Each spring, Loyola’s Entertainment Law Review hosts its annual Symposium on trends and topics in entertainment. This year, one of the four panels discussed the legal landscape of AI and data in sports. The first panelist was Derrick Davis Jr., general counsel at Angel City FC, an American professional soccer team based in Los Angeles that competes in the National Women’s Soccer League. The second panelist was Whitney Unruh, SVP of Global Soccer Operations at Wasserman, a sports marketing and talent management company based in Los Angeles. The final panelist was Sonia Nayak, partner at Nixon Peabody, a full-service and global law firm with offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The panel was moderated by Mandri Randeniya.
As technology continues to shape the world of sports, the legal implications of AI, data collection, and wearable technologies become increasingly complex. From athlete privacy concerns to AI-driven scouting, this article explores the key legal issues at the intersection of sports and technology that were discussed by the expert panel.
1. Legal Implications of Collecting Data from Athletes
Davis discussed how many athletes wore bracelets or shirts that tracked their fitness during practice and games.[1] One of the primary concerns surrounding wearable technology in sports is the question of data ownership. According to Nayak, the line between sports data and an athlete’s privacy is blurred.[2] Who truly owned the data—players, teams, leagues, or the companies providing the technology—is not properly defined yet.
From the team perspective, Davis emphasized that performance data (i.e., how hard a baseball player throws the ball or a basketball player’s shooting percentage) and biometric data (i.e., fingerprints or facial features) are treated differently.[3] While teams may claim access to performance analytics, biometric data is typically considered personal to the athlete.[4] Unruh noted that while optimizing player data is valuable, athletes also need to be protected.[5] She referenced a case where a U.S. Women’s National Team trainer collected menstrual cycle data to optimize training, which raised ethical questions about consent and usage.[6]
2. Legal Responsibilities When Wearables Malfunction
Wearable technology provides predictive insights, such as alerting teams to potential injuries. But what happens if a team ignores a warning and an athlete subsequently gets hurt? Davis highlighted the importance of collective bargaining agreements and contractual protections, which typically cover indemnification, warranties, and rights over stored data.[7] Another key consideration is what injury-related information teams have to disclose when trading a player. Nayak expanded on this issue, noting that data collection isn’t limited to athletes.[8] She said that fan experiences, such as tracking stadium entrance patterns or concession purchases, also raise legal concerns.[9]
3. Fan Engagement and AI Usage
Fan engagement has evolved, with teams like Arsenal leveraging chatbots to interact with supporters. However, Unruh warned that AI must be designed to protect players, especially when chatbots use player likenesses or quotes.[10] Davis emphasized the importance of transparency—when AI tools like facial recognition are used for stadium entry, who has access to that data?[11] Nayak agreed, pointing out that the primary concerns for stadium operators are security and disclosure.[12]
4. Legal Protections for Animated Content in Sports
With new collaborations involving animated broadcasts, like the NHL’s with Nickelodeon, there are new legal considerations. Licensing agreements typically govern these partnerships to ensure that rights, pricing, and derivative works are contractually protected. Athletes also have to be educated about what rights they are signing away, as seen in FIFA video game agreements.
5. Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Rights in Sports
As NIL agreements become more common, Unruh noted that collective bargaining must play a role in determining how athletes are compensated.[13] Approval rights are also critical in any NIL deal structure. Davis agreed that group licensing could protect players, but it will likely have to distinguish between passive use (where athletes do nothing) and active use (where they have to participate in promotions).[14]
6. AI in Scouting and Recruitment
AI-powered scouting, used by soccer clubs like Chelsea and Burnley, allows teams to analyze player attributes beyond traditional metrics. Davis believed this technology could reduce biases related to nationality, height, or socioeconomic background.[15] However, Unruh questioned whether AI-derived data translated to real-world performance, particularly in areas like leadership and team chemistry.[16] Nayak raised another concern regarding young athletes’ understanding of what data was being collected and shared.[17]
7. Regulatory Standards for AI in Sports
All panelists agreed that existing frameworks like the GDPR and CCPA provide a foundation, but Davis suggested that new AI use cases will shape future enforcement.[18] Regulations will likely focus on ensuring fair access and preventing bias. Nayak emphasized the need for flexible contract language that can adapt to emerging technologies.[19] From a player’s perspective, Unruh noted that while AI-related clauses were not yet standard in contracts, they will become more relevant as AI applications expand.[20]
As AI and data analytics continued to revolutionize sports, legal frameworks must evolve to address issues of privacy, ownership, liability, and fairness. Balancing innovation with protection—whether for athletes, teams, or fans—is critical in shaping the future of sports technology.
[1] Derrick Davis Jr. “Joining the Club: Legal Implications of Introducing AI Tools into Sports,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School.
[2] Sonia Nayak. “Joining the Club: Legal Implications of Introducing AI Tools into Sports,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School.
[3] Davis, supra note 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Whitney Unruh. “Joining the Club: Legal Implications of Introducing AI Tools into Sports,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School.
[6] Id.
[7] Davis, supra note 1.
[8] Nayak, supra note 2.
[9] Id.
[10] Unruh, supra note 5.
[11] Davis, supra note 1.
[12] Nayak, supra note 2.
[13] Unruh, supra note 5.
[14] Davis, supra note 1.
[15] Davis, supra note 1.
[16] Unruh, supra note 5.
[17] Nayak, supra note 2.
[18] Davis, supra note 1.
[19] Nayak, supra note 2.
[20] Unruh, supra note 5.