📚 Upside Studies: (1) NBA Study: The Contract Year Phenomenon. (2) Soccer Study: Evolution of the Talent Pathway in MLS (3) MLB Study: Personnel Adjustment for Home Run Park Effects in MLB.

🏀 Upside NBA Study: The Contract Year Phenomenon – Investigating the Effect of Contract Uncertainty on NBA Player Performance

Published in Applied Economics Letters (2026) by Chris Owsik & Kerry Tan, Department of Economics, Loyola University Maryland.

---

🧩 Introduction

Does the pressure of an expiring NBA contract actually motivate players to perform better?

The “contract year phenomenon” is a long-standing theory in sports economics suggesting that athletes increase their effort when approaching free agency to maximize the value of their next contract, then potentially reduce effort after securing a new deal (often referred to as shirking).

Previous NBA studies have produced mixed findings, many relying on older datasets and traditional performance statistics. This study updates the evidence using modern NBA data and advanced analytics while also examining whether contract status affects playoff performance—a question that had not previously been studied.

Authors:

Chris Owsik & Kerry Tan
Department of Economics, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

To read the full study click on the button below:

---

🧪 Study Overview

Design: Fixed-effects regression analysis using player-season data.

Study Period:

• Baseline season: 2021–22

• Contract year: 2022–23

• Post-contract year: 2023–24

Participants:

• 505 NBA players

• 1,102 player-season observations

• 542 observations with playoff data

Data Sources:

• Basketball Reference

• NBA Free Agent Tracker

Performance Metrics:

• Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

• Box Plus-Minus (BPM)

• Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)

• Win Shares per 48 Minutes (WS/48)

The analysis controlled for player age, team, awards (MVP, All-Star, All-NBA), player fixed effects, and season effects.

---

📈 Key Findings and Statistical Results

🚨 Contract Year Performance

Contrary to the popular belief that players “play harder” before free agency:

• No statistically significant improvement was found in PER

• No significant change in BPM

• No significant change in VORP

• No significant change in WS/48

Compared with the previous season, NBA players generally performed at similar levels during their contract year.

📉 Performance Declines After Signing a New Contract

The strongest finding occurred after players signed their new contracts.

Regular-season performance declined significantly across every advanced metric:

• PER: ↓ 0.92 points (~6.4%)

• BPM: Significant decline

• VORP: Significant decline

• WS/48: Significant decline

These results are consistent with evidence of reduced effort (shirking) following a new contract.

🏆 Playoffs Tell a Different Story

Unlike the regular season:

• Contract year had no significant effect on playoff performance.

• Post-contract year also showed no decline in playoff metrics.

The authors suggest that the pursuit of an NBA championship provides a strong incentive for players to maintain maximum effort regardless of contract status.

---

🧠 Implications for NBA Teams, Agents, and Front Offices

This study suggests that contract incentives may influence player effort differently across the NBA calendar.

Key implications include:

• Contract years do not necessarily produce statistically better performance.

• Teams may slightly overestimate the “contract year boost.”

• Performance forecasting should account for possible declines during the first season of a new contract.

• Championship aspirations appear to offset financial incentive effects during the playoffs.

---

📌 Recommendations

For NBA Front Offices

• Consider potential post-contract performance declines during contract valuation.

• Use multi-year performance trends rather than assuming contract-year improvement.

• Separate regular-season and playoff evaluations when assessing player value.

For Sports Analytics Companies

• Build predictive models that incorporate contract cycle effects.

• Include contract status as a contextual variable when forecasting future player performance.

• Continue validating incentive effects across different player types and contract structures.

These recommendations are informed by the study’s findings and their practical implications.

---

⚠️ Limitations

The authors note several areas for future research:

• Contract size and contract length were not analyzed.

• Different free agency types (restricted vs. unrestricted, player/team options) may influence behavior differently.

• Additional work is needed to determine how various contract structures affect player incentives.

---

✅ Conclusion

Using modern NBA data and advanced performance metrics, this study finds no evidence that players significantly improve their performance during a contract year. However, it finds consistent evidence of declining regular-season performance after signing a new contract, while playoff performance remains unaffected.

These findings support the idea that financial incentives may influence effort during the regular season, but the motivation to compete for an NBA championship appears strong enough to maintain performance regardless of contract status. For NBA organizations, incorporating contract-cycle effects into player evaluation and long-term roster planning could improve decision-making.

---

⚽ Upside Study: The Evolution of the Talent Pathway in Major League Soccer (MLS)

Published in Soccer & Society (2024) by Patrick Mannix, Simon J. Roberts, Kevin Enright & Martin Littlewood.

