A US Open spectator went viral for disrupting play to get content for social media. Fair game, or ban phones at courtside?

What happened

During Naomi Osaka's first-round US Open match against Anastasia Zakharova at Arthur Ashe Stadium, a group of influencers in a luxury suite filmed a TikTok video and yelled a line in unison loudly enough that the chair umpire paused play mid-point and gestured for quiet. It wasn't an isolated incident: other influencers used ring lights during live points and stood in restricted areas for content. The USTA had accredited about 100 content-creator credentials for this year's tournament, up from 54 in 2025, specifically to reach younger, digitally-native audiences more cheaply than traditional marketing.

Why people disagree

Tournament and marketing voices defend the strategy: influencers reach demographics traditional media can't, for a fraction of the cost of a normal ad campaign, and "this isn't going away any time soon," as one sports-media analyst put it. Players see it differently — Jessica Pegula acknowledged the promotional upside but said the disruptions felt disrespectful to competitors, noting "people are down there trying to perform, and it's their career and their job." Fans in the stands were split too: one attendee called the suite photoshoot "one of the cringiest things" he'd seen at the tournament and said "the U.S. Open used to be an actual tennis tournament," while others treat it as the harmless cost of a sport trying to stay culturally relevant.

What's still unclear

Whether louder in-match enforcement (Daniil Medvedev guessed influencers would comply after being corrected once) actually curbs the disruptions, or whether the USTA keeps expanding creator access regardless since the audience reach is the point. Also unresolved: whether engagement from influencer content actually converts into new tennis fans and viewership, or just racks up views without building the audience tournaments are chasing it for.