On Aryna Sabalenka, a free press and a safe world

WATCH: Aryna Sabalenka returns to the press room

I always really respect press conferences. I’m always open in my answers. I really felt bad not coming here. I couldn’t sleep. Like all those bad feelings was in my head, I couldn't fall asleep. I felt really bad not coming here. I really respect all of you guys. Thank you so much for coming here, for being interested in me. Yeah, I just felt so bad not coming here. Belarusian star Aryna Sabalenka following her quarterfinal win at Roland Garros, on her decision to resume meeting freely and openly with the world press after skipping those meetings after her previous two wins.

First, the disclaimer: Sabalenka’s about-face when she made those remarks on Tuesday was so abrupt, and her praise for the press so fulsome, that you have to wonder what role (if any) the desire for an image makeover played in her reversal. But whatever role public relations played in this chain of events, one thing is certain: her attempt to control the narrative at Roland Garros while bypassing the international media backfired. She abandoned the one-on-on post-match transcripts created remotely with help from a WTA functionary after just two attempts.

There is too much to unpack in one article when it comes to the escalating tensions and resentments currently simmering between players from Ukraine and those from Russia and Belarus, especially when those bitter feelings are playing out in the combustible atmosphere of a one-on-one sport awash in media. But a closer look at how Sabalenka’s actions played out says a lot about the challenges and value of having a free press.

Sabalenka secured her reprieve following two awkward but basically civil interactions in successive press conferences with Ukrainian journalist Daria Meshcheriakova. The Belarusian subsequently claimed that she did not feel “safe” doing her interviews. It was an odd claim, given that Sabalenka is far safer inside the grounds of Roland Garros than out on the streets of Paris. Access to Stade Roland Garros, the press center therein, and the main interview room(s) inside there are all restricted, with tight security checking credentials at all three access points. Actually, it’s harder to imagine a place safer, in any traditional sense of the word, than the main press room at Roland Garros. So what was so unsafe?

The main threat to Sabalenka was from some members of an international free press that, due to Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine, has been intent on mining answers to some troubling questions—like Sabalenka’s apparently cozy relationship with the dictator of Belarus, Putin puppet Alexandr G. Lukashenko. Sabalenka’s third-round win put her on track for a quarterfinal clash with the unofficial spokesperson for the distressed players from Ukraine, Elina Svitolina. The idea that the war, Lukashenko, and the opinions and emotions of Sabalenka and Svitolina on those subjects were irrelevant on the eve of their confrontation is right out of Crazytown.

The chain of events that justified granting Sabalenka relief from her media obligations began at this very tournament two years ago, when Naomi Osaka declared her own intent to skip press conferences. Roland Garros officials, backed by representatives from the other three Grand Slam events, did not feel that Osaka’s grounds—basically, that reporters were asking her uncomfortable questions about the state of her game—were valid. Rebuked and fined, Osaka pulled out of the tournament the following day, then announced that she had been suffering from depression and was taking an extended break from the game. Her actions launched a global focus on the mental health of elite athletes.

The pro sports community, including the Roland Garros promoters, quickly leaned into the issue—opening the door to an exemption for Sabalenka. Osaka’s problems, it quickly turned out, had less to do with the press (who were initially cast as the scapegoats) than with her conflicted feelings about herself and the profession. Similarly, Sabalenka’s discomfort wasn’t due to a free press, but the reality of her situation as a player from Belarus. That helps explain why the plan to create her own press conferences remotely with the help of a WTA functionary produced such bizarre results. Here’s a representative excerpt from her third-round win:

WTA: In your experience, how different is the second week of a Slam than a first week? Does anything change now that you've gone through the first week, you've won three matches, you know, you've looked really good out there, pretty dominant. Do things change mentally, physically, schedule-wise? What is the second week of a Slam like for you?

ARYNA SABALENKA: I feel like the only thing changing is it's less people around, you know, (smiling). That's the only thing. The rest, you still have to go there, you still have to show your best tennis. The first week will not help you. The second week, you know, still you have to work hard, you have to show your best tennis, and you have to fight for it.

You “have to fight for it” in the second week of a major! Who knew?

When people are less safe, it’s usually in the absence of or despite a free press, not because of it.

The two anodyne transcripts issued by the WTA and Sabalenka are, as the authors wish, only about tennis. As a result, they are as interesting to read as the warning labels on prescription medications, and may be just as likely to cause nausea, severe headache or diarrhea. They sound like something issued by The Ministry of Tennis Information.

Sabalenka, or her team, probably saw that she might be doing more damage to her own cause with these remote, controlled interviews. By avoiding elephant-in-the-room subjects, they suggested that Sabalenka had something to hide, or even that she’s feeling guilty. Contrast her comments with those of Svitolina, who was asked before the quarterfinals how she felt about the media. He response echoed what most of her peers also have said:

“Well, I think it's good to have press conferences, because players are sharing their thoughts. Players are sharing some moments that they have on the court, off the court. So for people to see how they feel, what they are experiencing, because everyone would want to speak with tennis players to ask them how they felt out there on the court, what they have been going through, you know, just their thoughts.”

These days, it can be difficult and perhaps dangerous for players from Russia or Belarus—neither of which has a free press—to speak openly or truthfully, in some cases because they may even furtively support the delusions and imperial ambitions of Vladimir Putin. But hiding any anti-war feelings they may harbor is still a very small price to pay when you consider the plight of the besieged Ukrainians.

Resuming her meetings with the press on Tuesday, Sabalenka neatly sidestepped the Lukashenko issue and, more convincingly, said: “I'm not supporting war. I don't want my country to be involved in any conflict. . . You have my position. You have my answer. I answered it many times. I'm not supporting the war.”

Once again, we’re reminded that sunlight is the best disinfectant. So the next time you want to leap and shout, “Stick to sports,” or demand that the media leave politics out of tennis, be careful what you wish for. When people are less safe, it’s usually in the absence of or despite a free press, not because of it.