Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do other athletes compare to Simone Biles in addressing mental health publicly?
Executive summary
Simone Biles’ public prioritization of mental health—most visibly when she withdrew from the Tokyo 2020 team final—became a defining, global moment that many journalists and analysts credit with accelerating athlete mental-health conversations and policy changes [1] [2]. Other elite athletes — notably Naomi Osaka and Michael Phelps — had earlier or parallel public moments, but reporting emphasizes that Biles’ combination of visibility, sport dominance, and sustained advocacy amplified systemic attention and led to new supports and cultural shifts within gymnastics and beyond [1] [3] [4].
1. The watershed moment: why Biles’ choice mattered
Simone Biles’ mid‑Olympics withdrawal in Tokyo focused worldwide attention because she was the sport’s dominant figure and the decision occurred under the highest spotlight; TIME and Olympics coverage say that choice “changed the conversation” by moving awareness toward “positive action” and by sparking a broader debate about athlete safety and mental‑health supports [1] [2]. Coverage credits the moment with normalizing therapy and the idea that elite athletes might step back for mental‑health reasons [5] [2].
2. How other athletes compare: who spoke up before and after
Reporting repeatedly pairs Biles’ action with Naomi Osaka’s withdrawals from tennis events earlier in 2021 and with long‑running conversations from athletes like Michael Phelps, showing a pattern rather than a single origin; TIME and Lee Health explicitly list Osaka and Phelps as part of the same trend toward public disclosure [1] [6]. Olympics.com and Psychology Today place Biles in the middle of an evolving roster of athletes who have publicly discussed therapy and mental‑health breaks, but they also show Biles’ impact as unusually catalytic given her stature [2] [4].
3. Tactical differences: withdrawal, retreat, advocacy
Athletes take different approaches: Osaka publicly withdrew from tournaments and spoke candidly about anxiety; others have taken leaves, sought therapy quietly, or used interviews and media projects to push advocacy. Biles combined an on‑stage withdrawal, a multi‑year break from competition, and continued public outreach and media projects (Netflix, speaking tours) that explicitly include mental‑health messaging — a mix that outlets identify as shifting both culture and policy in elite sport [7] [8] [5].
4. Institutional ripple effects reported in the press
Coverage in TIME and Olympics.com links Biles’ actions to tangible institutional change: more athlete‑safety protocols in gymnastics and expanded mental‑health services for Olympic‑level athletes, especially in the years after Tokyo and into Paris 2024 and 2025 [3] [2]. Psychology Today and Olympics.com report that federations and event organizers increased supports and that Biles’ high‑profile stance made such changes politically and culturally more tenable [4] [3].
5. Public reaction and competing perspectives
Media accounts emphasize strong public and peer support — Allyson Felix and other Olympians praised Biles — but also note backlash and misunderstanding [1] [7]. Some reporting frames the debate as tension between “societal expectations” of heroic stoicism and emerging norms that accept stepping back for wellbeing; outlets highlight both the praise and the criticism Biles received [7] [9].
6. Longitudinal effect: from Tokyo to Paris and beyond
Later profiles and retrospectives document that Biles didn’t just create a moment; she continued the conversation through interviews, tours, and advocacy and is credited with helping shift norms entering the Paris Games and in 2024–2025 coverage [3] [5]. Psychology Today and Olympics.com describe Biles as having moved from an athlete in crisis to an influential mental‑health advocate whose example other gymnasts and sportspeople cite [4] [2].
7. Limits of the reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources document influence and anecdotal policy shifts but do not provide systematic, quantitative proof that Biles alone caused universal change across sports; outlets describe correlations and increased attention rather than controlled studies of outcomes [1] [3]. If you want metrics (e.g., numbers of therapists hired, measurable rates of athlete help‑seeking), available sources do not mention those specifics.
8. What journalists and experts emphasize as the takeaway
Coverage converges on two main points: high‑profile athletes speaking candidly reduces stigma and prompts organizations to act, and Biles’ unique combination of timing, stature, and persistence made her especially influential in accelerating those trends [1] [2] [4]. At the same time, reporting stresses that the movement involved multiple athletes (Osaka, Phelps, peers in gymnastics) and that structural change requires sustained institutional commitment beyond celebrity testimony [1] [6].
If you want, I can compile excerpts showing how Naomi Osaka, Michael Phelps, and specific teammates framed their own disclosures so you can compare language, timing, and downstream effects against Biles’ public statements (sources above contain relevant passages).