Does the Australian Open violate freedom of speech?. GETTY IMAGES

Tennis Australia has announced new security measures for media personnel, including a requirement for an updated national police background check within the last two years.

The governing body will introduce security checks for media who will have access to certain areas, known as the Restricted Player Zone, at the 2024 Australian Open.

According to an email from Tennis Australia's media office, Australian citizens or resident journalists must provide evidence of an updated National Police Background Check within the last two years.

The email does not specify what information in the background check would disqualify a journalist from accreditation or access to the event, according to the Association Internationale De La Presse Sportive (AIPS).

In addition, the International Press Association has denounced the organisation's claims that the police check requirement is in line with the practice of many major events. The AIPS could not identify any other major international event organised by FIFA, FIA, UCI, or the Olympic Committee that requires journalists and media to undergo a police check at their own expense. The cost is AUS$50 (€31 euros).

This decision by Tennis Australia is in contact to the other three Grand Slam events, which do not require a police check for media accreditation. AIPS President Gianni Merlo said: "Never before have our members been subject to such an accreditation requirement. AIPS is not aware of any other major international event organised by FIFA, IOC, FIA, or UCI that requires journalists and media to urdergo a police check at their own expense."

Italian journalist Gianni Merlo of La Gazzetta Dello Sport, also stated that Tennis Australia's unreasonable requirement adds to the already high cost of covering major sporting events, particularly for independent media.

It is therefore unclear why the organisers of the Australia Open have taken this step, which harms and threatens freedom of expression and, more broadly, violates the principle of innocence. Is it a revenue-driven decision or simply an attempt to restrict journalistic work that is increasingly challenged by technological advances and the growing multimedia landscape worldwide?