---

🧩 Introduction

How has Major League Soccer transformed from a startup league into one of the world’s fastest-growing player development systems?

Over the past two decades, MLS has invested heavily in youth academies, reserve teams, coaching infrastructure, and player development initiatives designed to create a clear pathway from academy soccer to the professional game.

Unlike traditional European football systems, MLS operates under a unique single-entity business model with league-controlled roster regulations, Homegrown Player rules, and centralized development initiatives. As the league continues expanding ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, understanding how this pathway has evolved is increasingly important.

Rather than testing a specific hypothesis, this commentary provides a comprehensive overview of the MLS player development ecosystem, highlights its evolution, and identifies opportunities for future research and improvement.

Authors:

Patrick Mannix
Simon J. Roberts
Kevin Enright
Martin Littlewood

Liverpool John Moores University
(Lead author also affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation High Performance Department)

To read the full study click on the button below:

---

🧪 Study Overview

Study Type

Scholarly commentary and contextual review of Major League Soccer’s player development system.

Focus Areas

• Youth Academies & MLS NEXT

• Reserve Teams & MLS NEXT Pro

• Homegrown Player Initiative

• Roster & Financial Regulations

• Training Compensation & Solidarity Payments

• Annual Competition Calendars

Rather than conducting statistical analysis, the paper synthesizes league policies, historical developments, and organizational changes that have shaped MLS’s professional player pathway.

---

📈 Key Findings

🌱 MLS Has Built a Clearer Development Pathway

The authors conclude that MLS has significantly strengthened its player development structure over the past two decades through coordinated investments in:

• Youth academies

• Reserve teams

• Professional training environments

• MLS NEXT

• MLS NEXT Pro

Together, these initiatives provide a more direct pathway from academy soccer to first-team professional football.

🧒 Youth Academies Have Become the Foundation

Since launching academy initiatives in 2007 and the Homegrown Player program in 2008:

• Clubs increasingly prioritize academy development over traditional player acquisition.

• MLS NEXT now serves as the league’s primary elite youth competition.

• MLS clubs collectively invested more than $70 million in academy development in 2019.

🔄 MLS NEXT Pro Strengthens the Professional Transition

One of the league’s most significant developments has been creating MLS NEXT Pro.

The reserve league now serves as the bridge between academy soccer and MLS first teams by providing young players with consistent professional competition before reaching the senior roster.

🏠 Homegrown Rules Encourage Long-Term Development

The Homegrown Player initiative allows clubs to develop and sign academy players directly to MLS contracts.

Recent updates to territorial recruiting rules also provide greater flexibility while allowing clubs to retain exclusive rights to selected academy prospects.

💰 League Policies Reinforce Investment

MLS roster regulations—including salary budgets, allocation money, Designated Player rules, and FIFA training compensation—are designed to balance competitive parity while encouraging clubs to continue investing in youth development.

---

📊 By the Numbers

⚽ 29 MLS clubs competing across the United States and Canada (2024).

📈 League expansion from 10 clubs (1996) to 29 clubs (2024).

💰 $70+ million invested by MLS clubs in youth academies during 2019.

👦 U13–U19 age groups supported through MLS NEXT, the league’s elite youth competition.

🏟️ A fully integrated player pathway:
Academy → MLS NEXT → MLS NEXT Pro → MLS First Team.

💵 Club salary budgets are scheduled to increase from $4.9 million (2021) to $7.07 million (2027) under the collective bargaining agreement.

---

🧠 Implications for MLS Clubs and Soccer Organizations

The paper suggests that MLS has created one of the most structured player development systems in North American sports.

Key implications include:

• Youth academies have become central to player development.

• Reserve teams improve the transition from youth soccer to the professional game.

• Homegrown Player policies incentivize clubs to invest in long-term talent development.

• Financial and roster regulations help support sustainable growth.

• Continued refinement of player identification and development practices remains essential.

---

📌 Recommendations

For MLS Clubs

• Continue investing in academy infrastructure and coaching.

• Strengthen collaboration between academy, reserve, and first-team staff.

• Develop individualized transition plans for academy players.

• Evaluate reserve-team effectiveness in preparing players for MLS competition.

For Researchers

• Study coaching practices within MLS academies.

• Investigate relative-age effects and biological maturation in player selection.

• Evaluate MLS NEXT Pro’s long-term impact on player development.

• Examine how league policies influence player progression.

These recommendations are drawn from research areas identified by the authors for future study.

---

⚠️ Limitations

The authors acknowledge several important gaps requiring additional research:

• Coaching practices within MLS academies remain underexplored.

• More research is needed on player selection and release decisions.

• Relative-age effects and biological maturation require further investigation.

• The effectiveness of MLS technical standards has not yet been fully evaluated.

