The US Open's influencer problem was really a brand activation problem
The US Open creator backlash was not just an etiquette problem. It showed why brands must own briefing, access and accountability at live events.
The most revealing moment in the US Open’s influencer debate was not a sponsored post. It was a tennis match stopping while people in a suite filmed content with a bright ring light during Naomi Osaka’s first-round match. The scene quickly became shorthand for “influencers at the US Open,” but that framing misses the operational problem brands should care about.
The tournament had expanded its official creator credential program, yet some of the most criticized incidents did not come through that program at all. For sponsors and brand teams, the lesson is less about whether creators belong at live events and more about who gave them access, who briefed them, and who was accountable once they were inside.
Table of contents
Jump to each section:
- What happened at Flushing Meadows
- The access did not come from where people assumed
- Two models for the creator question
- What brands should do before bringing creators to an event
- The tension that will not go away
What happened at Flushing Meadows
The US Open began credentialing content creators as media in 2025, when 54 were approved. In 2026, that number rose to close to 100, according to The Athletic. The goal was straightforward: reach people who consume sports through creators and social feeds rather than traditional tennis coverage alone.
The backlash accelerated after Osaka’s opening match, when play was paused during a photoshoot in a suite. Coco Gauff and Osaka both made a distinction that matters: new audiences are welcome, but new guests still need to understand the rules. Gauff said creators could help grow the sport, while Osaka said that kind of reach can be positive if it is managed better, as BBC Sport reported.
Tennis fans at the U.S. Open are fed up after influencers turned Naomi Osaka’s match into their personal photo shoot.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 3, 2026
Chair umpire Kader Nouni had to pause Monday's match at Arthur Ashe Stadium to scold creators using a bright ring light in a luxury suite, leaving nearby fans… pic.twitter.com/im9seDhTh5
The access did not come from where people assumed
This is where the story becomes more useful for marketers. Subsequent reporting suggested the suite group was not using the official creator accreditation route, according to Racket Business. Separately, two influencers who said their credentials were revoked had actually been submitted on a food vendor’s staff list, with USTA spokesperson Brendan McIntyre saying they were not properly credentialed as media or creators.
That means the risk did not sit only with the tournament’s creator program. It also flowed through hospitality, sponsors, vendors, suites, and other commercial access points. Whoever controls the invite list controls part of the brand risk, even when the guest is not technically participating in an official influencer program.
Two models for the creator question
The US Open and Wimbledon now represent two different answers to the same pressure. The US Open has deliberately opened a creator credential route as part of its audience-growth strategy. Wimbledon, by contrast, confirmed it will not introduce a dedicated creator accreditation category in 2027 and can confiscate disruptive equipment such as ring lights under its existing rules, according to ESPN.
That is not the same as banning creators. They can still attend through ordinary ticketing, hospitality, sponsors, or other legitimate routes. As Racket Business argued, sponsors increasingly want creators precisely because of their reach, so the practical challenge is not eliminating influence from live events. It is managing creator access without damaging the experience everyone else came for.
What brands should do before bringing creators to an event
The fix is not a 40-page rulebook. It is basic activation discipline applied before the creator enters the venue.
- Brief every guest before arrival. Explain when filming is allowed, what equipment is prohibited, where creators can shoot, and what counts as disruption.
- Put conduct in the contract. Define filming windows, equipment limits, disclosure requirements, venue-rule compliance, and consequences for breaches.
- Name one brand-side owner. Someone should be accountable for creator guests on-site, rather than leaving the venue to solve preventable problems.
- Use the official route when one exists. Vendor and staff-list workarounds create unnecessary risk for the brand, organizer, and creator.
- Plan content around the event’s rhythm. In tennis, changeovers and breaks are natural filming windows. Every conference, race, festival, award show, and sports property has its equivalent.
- Price reputational downside into the activation. A viral clip of your guests interrupting the event may travel further than the sponsored content you paid them to make.
The most important shift is to stop treating creator hospitality as separate from creator marketing. If the person was invited because they have an audience, the invitation is already part of the activation.
The tension that will not go away
Live events want younger and broader audiences. Sponsors want creator reach. Creators want access that produces content their audiences cannot get from a broadcast feed. None of those goals is unreasonable, and the player reactions at the US Open were not uniformly anti-creator.
The useful principle is simpler: access should come with responsibility. When a brand invites creators to an event, their behavior becomes part of the brand’s activation whether or not it appears in the campaign brief. Brands that understand that will brief, contract, host, and manage creator guests accordingly, instead of discovering the rules after a ring light becomes the story.
