As technologies become more sophisticated, so does the ability to generate high-quality data that enhances efficiency and decision-making in sport. This data revolution is transforming everything - from how athletes train to how coaches develop tactics to how athlete performance is evaluated.
Yet, the individuals generating the data, the athletes, rarely control how data is collected, used or commercialized.
Now researchers from the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) at the University of Toronto and the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living at Victoria University in Australia have come up with a list of considerations for the ethical use of athlete data in a paper recently published in the Sports, Ethics and Philosophy journal.
“During a match, a professional soccer player may be told to wear a device that tracks their movement, speed and distance, heart rate, respiration rate and so much more,” says Kathryn Johnston, a senior research associate at the Tanenbaum Institute for Science in Sport (TISS) and lead author of the paper. “This single dataset, derived from a single athlete, has the potential to serve multiple purposes.”
For the athlete, Johnston explains, the data can inform training regimens, nutritional strategies and recovery protocols.
The coach may use the data to refine practices and tactics.
The technology company that developed the device may use the data for system improvements, product refinement and, potentially, the collection of large-scale datasets (aka ‘big data’) to uncover broader performance trends, user behavior and innovation opportunities.
Sports broadcasters can also use the data to provide in-game metrics live on the screen, enriching the viewers’ experience and increasing the athlete’s visibility for potential endorsements.
“There’s a wide range of individuals and groups who have an interest in collecting, sharing and utilizing athlete data,” says Johnston. “While these uses may appear beneficial on the surface, they also expose competing priorities and the potential for risks such as the unauthorized use of data for commercial gain with negligible benefits for the athlete.”
Johnston worked with Sam Robertson, an associate professor from the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living at Victoria University in Australia, Sasha Gollish, a research associate at KPE, and Joseph Baker, a professor at KPE and TISS Chair in Sport Science, Data Modelling and Sport Analytics, to develop a framework for athletes, parents, coaches, technology companies, sport organizations, media and others with stakes in sport to consider when navigating the increasingly complex landscape of athlete data ownership:
1. Determine the need for data. With affordable and accessible wearable technology, the researchers say data is often collected and stored because it is technologically feasible, not necessarily because it serves a clear and specific purpose.
2. Determine the nature of the data, for example, what type of information will be collected and how.
3. Determine the statutory and legal provisions governing the data. These legal frameworks influence how (and how much) data may be collected, stored, shared and monetized, especially if the data qualifies as health related or personally identifiable data.
4. Determine who has an interest in obtaining the data and what they want, need or intend to do with it.
5. Determine ethical data use and compliance standards. Athletes possess specific rights and obligations, say the researchers, so it’s necessary to create clear and accountable agreements that outline expectations for ethical data use and compliance.
6. Determine timelines for evaluations and (re)negotiations of ethical data governance. This consideration encourages sport organizations and technology providers to implement clear, recurring timelines for auditing their data practices and revising agreements.
“While this framework does not provide a one-size-fits-all solution, it does suggest a path forward through an increasingly dense forest of ethical, legal and practical challenges surrounding athlete data ownership,” says Baker.
A key next step in advancing this work, according to the researchers, would be a formalized process of gathering expert input across sectors, including the subjects, collectors and users of data to validate, adapt and build upon the six considerations in ways that are transparent, equitable and globally relevant.
In parallel, future research could explore inequities in data access and representation.
“Questions about who has access to data, who is represented in it, and who benefits from it are inseparable from broader issues of inclusion and justice in sport,” says Baker.
Finally, the authors say, researchers, practitioners and policy makers should work to identify the potential disadvantages of global data governance policies developed by large governing bodies like the International Olympica Committee (IOC) and International Paralympic Committee (IPC), which risk suppressing local autonomy, athlete agency and cultural nuance.
Instead, they say the sport community must aim for coordinated, collaborative, distributed models of governance that enable accountability while respecting diversity in sport contexts and legal environments.