• The long-term developmental impact of MLS NEXT Pro should continue to be assessed.

---

✅ Conclusion

This commentary demonstrates how Major League Soccer has evolved from a relatively small professional league into a comprehensive player development ecosystem.

Through investments in youth academies, reserve teams, MLS NEXT, MLS NEXT Pro, Homegrown Player initiatives, and modern roster policies, MLS has created a clearer pathway for developing domestic talent than at any point in its history.

While important research questions remain regarding player identification, coaching practices, and long-term development outcomes, the authors conclude that MLS has established a strong foundation for future growth and is well positioned to continue expanding opportunities for North American players.

---

⚾ Upside MLB Study: Personnel Adjustment for Home Run Park Effects in Major League Baseball

Published in the Journal of Sports Analytics (2026)

Authors:

• Jason A. Osborne (North Carolina State University)

• Richard A. Levine (San Diego State University)

---

🧩 Introduction

How much does a baseball stadium actually influence home-run production—and how much of that effect is driven by the players competing there?

Traditional MLB park factors compare offensive production at home versus on the road to estimate whether a ballpark favors hitters or pitchers. While widely used by analysts, teams, and fantasy baseball players, these methods often fail to account for differences in player quality, pitcher strength, lineup composition, or batter–pitcher handedness.

This study introduces a statistical framework that isolates the true impact of each Major League ballpark by adjusting for the personnel playing in those games. Rather than assuming every home run reflects the stadium itself, the authors estimate what home-run production would look like under league-average playing conditions.

To read the full study click on the button below:

---

🧪 Study Overview

Study Type

Statistical modeling study using generalized linear mixed-effects models (Poisson regression).

Study Period

2010–2024 MLB Seasons

Dataset

• 34,729 MLB games

• 2.63 million plate appearances

• 133,220 game-matchup observations

• 30 Major League ballparks

Each game was separated into four batter–pitcher handedness combinations:

• Left-handed batter vs. Left-handed pitcher

• Left-handed batter vs. Right-handed pitcher

• Right-handed batter vs. Left-handed pitcher

• Right-handed batter vs. Right-handed pitcher

The model also incorporated player-specific offensive and pitching tendencies along with season effects.

---

📈 Key Findings

⚾ Personnel Matters More Than Most Park Factors Assume

One of the study’s biggest findings is that ballpark effects can be heavily influenced by the quality of the players appearing in each stadium.

The researchers found that hitter ability explains substantially more variation in home-run production than pitcher ability, meaning traditional park factors may overestimate or underestimate the true influence of certain ballparks.

---

🔄 Adjusting for Players Changes Ballpark Rankings

After removing the influence of player talent and matchup frequencies, several stadiums moved dramatically in the rankings.

Some parks that appeared extremely hitter-friendly under traditional methods became much more average after adjustment, while others ranked significantly higher once player effects were removed.

This demonstrates that observed home-run totals alone do not always reflect the true characteristics of a stadium.

---

🏟️ Ballpark Effects Depend on Handedness

Rather than producing one universal “park factor,” the study found that stadium effects vary depending on the batter–pitcher matchup.

A park may strongly favor left-handed hitters while having a much smaller effect on right-handed hitters, emphasizing the importance of evaluating park effects separately by handedness.

---

🏟️ Ballpark-Specific Findings

🔴 Great American Ball Park: Most Home-Run Friendly Overall

After adjusting for batter quality, pitcher quality, and handedness frequencies, Great American Ball Park in Cincinnatiranked as MLB’s most home-run-friendly stadium.

Its estimated personnel-adjusted rate was:

2.55 home runs per game

It also ranked first for:

• Left-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers: 0.93 HR/game

• Right-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers: 0.96 HR/game

The study found that Cincinnati’s adjusted overall mean was significantly higher than the means for 17 less home-run-friendly parks.

---

🏔️ Coors Field: Second Overall

Coors Field in Colorado ranked second after personnel adjustment, with an estimated:

2.44 home runs per game

Coors Field ranked:

• First for left-handed batter vs. left-handed pitcher matchups

• First for right-handed batter vs. left-handed pitcher matchups

• Second for right-handed batter vs. right-handed pitcher matchups

• Sixth for left-handed batter vs. right-handed pitcher matchups

This confirms that Coors remains strongly home-run friendly even after controlling for the hitters and pitchers appearing there.

---

🗽 Yankee Stadium: Friendly, but Personnel Inflates the Raw Total

Yankee Stadium recorded the highest observed home-run rate in the study:

2.74 home runs per game

However, after adjustment, its estimated rate declined to:

2.34 home runs per game

That moved Yankee Stadium from first based on observed production to third overall after adjustment, behind Cincinnati and Colorado. The study attributes part of the difference to the above-average home-run tendencies of players appearing there.

