Wearable tech has permeated the world of sports at an astronomical rate, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Unknown to most viewers, fans, or even rival teams, certain players wore tracking devices that recorded every meter run, every turn, and acceleration. Data were processed and stored for comparison with previous matches and training sessions. Coaches were able to track player fitness and performance, ultimately making critical in-game tactical decisions during training and matches. Are there any legal considerations underpinning this practice? Put another way, are there any legal implications of this practice that sports teams and league organizations need to be aware of when adopting this new phenomenon? What are the implications for athletes’ personal rights and fair competition demands?
This article analyzes these issues and discusses (1) the history and development of wearable technology, and (2) the legal implications of wearable technology in professional sports.
The history of wearable technology in sports
Wearable technology in sports is a relatively recent development. It was first used in live sports from 2009. It started with European football clubs tracking the overall workload of their players during a match. This development allows coaches to monitor biometrics in real time. Since then, wearable technology has evolved from biometric monitoring to include sensory and psychological aspects of sports. So the idea behind wearable technology is that certain technologies can help athletes stay safe and healthy. This theory has been tested and proven successful. The Toronto Raptors are one example. In 2012, the Raptors had the most injuries in the NBA. As a result, in 2014, the Raptors had the fewest injuries in his NBA. The foregoing is just one of the few benefits of adopting practices.
Are there overarching legal concerns that sports administrators and league organizations should keep in mind when adopting this practice?
In football, they are technically called “electronic performance and tracking system (EPTS) devices” and include camera-based wearable technology used to control and improve player and team performance. EPTS primarily tracks the position of players and the ball, but can also be used in conjunction with micro-microelectronic devices and heart rate monitors and other devices to measure the load of physiological parameters. His three forms of physical tracking devices currently available are 1) optical-based camera systems, 2) local positioning systems (LPS), and 3) GPS/GNSS systems. GPS devices are used during training by the English Premier League and the Football Association (FA). Use of these devices should be consistent with their respective governing bodies.
Wearable technology and athlete rights
Some professional leagues have comprehensive continuing agreements that define the scope of wearable technology permitted each season. Some professional leagues such as MLS, MLB, NBA, EPL and La Liga have structured player organizations and associations. In the Pro League, if data is sold, it is subject to collective bargaining processes and protocols (BOSU, Michigan and Nike Contracts: Schools Seize and Sell New Player Data (08/31/2016) ).
As for the NFL, the NFL Players Association reached an agreement with a human performance company named WHOOP in 2017 (see Kevin Seifert, ESPN In the Age of Wearable Technology NFL Players Grab a Data Equalizer (April 24, 2017) ). WHOOP allowed players to sell their data, allowing players to compete against his NFL.
At this time, it is difficult to ascertain the exact content of EPL’s collective bargaining agreement on wearable technology, but there is no denying that the Covid-19 pandemic has expanded the reach of these devices. Using devices ranging from wearable monitors to clothing and equipment with built-in sensors, professional teams, league institutions, and companies that provide wearables can monitor an athlete’s heart rate, blood sugar, breathing, walking, and more. A large amount of data can now be collected. , tension, or fatigue. Any sports or athletic organization that develops wearable device programs or has reason to believe these devices are being used by coaches or others to collect similar data should be aware of these risks and regulatory issues. should be noted.
Also read: Unlike others, law is not yet a Gen Z profession
Depending on your jurisdiction, monitoring may or may not require consent. Few judicial rulings on this issue exist. 560 US 746, 756 (2010); O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 US 709, 717 (1987). City of Ontario, CA v. Quon and O’Connor The v. Ortega case is just a small part of it. If it is determined that an employee may not be able to expect the privacy of technology provided by their employer, to the best of the author’s knowledge, in the latter case it is stated that it depends on the realities of the workplace. . If negotiated by a union of players, the interests of the players are well protected, so there may be little issue. In lney v. The Evening Star News, a group of Maryland basketball players sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy when their educational backgrounds were reported . The court concluded that this was not an invasion of privacy because they were public figures on the basketball team. Therefore, due to their status as public figures, players were not afforded the same luxury of privacy as other students.
Nigerian context
In Nigeria, beyond the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), there are no overarching rules governing the privacy and use of data of Nigerians, especially athletes. However, Nigeria has a burgeoning commercial gold mine that sports and tech brands can tap into.
It would be remiss of the authors not to mention the contributions of mobile, digital, and social media in addition to sports-focused technology companies. These advances have revolutionized the way fans interact with their favorite sports organizations, opening up new channels for communication and allowing fans to participate in the everyday world of athletes and teams. The social media giant has started getting involved in sponsorships, along with sports tech and data companies.
Sponsorships by technology companies are more complex than other sponsorship categories. Technology companies not only sponsor sporting events and place their logos on jerseys, venues, etc., they also have a dynamic involvement and influence over the properties they sponsor. As in the case of Intel, IBM, or Amazon Web Services, they are the sponsored property’s technology partners, providing back-end support and collecting game and player data that can be used to improve the performance of the property. You must to do something before you go on. Or for AT&T and Samsung, improving fan experience and engagement through devices and apps to ensure teams and events have a positive relationship with fans. This integration of technology and sponsorship creates a trusted and trusting relationship with the sponsor’s customers. Sponsorships help technology companies easily reach new markets and increase visibility.
One good example of this is Chinese mobile maker Vivo. This is a name that was largely unknown in India until 2015 when he sponsored India his Premier League, the biggest sporting event in cricket. Xiaomi. To further enhance its presence in the global market, Vivo also sponsored his 2018 FIFA World Cup. German software company SAP provides insights for many major leagues, teams and organizations across a variety of sports. They have partnerships with multiple teams in his two leagues, the NBA and NHL, which are the biggest in America. This partnership integrates the sponsor’s product with its property, creating a close and natural relationship with that property as well as its fans. Considering the huge commercial gains that sports brands and tech companies can make from harnessing wearable technology, it’s only a matter of time before Nigeria’s tech space joins the fray.
As a side note, teams and organizations may need to tighten their policies and security protocols. This is an effort to ensure compliance and limit the scope of data collection to protect vulnerabilities and reduce liability. Frequent background checks may be included in addition to extensive screening of all persons working where sensitive wearable devices and/or collected information may be accessed.
Steve Austin Nwabueze is a Senior Associate at Perchstone & Graeys.
