At the US Open, 100 influencers and content creators were accredited. One group did a photo shoot during a Naomi Osaka match. The match was disrupted. I know the feeling. Not the hundred influencers, but the principle.
Richard Atkinson, interim chief executive of Wimbledon, told Leaders Week London: “We don’t have a category of accredited people called influencers.” He joked that the Royal Marine Commandos on security would like “nothing more” than to “sort out” influencers. He defends self-regulation: spectators respect the action.
At my club, we have self-regulation. Well, we had. Last Sunday, in doubles, I’m serving at 4-5 and my partner’s husband is filming for his story. His phone is a metre from the net. I double fault. People judge the double fault. What I see is a lit screen in my zone.
Atkinson calls influencers “crucial” for marketing and says banning them outright would be “absurd”. Polo Ralph Lauren will have its own, closely managed. Our sponsor is the chip shop next door. It has no influencer. It has a free cone of chips if you win, which is more motivating.
And no ring lights for spectators. That one, I’ll sign off on. On court 4, under the neon, one more light in the line of sight and I can’t see the ball at all.
The gentleman with the phone was the husband. One doesn’t always get to choose.
Coco Gauff, world number four, wants to welcome a “new audience” and said: “I think it’s just, follow the etiquette of the sport. That’s all.” I’m printing it for my binder. My partner’s husband will read it, two matches away, mind you.
It’s true, we checked: BBC Sport.