Yankee Stadium was especially favorable to left-handed hitters:

• Fourth for left-handed batters vs. left-handed pitchers

• Second for left-handed batters vs. right-handed pitchers

Its personnel-adjusted estimate for left-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers was 0.864 home runs per game, compared with an observed rate of 1.017.

---

🌉 Oracle Park: Most Home-Run Suppressive Overall

Oracle Park in San Francisco ranked as the least home-run-friendly stadium after adjustment, with an estimated:

1.52 home runs per game

It ranked last overall and also ranked last for left-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers.

For that matchup, Oracle Park’s adjusted mean was significantly lower than the means for all but four other parks, reinforcing its reputation as one of MLB’s most difficult environments for home-run hitting.

---

🏴‍☠️ PNC Park: Especially Difficult in Certain Matchups

PNC Park in Pittsburgh ranked near the bottom overall, with an adjusted estimate of:

1.64 home runs per game

It was particularly difficult for:

• Left-handed batters facing left-handed pitchers

• Right-handed batters facing left-handed pitchers

For left-on-left matchups, its adjusted rate was approximately 0.10 home runs per game, or about one home run every ten games involving that matchup.

---

🧢 Progressive Field: Raw Totals Overstated the Park Effect

For left-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers, Progressive Field in Cleveland appeared to be MLB’s most home-run-friendly stadium based on observed results:

1.04 home runs per game — ranked first

After adjusting for the quality and frequency of the hitters and pitchers involved, the estimate dropped to:

0.67 home runs per game — ranked 14th

This 13-position decline was one of the clearest examples of personnel creating a misleading impression of a ballpark’s home-run friendliness.

---

⚫ Rate Field: More Hitter-Friendly Than the Raw Data Suggested

For left-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers, Chicago’s Rate Field initially ranked only 19th based on its observed rate of:

0.72 home runs per game

After adjustment, its estimate increased to:

0.78 home runs per game — ranked seventh

The study explains that the park hosted comparatively low-home-run personnel. Once those player effects were removed, the ballpark appeared considerably more favorable to home runs.

---

🍁 Rogers Centre: Player Quality Inflated Its Apparent Effect

For right-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers, Rogers Centre in Toronto had MLB’s highest observed rate:

1.17 home runs per game — ranked first

After personnel adjustment, it declined to:

0.78 home runs per game — ranked 11th

The authors found that Rogers Centre had hosted unusually strong home-run personnel and a high frequency of right-handed matchups, making the park appear more favorable than its adjusted estimate suggested.

Overall, Toronto fell from fourth in observed home runs to 10th after adjustment.

---

🔵 Dodger Stadium: More Home-Run Friendly After Adjustment

For right-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers, Dodger Stadium rose from:

20th based on observed home runs

to:

Fourth after personnel adjustment

The study found that right-handed pitchers appearing at Dodger Stadium had the lowest “elsewhere” home-run-allowance measure in MLB. In other words, strong home-run-preventing pitchers had made the stadium appear less hitter-friendly than it actually was.

---

🔔 Citizens Bank Park: Stronger After Personnel Adjustment

Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia also became more home-run friendly after adjustment.

It ranked:

• Sixth for right-handed batters facing left-handed pitchers

• Third for right-handed batters facing right-handed pitchers

• Fourth overall, at 2.33 adjusted home runs per game

For right-handed batters facing left-handed pitchers, it rose from 20th based on observed rates to sixth after adjustment.

---

📊 Overall Adjusted Ballpark Rankings

Most Home-Run Friendly

1. Great American Ball Park, Cincinnati — 2.55 HR/game

2. Coors Field, Colorado — 2.44 HR/game

3. Yankee Stadium, New York — 2.34 HR/game

4. Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia — 2.33 HR/game

5. American Family Field, Milwaukee — 2.31 HR/game

Least Home-Run Friendly

1. Oracle Park, San Francisco — 1.52 HR/game

2. loanDepot Park, Miami — 1.57 HR/game

3. PNC Park, Pittsburgh — 1.64 HR/game

4. Oakland Coliseum — 1.64 HR/game

5. Busch Stadium, St. Louis — 1.68 HR/game

These rankings represent expected home runs under league-average personnel and matchup conditions—not simply the raw number of home runs observed in each stadium.

---

📊 The Statistical Model Performed Well

The proposed model produced nearly identical predictive accuracy on new seasons compared with the seasons used to build it.

This suggests the framework provides a reliable and reproducible method for estimating home-run park effects.

