BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of highlights from the ASB Classic tennis tournament breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The broadcast showed a player courtside at her players’ bench, bending over her racket bag while wearing (what appeared to be) a tennis skort. The player’s skirt lifted on a few occasions, during which the skort’s built-in shorts were at least partially visible. The camera was stationed behind the player and slowly zoomed in. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or undermine widely shared community standards. The clip did not show anything of an inappropriate or intimate nature and was not gratuitous. Broadcasts of professional tennis matches frequently feature footage of players courtside after matches. While the timing of the zoom was unfortunate, the Authority did not consider it was invasive.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  On 8 January 2026, Sky Network Television Ltd (Sky) broadcast highlights from Day Three of the 2026 ASB Classic tennis tournament on Sky’s free-to-air channel, Sky Open. Part of the broadcast included highlights from a women’s match played the day prior, on 7 January. The winner of the match would progress to quarterfinals.

[2]  For about 15 seconds at the end of the match, the winner was shown courtside at her players’ bench, bending over her racket bag, organising her equipment. She appeared to be wearing a tennis ‘skort’ (a short, light skirt with built-in shorts). The camera was stationed behind the player and slowly zoomed in. Her skirt fluttered in the breeze on a few occasions, during which her built-in shorts were at least partially visible.

The complaint

[3]  Maureen Thompson complained the broadcast – in particular, the ‘close-up direct rear view’ – ‘constituted offensive filming’ in breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• The broadcast captured the player’s skirt ‘repeatedly lifting in the breeze’, showing ‘intimate portions of her underwear’. This ‘invasive focus on [the player’s] privacy was unnecessarily held’. Combined, this was ‘offensive and gratuitous’.
• The broadcast was not live but rather ‘chosen highlights’, reflecting poorly on the broadcaster given how the broadcast was edited.
• The complainant expressed general concerns about the broadcaster’s ‘filming of women in sport’ – and flagged another broadcast which they considered also included ‘perceived invasive filming’.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Sky did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  Sky ‘did not observe any camera shots that contained sexual material or were framed in a sexualised manner’, nor ‘zooming or camera emphasis on intimate areas’. Sky Sport’s production team also advised they ‘did not observe any such footage’ – ‘and there is absolutely no circumstance in which sexualised or gratuitous camera shots would be deliberately sought in the coverage’.

b)  Guideline 1.5 of the Code of Broadcasting Standards recognises sports and live content are not subject to classification. ‘Live sport is generally targeted at adults and it is expected any children watching will be supervised.’ The footage in question ‘did not contain sexual material, nudity or other material that would warrant the use of an audience advisory’.

The standard

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ The standard states:²

• Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:
  • the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

Our analysis

[6]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[7]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

Offensive and disturbing content

[8]  The offensive and disturbing content standard regulates broadcasts that contain sexual material, nudity, violence, coarse language, or other material that is likely to cause widespread offence or distress.⁴

[9]  Context is an important consideration in assessing whether a broadcast has breached standards.⁵ We consider the following contextual factors relevant in this case:

a)  The relevant part of the broadcast was 15 seconds long.

b)  The broadcast contained a compilation of pre-recorded highlights from Day Three of the 2026 ASB Classic tennis tournament.

c)  Broadcasts of professional tennis matches frequently feature footage of players courtside at their stations during and after matches.

d)  The clip showed the player bending over and glimpses of her apparently built-in shorts.

e)  The camera gradually zoomed in on the player as she was bending over.

f)  The clip was from after the match ended. It was not of the athlete in motion during a game.⁶

g)  Athletic undergarments are often visible during sports matches, and for this reason are often built into athleticwear (particularly sports skirts and dresses). 

h)  Audio of a commentator giving a post-match analysis played over the relevant clip. It did not include any reference to the appearance of the player in the current shot. This analysis continued after the clip changed. 

i)  Sport is not, because of its distinct nature, subject to classification.⁷

[10]  We recognise the complainant’s concerns around how women in sport are sometimes depicted. In a previous decision, the Authority considered whether a promo depicting a tennis player’s skirt flying up in a brief action shot ‘was a negative portrayal of women tennis players that might influence viewers to perceive women players in a sexual rather than athletic way to the extent of causing offence’.⁸ In this case, however, we do not consider the clip in question was inappropriate or likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence. 

[11]  The athlete was framed in the shot. She had just won a match at a major tennis tournament, and it was expected she would be the broadcast’s focus during this time. We do not consider the clip showed anything of an inappropriate or intimate nature, nor that it was gratuitous. While the timing of the zoom was unfortunate, in our view, it was not invasive. Viewers may reasonably expect to see other similar shots, which can occur naturally during a match.⁹

[12]  We note the complainant’s submission that, as the broadcast was not live but instead pre-recorded highlights, the clip could have been edited out. However, the footage did not stand alone: audio of a commentator giving a post-match analysis played over the relevant clip, which continued after the clip changed.

[13]  Overall, we do not consider the broadcast seriously violated community standards of taste and decency, and we do not uphold the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
27 May 2026    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Thompson’s original complaint – 8 January 2026

2  Sky Free’s decision – 17 February 2026

3  Thompson’s referral to the Authority – 17 February 2026

4  Sky Free’s confirmation of no further comments – 18 March 2026

5  Thompson confirming the scope of the complaint – 10 April 2026

¹ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Guideline 1.1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
⁵ As above
⁶ See Boyce and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-144 at [12] and Haapamaki & Ball and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2020-015 at [12]–[14]
⁷ Guideline 1.5: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 7
⁸ Haapamaki & Ball and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2020-015 at [14]
⁹ For a similar finding, see Haapamaki & Ball and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2020-015 at [13]