paid is because she is one of the best in the world at doing one specific thing. That’s what people enjoy watching her do.

The promotion of her as an athlete could focus on videos, photos and live spectatorship of the thing she actually does well. She can remain super famous in the context of her sport and people can otherwise leave her alone. Taking a sponsorship should not mean allowing someone control over your life outside of work.

The blind acceptance of the idea of “this is the way this industry has always been run, you better accept it or get out of the way” is how people like Weinstein ever had any power. Good on her to stand up for her well-being and point out the obvious flaws and exploitation in these systems that no one wants to address. That’s how change happens.

> The promotion of her as an athlete could focus on videos, photos and live spectatorship of the thing she actually does well. She can remain super famous in the context of her sport and people can otherwise leave her alone.

And the OP's article is about her (not) doing interviews in relation to the exact context of where her fame is.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I do not think she should be hassled walking down the street, except maybe a fan wanting a selfie with her (which she has the right to decline). But we're talking about participating in things in the context of her career in the tennis world.

If tennis fans wanted to watch some randos play, they could go to their local park and watch two unskilled yahoos (try to) bounce the ball back and forth. But people pay to watched skilled professionals perform at an elite level. These players get their living from being a public spectacle on the court.

If anyone wants to simply pay tennis in peace they can join a private club and smash the ball out of the public eye. But you won't be paid to do it. Every career has its pros and cons.

There is certainly no changing your viewpoint on anything.

For the sake of basic human empathy, I hope that the industry starts to see things Osaka's way instead of yours.

It's absolutely insane that it's the 21st century and we're still having heated debates on whether or not people deserve the most basic level of privacy and autonomy.

>But when you are paid to be in the public eye,

I beg to differ. She is competing in a tennis competition. To do this she should be required to play tennis, and nothing else, not "be in the public eye".

Pro athletes have done basic media days, outreach, and non-antagonizing interviews. Why do they need to do more than that? Why does the default need to be for the public to obsess over them?