---

📊 By the Numbers

⚾ 34,729 MLB games analyzed.

🏟️ 30 Major League ballparks evaluated.

📈 2.63 million plate appearances included.

🔄 133,220 game-and-matchup observations.

👥 4 batter–pitcher handedness combinations modeled separately.

🧮 435 pairwise ballpark comparisons performed.

📅 15 seasons of MLB data (2010–2024).

---

🧠 Implications for MLB Organizations

The findings suggest that organizations should be cautious when interpreting traditional park factors.

More accurate personnel-adjusted estimates can improve:

• Player evaluation

• Contract negotiations

• Free-agent analysis

• Trade decisions

• Player projections

• Sports analytics

• Fantasy baseball forecasting

Because player talent and matchup distributions influence observed home-run totals, separating these effects provides a clearer understanding of a stadium’s true offensive environment.

---

📌 Recommendations

For MLB Teams

• Use personnel-adjusted park factors when evaluating hitters and pitchers.

• Evaluate stadium effects separately by batter–pitcher handedness.

• Incorporate uncertainty into player valuation and projection models.

• Avoid relying solely on traditional home-versus-road park factors.

For Baseball Analysts

• Continue refining park-effect models using player-specific information.

• Expand statistical models to include environmental factors such as weather.

• Study additional offensive outcomes beyond home runs.

• Develop player projections that account for changing ballpark environments.

---

⚠️ Limitations

The authors note several limitations that offer opportunities for future research:

• Weather conditions (wind, temperature, humidity) were not explicitly modeled.

• Changes in ballpark dimensions over time were not included.

• Player aging and year-to-year skill changes were not directly incorporated.

• Statcast variables such as exit velocity and launch angle were not analyzed.

• The model focuses specifically on home-run production rather than overall offensive performance.

---

✅ Conclusion

This study presents a more rigorous approach to measuring home-run park effects by separating the influence of stadium characteristics from the players competing within them.

By adjusting for hitter ability, pitcher quality, and batter–pitcher handedness, the authors demonstrate that several commonly accepted park rankings change substantially after accounting for personnel differences.

The proposed framework provides MLB organizations, analysts, and researchers with a more accurate method for evaluating offensive environments and highlights the importance of considering player context when interpreting ballpark effects.

Ultimately, the study reinforces a key principle in baseball analytics: to understand the true impact of a ballpark, you must first account for the players who play inside it.

You may like:

🥉Upside: AI Is Becoming the Entry Ticket—Not the Competitive Advantage.

Yesterday I had a fascinating conversation with one of the leading investors in sports technology.

During our discussion, they shared a statistic that immediately caught my attention:

“Around 70% of the sports tech startups we’re currently evaluating are AI startups.”

That number says a lot about the current state of our industry.

Artificial Intelligence has become the dominant narrative in sports technology. Whether it’s coaching, scouting, athlete performance, fan engagement, ticketing, sponsorship analytics, or media production, nearly every new company entering the market positions itself as an AI company.

This is exciting. AI has the potential to fundamentally transform the sports industry.

But it also creates a new challenge for everyone involved in the ecosystem.

How do we distinguish between companies creating genuine technological innovation and companies simply riding the latest technology wave?

AI is becoming the entry ticket—not the competitive advantage

One reality is becoming increasingly clear.

Many sports AI startups today are not developing proprietary AI technologies. Instead, they are building applications on top of foundation models such as OpenAI, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s Llama, or Perplexity. They package these powerful models into sports-specific workflows and user experiences.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

In fact, some outstanding companies will be built this way.

The problem arises when founders confuse using AI with creating defensible AI.

Connecting to an LLM API is relatively straightforward. Hundreds of companies can access the same underlying models. As these foundation models continue improving, many of today’s technical advantages will inevitably become commodities.

If your only differentiation is the prompt you send to an existing model, competitors can often replicate much of your product in a surprisingly short period of time.

The difficult part is not adding AI.

The difficult part is creating something that competitors cannot easily reproduce.

We’ve been here before

The sports technology industry has always followed cycles of technological enthusiasm.

Ten years ago, almost every startup was building wearables.

Then the conversation shifted toward virtual reality and augmented reality.

A few years later, blockchain and NFTs became the hottest investment themes.

Today, AI occupies that position.

Every major technological wave follows a remarkably similar pattern. New technology creates enormous excitement. Investors search aggressively for opportunities. Entrepreneurs naturally reposition themselves around the emerging trend. Capital flows rapidly into the sector. New companies appear almost overnight.

Many of these companies disappear just as quickly.

The technology itself is rarely the problem.

The problem is that hype lowers the barrier for storytelling while increasing the difficulty of identifying genuine differentiation.

History suggests that the companies which ultimately define an industry are rarely the ones that simply adopt the newest technology first. They are the companies that solve meaningful customer problems, execute consistently, and build advantages that become stronger over time.

AI is rapidly becoming infrastructure

I believe we’re reaching a point where AI itself is no longer the story.

Just as cloud computing became expected rather than exceptional, AI is gradually becoming part of the standard technology stack.

Five years from now, customers probably won’t ask whether a platform uses AI.

They will simply assume it does.

The real questions will become far more interesting.

Who owns the proprietary sports data?

Who has developed the deepest understanding of coaches, athletes, executives, and fans?

Who has built workflows that customers rely on every day?

Who has earned enough trust to become embedded within sports organizations?

Those are significantly harder advantages to build—and far harder for competitors to copy.

Recommendations for investors

For venture capital firms, evaluating AI startups will increasingly require moving beyond product demonstrations.

An impressive demo is no longer sufficient evidence of a durable business.

Instead, investors should spend more time understanding what remains valuable if the underlying foundation models become dramatically better or dramatically cheaper over the next two years.

Does the company possess proprietary datasets that competitors cannot access? Has it created unique intellectual property? Does every new customer make the platform smarter? Are customers deeply integrated into the workflow, making switching costly? Most importantly, is the company solving a painful problem that customers are willing to pay for repeatedly?

Business fundamentals matter just as much as technology. Strong customer retention, recurring revenue, healthy unit economics, and a scalable go-to-market strategy often tell a more compelling story than AI architecture diagrams.

The best AI investments will likely be companies whose competitive advantage extends well beyond AI itself.

Recommendations for sports teams, leagues, and federations

Sports organizations face a different challenge.

Every week they receive demonstrations from vendors claiming to have revolutionary AI platforms. Every product promises better performance, more efficient operations, improved fan engagement, or smarter commercial decisions.

The pressure to adopt AI is real.

However, organizations should be careful not to mistake impressive demonstrations for sustainable value.

Instead of asking, “Does this company use AI?”, decision-makers should ask, “Does this solution measurably improve our organization?”

Can the company demonstrate real results with comparable customers? Is its technology built on proprietary sports knowledge or simply general-purpose AI? Will the platform integrate seamlessly into existing workflows? Can the vendor clearly quantify return on investment? Does the company have the financial stability and long-term vision to become a strategic partner rather than a short-term supplier?

Sports organizations should evaluate AI startups with the same discipline they apply to signing athletes: potential matters, but consistent performance matters even more.

Recommendations for founders

For entrepreneurs, the opportunity has never been greater.

But the bar is also rising faster than ever.

Founders should spend less time asking, “How can we add AI to our product?” and more time asking, “What can we build that nobody else can?”

That differentiation may come from proprietary data collected over years, unique computer vision models trained specifically for sports, exclusive partnerships, deep workflow integration, or domain expertise that cannot be replicated by simply calling an API.

Ultimately, AI should amplify a company’s unique strengths—not become its only strength.

The startups that will define the next decade of sports technology won’t simply have the best prompts or the latest models.

They will combine AI with unique data, deep industry expertise, exceptional execution, and business models that create lasting value for customers.

The sports technology industry is entering one of its most exciting periods.

But excitement alone doesn’t build enduring companies.

Differentiation does.

And in the long run, that is what both investors and customers will reward.

---

If you are a startups looking to get traction with pro teams, raise money, or get guidance on your product, feel free to contact me at julien@upsideglobal.co

Best,

You may also like:

⚽Upside Special Report: 2026 FIFA World Cup: The Tournament That Changed Football Forever

2026 FIFA World Cup: The Tournament That Changed Football Forever

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be remembered as one of the most significant tournaments in the history of the sport. Hosted jointly by the United States, Canada and Mexico, it was the first World Cup to feature 48 teams, the first to be played across three host nations, and the largest sporting event ever organized by FIFA. With 104 matches, record-breaking commercial success, and the introduction of new technologies both on and off the pitch, the tournament represented a turning point for international football.

On the field, Spain captured its second FIFA World Cup title with a disciplined 1–0 victory over Argentina in the final, completing a tournament in which tactical intelligence, technical quality and squad depth proved more valuable than individual brilliance alone. Off the field, FIFA reported unprecedented revenues, broadcasters attracted global audiences numbering in the billions, and innovations in sports science and officiating demonstrated how rapidly football is embracing technology.

The 2026 World Cup was therefore more than simply another international tournament—it was a preview of football’s future.

---

The Largest World Cup Ever

The expansion from 32 to 48 teams had been one of FIFA’s most debated decisions. Critics feared that the tournament would become too long, include too many one-sided matches, and reduce the quality of play. Instead, the competition largely proved the opposite.

The new format created opportunities for countries making their World Cup debuts while allowing more teams from Africa, Asia and CONCACAF to compete on football’s biggest stage. Several emerging nations exceeded expectations, demonstrating that the gap between traditional football powers and developing football nations continues to narrow.

The tournament also featured a new knockout structure beginning with a Round of 32, increasing the total number of matches from 64 in Qatar 2022 to 104 in 2026. Although this created a longer tournament, it also generated more high-profile fixtures, more television content and significantly greater commercial opportunities.

Perhaps most importantly, fans quickly embraced the expanded format. Stadiums across North America consistently sold out, and supporters travelled between the three host nations in remarkable numbers, creating one of the most cosmopolitan atmospheres ever seen at a World Cup.

---

Tournament by the Numbers

Commercially, the 2026 FIFA World Cup surpassed every previous edition.

Some of the tournament’s headline statistics include:

Source: Upside Global, July 2026

The tournament generated record revenues through multiple channels, including television rights, sponsorship agreements, hospitality packages, merchandise sales and ticketing. FIFA’s commercial partnerships reached unprecedented levels, with global brands investing heavily to capitalize on the expanded audience.

Ticket sales also exceeded expectations. While standard tickets remained available for many matches, premium hospitality experiences and VIP packages sold exceptionally well, particularly in the United States. Dynamic pricing models enabled FIFA to maximize revenue for high-demand fixtures, although they also generated criticism from supporters who argued that attending matches had become increasingly expensive.

Broadcasting figures reflected football’s continuing worldwide appeal. Billions of viewers watched matches through traditional television broadcasts and digital streaming platforms, while social media engagement reached record levels through highlights, player interviews and behind-the-scenes content.

---

Technology Shapes a New Era of Football

One of the defining features of the 2026 World Cup was the widespread use of technology. Innovations that would have seemed experimental only a decade ago became standard practice throughout the tournament.

Hytro Recovery Wear

Recovery technology has become an increasingly important part of elite football, particularly as fixture schedules become more demanding.

Several national teams used Hytro recovery garments before and after matches. Unlike traditional compression clothing, Hytro garments incorporate raised micro-massaging elements that gently stimulate circulation during movement. The aim is to improve blood flow, reduce muscle soreness and accelerate recovery between matches.

Picture: Jude Bellingham wearing the hydro short.

For teams facing only a few days between knockout fixtures, marginal gains in recovery could provide a meaningful competitive advantage.

Referee Body Cameras

One of the tournament’s most talked-about innovations was the introduction of referee body cameras during selected matches.

These cameras gave broadcasters unique first-person perspectives of key incidents, allowing supporters to experience the speed and intensity of elite officiating. They also offered valuable educational material for referee development and increased transparency surrounding controversial decisions.

Although the cameras were primarily introduced for broadcasting purposes, FIFA may eventually expand their role in referee training and match analysis.

Semi-Automated Offside Technology

The 2026 tournament featured an improved version of FIFA’s Semi-Automated Offside Technology (SAOT).

Using multiple stadium cameras, artificial intelligence and real-time player tracking, the system detected offside positions within seconds. Combined with the connected match ball, officials received highly accurate information almost instantly, significantly reducing delays compared with earlier implementations of VAR.

The faster decision-making process improved the overall viewing experience while maintaining the accuracy expected at the highest level.

Connected Match Ball

The official Adidas match ball contained an embedded motion sensor capable of transmitting positional information hundreds of times each second.

This data was integrated with optical tracking systems throughout the stadium, helping officials determine precise ball contact, improve offside calculations and support goal-line technology.

Beyond officiating, the data also gave analysts, coaches and broadcasters deeper insights into passing speed, shot velocity and tactical movement.

It is also worth pointing out that research aboard the International Space Station and testing in NASA wind tunnels directly contributed to the science used to evaluate World Cup soccer balls, helping manufacturers avoid the problems that plagued one of the most controversial balls in tournament history.

AI and Performance Analytics

Artificial intelligence played a larger role than ever before.

Coaching staffs relied on advanced data models to analyse opposition tactics, identify pressing patterns and optimise substitutions. Wearable GPS devices tracked player movement, workload and fatigue throughout the tournament, allowing sports scientists to tailor recovery programmes for individual athletes.

As football becomes increasingly data-driven, performance analysis is now as essential as tactical coaching.

---

Defining Moments of the Tournament

Every World Cup produces unforgettable moments, and the 2026 edition delivered no shortage of memorable stories.

Spain’s victory over Argentina in the final represented the culmination of years of investment in youth development. Their possession-based football was complemented by greater defensive discipline and tactical flexibility than previous Spanish teams.

Argentina once again demonstrated extraordinary consistency on the international stage by reaching another World Cup final. Despite falling just short of retaining the title, their campaign reinforced the country’s reputation as one of football’s most resilient tournament teams.

England’s run to the semi-finals reignited optimism among supporters, while Morocco once again demonstrated that its remarkable performances in recent World Cups were no accident. Norway emerged as one of the tournament’s surprise packages with disciplined defensive performances and efficient attacking football.

The expanded tournament also produced memorable underdog stories. Smaller football nations competed fearlessly against traditional powers, providing further evidence that global investment in coaching and player development is reducing historical competitive gaps.

Several knockout matches required extra time or penalty shootouts, producing dramatic finishes that captivated audiences around the world.

---

Commercial Success and Lasting Impact

From a business perspective, the 2026 World Cup established a new benchmark for global sporting events.

Corporate sponsorship reached record levels, with technology companies, financial institutions and consumer brands all competing for visibility during the tournament. Hospitality programmes expanded significantly compared with previous editions, reflecting growing demand from corporate clients.

Digital content also transformed the fan experience. Broadcasters increasingly delivered personalised match highlights, multiple camera angles and interactive statistics through streaming platforms. Younger audiences engaged with the tournament primarily through social media clips and mobile-first content, illustrating changing patterns in sports consumption.

The tournament also demonstrated the logistical complexity of hosting a World Cup across three nations. Extensive investment in transportation, stadium infrastructure and border coordination allowed millions of supporters to travel between venues efficiently, although travel distances remained one of the competition’s greatest challenges.

---

The Ballon d’Or Race

As always, performances at the World Cup are expected to play a significant role in determining the Ballon d’Or winner.

Spain’s triumph has naturally strengthened the case for several of its players.

The leading candidates include:

• Lamine Yamal, whose creativity and attacking influence throughout both the club season and World Cup make him one of the strongest contenders.

• Rodri, whose control of midfield and tactical intelligence continue to redefine the defensive midfield position.

• Pedri, whose technical quality and consistency have earned widespread praise.

• Lionel Messi, who, despite being in the latter stages of his legendary career, remains a player whose influence extends beyond statistics. If he played a meaningful role in Argentina's run to the World Cup final and maintained a high level of performance at club level, his legacy and continued excellence could keep him in the Ballon d'Or conversation.

• Kylian Mbappé, who remains among world football’s elite despite France falling short of the title. He also retained the World Cup Golden Boot after Lionel Messi failed to score in Sunday's final against Spain. The France forward netted 10 goals in eight games to edge out Lionel Messi in a high-quality race. Mbappe is also now the men's World Cup all-time top scorer with 22 goals - one ahead of Messi.

• Julián Álvarez, whose performances helped Argentina reach another World Cup final.

Although club football after the tournament will influence the final voting, Spain’s World Cup victory gives its leading players a significant advantage heading into the Ballon d’Or ceremony.

---

Looking Ahead to the 2030 FIFA World Cup

With the conclusion of the 2026 tournament, attention now turns towards an even more symbolic event.

The 2030 FIFA World Cup will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the competition. The tournament will be hosted primarily by Spain, Portugal and Morocco, while Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay will each stage one opening match to commemorate the inaugural World Cup held in Uruguay in 1930.

The centenary tournament is expected to continue using the successful 48-team format introduced in 2026 while placing even greater emphasis on sustainability, digital fan engagement and technological innovation.

Artificial intelligence is likely to play an expanded role in officiating, tactical preparation and broadcasting. Fans may also experience enhanced augmented reality features, personalised streaming options and increasingly immersive viewing experiences both inside stadiums and at home.

For FIFA, the challenge will be to preserve football’s traditions while embracing innovations that improve fairness, entertainment and accessibility.

---

Conclusion

The 2026 FIFA World Cup demonstrated that football continues to evolve both on and off the pitch. The expanded tournament format proved more competitive than many critics expected, while technological innovations improved officiating, player performance and the overall fan experience.

Commercially, the tournament established new financial records, confirming football’s position as the world’s most valuable sporting property. At the same time, debates surrounding ticket affordability, fixture congestion and commercialisation reminded governing bodies that growth must be balanced with accessibility for supporters.

Most importantly, the competition delivered memorable football. Spain’s triumph, Argentina’s resilience, the emergence of new footballing nations and the successful integration of technology ensured that the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be remembered as a landmark event in the history of the game.

As preparations begin for the centenary World Cup in 2030, FIFA now has a blueprint for the future—one that combines tradition, innovation and global participation on a scale never seen before.

You may also like: