Today we have the honor of interviewing a group of experienced venture capital investors from across the global sports ecosystem. The goal is to discuss the latest global trends in the world of sports investment.

• Kai Bond, Partner at Courtside VC

• Ibrahim Sagna, the executive chairman at Silverbacks.holdings

• CiCi Bellis, Founder and General Partner at Cartan Capital

• Mustafa Ghouse, Founder and General Partner at Centre Court Capital

Here are the topics that we covered during the video interview:

• What major trends are currently shaping investment across the global sports ecosystem, and where do you see the strongest opportunities emerging over the next three to five years?

• Professional sports teams are increasingly being viewed as a global asset class. What is driving this shift, and how do you evaluate opportunities involving teams, leagues and the businesses surrounding them?

• How are artificial intelligence, data, analytics and other emerging technologies changing the types of sports companies that can be built—and the way investors assess their potential?

• Which markets or categories remain underserved or underappreciated by investors? This could include women’s sports, athlete-focused businesses, emerging regions, new media models or other areas of growth.

• In today’s funding environment, what separates the sports startups that can successfully raise capital and scale from those that struggle? What should founders understand about valuations, commercial traction, strategic partnerships and potential exits?

• What are the do’s and don’s in the world of sports investment?

You can watch the video interview below by clicking on the Youtube link. You can also listen to the audio interview by clicking on the link at the top of the page:

Here are some of the best quotes of our conversation with Kai, CiCi, Ibrahim and Mustafa:

1. Major sports-investment trends

CiCi Bellis

“Sports has gone from being viewed as a niche investment category to becoming a much broader ecosystem.”

“Scarcity is driving much of the appreciation in sports properties. There are only so many sports assets available, while the pool of people, institutions and capital interested in them continues to expand.”

“From a venture perspective, I’m more excited about the businesses surrounding sports properties than buying the assets themselves at today’s valuations.”

“The areas I’m most excited about include the intersection of sports, health and human performance; ticketing and commerce infrastructure; new forms of distribution; proprietary sports data; and women’s sports.”

Mustafa Ghouse

“While many aspects of the sports industry are much more mature in the West—especially in the United States—India is still perhaps 10 to 15 years behind.”

“In India, we are still looking at fundamental opportunities across retail, consumer products and infrastructure. These are areas that remain early in their development.”

“The IPL is an outlier. What it has delivered over the past 17 or 18 years has been exceptional, and the rest of the Indian sports industry is now beginning to follow.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“Sports is now an asset class being invested in on every continent, across both venture capital and private equity.”

“This is one of the most exciting global products you can attach yourself to. There is something special about the global nature of sports that brings people together.”

“Scarcity, timing and global intersection are making this one of the most exciting periods in sports investment.”

Kai Bond

“There are so many avenues for investment—even within media and entertainment. You have fan engagement, sports betting, fandom, real estate projects, stadium infrastructure and entertainment districts.”

“These are no longer simply team purchases. Stadiums are hosting concerts, entertainment districts are being developed, and sports properties are becoming year-round hubs.”

“The core of sports is that people want to be connected and entertained. That is what makes this such an exciting category to invest in.”

2. Why teams are becoming a global asset class

CiCi Bellis

“Live content is one of the few things audiences still feel they need to consume in real time, with sports at the center of that.”

“We try to separate a great asset from a great investment. You can believe an asset is fantastic and will exist forever, but still conclude that its entry valuation does not offer an attractive return.”

“When evaluating teams and leagues, we look at media rights, the local market, fan engagement, sponsorship economics, league governance, revenue sharing and how much monetization remains untapped.”

“Sometimes the better investment is the technology being sold across many teams rather than ownership of a single team.”

Mustafa Ghouse

“Rights holders and distribution platforms are realizing that sports leagues and intellectual property are now global. You can sit anywhere in the world and watch the Premier League, the NBA or the NFL.”

“That is why Netflix, Amazon and other major platforms want a piece of sports. Investors believe there is still significant upside to unlock within these franchises.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“There is no industry quite like sports. You can have revenue contracts extending ten years, worth billions of dollars, divided among a limited number of teams.”

“Media rights, salary structures and real estate create highly predictable revenue streams. There are not many industries with those characteristics.”

“Self-identification creates extraordinary customer stickiness. Once someone identifies with a team, that relationship can be transferred from one generation to the next.”

“Sports is not simply about liking something or even loving it. It is about identity.”

Kai Bond

“At its core, sports provides people with identity and connects them to something meaningful. Very few things can connect people in that way.”

“People do not simply watch sports anymore. They train and invest in their health so they can continue playing the sports they love.”

3. AI, data and emerging technology

CiCi Bellis

“The more important question is whether AI is creating a real moat for the company.”

“The most compelling companies combine proprietary data, unique distribution and measurable outcomes that improve because of the technology.”

“Putting an LLM on top of publicly available data is not a defensible company.”

“The companies I find most exciting are those where AI sits underneath the product. AI itself is not the moat—the moat is usually the data, distribution and workflow beneath it.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“The core asset that AI gets to use is where the real value resides.”

“We need to be very mindful of how AI can distort reality, particularly when businesses are valued based on digital audiences and online engagement.”

“Focus on the fundamentals: What is the asset worth? What can it deliver? What intellectual property and residual value does it possess?”

Kai Bond

“The business must provide genuine value at every level—to the coaches, players, parents and fans.”

“The core question is whether the technology improves the player experience, the coaching experience or the fan experience.”

“AI will continue to have an impact, but it is usually enabling another product. It is not necessarily the entire reason we invest.”

Mustafa Ghouse

“AI has to be an enabler. It cannot be the be-all and end-all of the venture proposition.”

“As long as you are solving a fundamental problem and there is a business case around it, that remains the basis for any investment decision.”

4. Underserved and underappreciated opportunities

Mustafa Ghouse

“Women’s sports in India remain extremely untapped. The Women’s Premier League has been a success from the beginning, but not much has grown around it yet.”

“Youth sports are another completely untapped opportunity in India. It is a highly fragmented and disorganized market that we would love to see consolidate.”

“If a child becomes connected to a sport at seven, eight or nine years old, you may have that fan for life.”

“New distribution and media platforms could help the Indian sports industry grow much faster.”

CiCi Bellis

“The convergence of sports and healthcare remains underappreciated.”

“Elite athletes can be incredible early users because they demand personalization, better measurement, continuous monitoring, faster recovery and elite care.”

“Capital, talent, media and fandom are becoming increasingly borderless.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“International capital will increasingly flow into India, Saudi Arabia, Africa and Europe. That creates more choices and more opportunities for collaboration.”

“The alignment of global diasporas can translate into much larger sports-investment opportunities.”

Kai Bond

“There is an opportunity for new forms of gameplay and shorter-format sports content that reflect changing attention spans.”

“As seasons become longer and more games are added to schedules, shorter formats will increasingly have a place in the sports ecosystem.”

5. What separates startups that raise and scale

Kai Bond

“We are looking for the same things other seed investors seek: a large and growing market, an incredible founder, domain expertise and the ability to identify a trend that others do not yet see.”

“We see companies that are great businesses with excellent products and a genuine need, but they are not necessarily venture-scale opportunities.”

“Just because you have a great sports business does not mean it needs venture capital behind it.”

“The companies that achieve multibillion-dollar valuations must be pursuing very large markets.”

CiCi Bellis

“Three or four years ago, a compelling story and a massive total addressable market could sometimes drive most of a funding round. Today, investors want something more tangible.”

“Investors are looking for clearer product-market fit, a market large enough to support a venture outcome, meaningful commercial traction and strong retention.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“You have to stick to your discipline and avoid being carried away by the excitement. (..) You must determine whether the opportunity can genuinely produce a venture-scale outcome”.

“The capital-raising game is a byproduct of exits—not the reverse.”

“If you do not deliver exits and outcomes, the capital will not continue to come.”

Mustafa Ghouse

“Whether you are investing in sports technology, gaming, fitness, health or education, it still comes down to the fundamentals.”

“Founders must demonstrate that they understand first principles and have the ability to scale the business.”

“A population of 1.4 billion people may sound exciting, but who exactly are you addressing, and how are you going to monetize that audience?”

6. The dos and don’ts of sports investment

Kai Bond

“As a vertically focused investor, you may see the same pitch a hundred times. It is easy to dismiss it, but eventually that idea may work because distribution or technology has changed.”

“This job is about continuously challenging your core assumptions.”

“What we enjoy as sports fans may not be what a younger generation, another demographic or another continent wants to experience.”

“You need the intellectual honesty to understand what you have done well, what you have done wrong and why you reached those conclusions.”

“The data will ultimately tell you what is right or wrong. It is not what the investor says or what the founder says—the data is the final truth.”

“Founders need conviction, but they also need to know when to pivot.”

“You cannot always see around the corner, but you can look for the signals that tell you something is coming.”

Mustafa Ghouse

“We may believe we understand the sector because we are vertically focused and go deep, but the reality is that we do not always know.”

“You have to remain humble, continue learning and understand what consumers appreciate at any given moment.”

Ibrahim Sagna

“Investing is an art, and we have to bring in the science we have learned from other disciplines.”

“Our job is to look at what a founder brings to life and determine whether there is a predictable revenue stream, whether it can sustain itself and how we can add value.”

“One major success can make you look brilliant, but nobody sees all the bullets you took along the way.”

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

The NHL is entering a new era of player preparation.

The NHL and NHLPA’s new Collective Bargaining Agreement, which takes effect September 16, 2026 and runs through September 15, 2030, introduces several important changes to how teams prepare and manage players.

Among the most visible are the elimination of traditional strenuous fitness testing—including conditioning tests such as timed sprints, exercise-bike tests and the infamous “bag skate”—and a reduction in the formal training-camp window for experienced players to 13 days. At the same time, the regular season increases from 82 to 84 games.

This creates an interesting paradox.

Players will be subjected to less punitive testing and less formal camp time, but they will be asked to play more regular-season games.

That changes the performance equation for NHL organizations.

Historically, teams could use demanding fitness tests and extended camps to determine whether players were physically prepared for the season. The new CBA removes much of that traditional approach. The question therefore becomes:

How can NHL teams verify that players are ready for an 84-game season without relying on traditional fitness tests?

The likely answer is a shift toward continuous, individualized and data-driven monitoring rather than one-off physical tests.

That could accelerate the adoption of athlete-monitoring systems, force and power testing, biomechanics, recovery monitoring, workload management, wearable technology and AI-based performance analytics throughout the NHL.

1. What exactly is changing?

The new CBA makes several changes that are particularly relevant to performance and medical departments.

1.1 Traditional strenuous fitness testing is gone

Teams can no longer conduct certain traditional conditioning tests such as:

• timed sprint tests

• strenuous exercise-bike tests

• repetitive conditioning tests

• “bag skates”

• other highly demanding conditioning assessments

The change represents a significant departure from the traditional hockey mentality of using highly strenuous tests to determine whether players are “in shape.”

The previous CBA already required fitness tests to be legitimate and relevant from a fitness-evaluation perspective and prohibited tests that subjected players to undue injury risk.

The new agreement goes substantially further by eliminating several of the traditional tests altogether.

1.2 Training camps become shorter

Experienced players will have a 13-day training-camp window, compared with the previous 20-day structure. Teams will also have fewer preseason games.

This means teams have less formal time to:

• evaluate physical readiness

• build conditioning

• integrate players

• test systems

• assess younger players

• identify physical limitations

• prepare players for game intensity

1.3 The regular season increases to 84 games

The NHL regular season moves from 82 to 84 games.

That is particularly important from an injury-management perspective because the additional games aren’t simply replacing training sessions—they increase the number of competitive exposures across an already demanding season.

The preseason, meanwhile, is reduced to a maximum of four games per team.

This produces a very different preparation-to-competition ratio.

2. What does this mean for players?

Less punitive preparation

For players, the immediate benefit is obvious.

The traditional bag skate and similar conditioning tests can be extremely physically demanding. Removing them should reduce the possibility of players entering the regular season with unnecessary fatigue or soreness caused by testing itself.

It also reflects a broader evolution in professional sports:

Being exhausted is not necessarily evidence that an athlete is well prepared.

Modern sports science increasingly focuses on whether training produces the desired physiological and neuromuscular adaptation rather than whether an athlete can survive a punishment-oriented conditioning session.

But players still need to be ready

The challenge is that eliminating a fitness test doesn’t eliminate the need for fitness.

An NHL player still needs:

• aerobic capacity

• anaerobic capacity

• repeated-sprint ability

• skating power

• lower-body strength

• eccentric strength

• neuromuscular readiness

• mobility

• tissue resilience

• recovery capacity

And now the player has to sustain those qualities across 84 regular-season games.

The CBA therefore shifts the responsibility from:

“Can you pass this test?”

to:

“Can the organization continuously demonstrate that this player is prepared for the demands being placed on him?”

That is a much more sophisticated question.

3. What does this mean for NHL teams?

The biggest impact may actually be on team performance departments.

Teams now have less formal camp time to establish readiness and more games to manage.

That increases the importance of individualized preparation before and during the season.

Teams will increasingly need to understand:

• How much training can a player tolerate?

• Is his neuromuscular performance declining?

• Is his skating power changing?

• Is his asymmetry increasing?

• Is his recovery deteriorating?

• Is his sleep adequate?

• Is his workload increasing too quickly?

• Is he showing signs of accumulated fatigue?

• Is he ready to return from injury?

• Does he need a modified practice?

This is already happening in some NHL organizations.

For example, the Dallas Stars describe an expanded performance structure involving strength and conditioning, nutrition, medicine and sports science, with player workload, hydration, nutrition and recovery being monitored.

The Toronto Maple Leafs also recently expanded their Sport Performance department across strength and conditioning, sport science, nutrition, rehabilitation and mental performance.

This suggests that the CBA is arriving at a time when NHL organizations are already moving toward integrated performance departments.

4. What could happen to the number of NHL injuries?

This is probably the most important question.

Our view: the CBA itself will not necessarily cause more injuries—but it increases the risk of poor preparation and makes injury-prevention systems more important.

There are two opposing forces.

Factor #1: Removing strenuous fitness testing could reduce some unnecessary injury exposure

A player does not need to demonstrate fitness by being pushed to exhaustion immediately before a season.

Eliminating aggressive testing could reduce:

• acute muscle soreness

• excessive fatigue

• soft-tissue stress

• unnecessary overload

• situations where players push beyond their individual limits

So this element of the CBA could potentially be positive for player health.

Factor #2: Shorter camps + fewer preseason games + 84 regular-season games create another risk

This is more concerning.

The scientific literature suggests that changes in preparation and game density can influence NHL injury rates.

A study of NHL injuries from 2018-19 through 2021-22 found that the 2020-21 season had a 19% higher overall injury rate than baseline seasons and a 71% higher rate of season-ending injuries. The authors identified decreased offseason preparation and increased game density among possible contributors.

Another large epidemiological analysis covering 2012-13 through 2022-23 recorded 24,776 NHL injuries. It found injury incidence of 51.3 injuries per 1,000 athlete exposures during the regular season and 67.9 during the playoffs.

That is important.

The problem isn’t necessarily the absence of the bag skate.

The bigger concern is:

Does a shorter preparation window combined with a longer regular season create more opportunities for players to enter games insufficiently prepared or accumulate fatigue?

That remains unknown.

5. The 84-game season makes monitoring more important

The additional two games may sound insignificant.

But across 32 teams, they represent:

64 additional team-game exposures per season.

And every NHL player who participates in those games experiences additional competitive exposure.

The historical data also suggest that game density matters. During the NHL’s compressed COVID-era schedule, a study found a strong relationship between playoff game density and injury rates. The modified 2019-20 playoffs had an injury rate 84% higher than baseline.

This does not mean that adding two games will produce an 84% increase in injuries.

It would be incorrect to make that extrapolation.

Instead, it demonstrates a broader principle:

The more important question is not simply how many games players play, but how much total load and recovery demand exists between those games.

That is exactly where athlete monitoring becomes valuable.

6. Could the new CBA accelerate technology adoption?

Yes. Potentially significantly.

The traditional fitness test provided teams with a simple snapshot.

Technology can provide something much more valuable:

Continuous individualized data.

Instead of testing an athlete once at training camp, teams can monitor trends throughout the season.

Potential technologies include:

Wearables

Monitoring:

• heart rate

• HRV

• workload

• sleep

• recovery

• movement

• training intensity

Wearable GPS and inertial systems are already increasingly used in professional sports for workload monitoring, although research cautions that the relationship between workload metrics and injury risk is sport-specific.

Force plates

Teams can monitor:

• countermovement jump

• eccentric braking

• concentric power

• asymmetries

• neuromuscular fatigue

This can provide a quick daily readiness assessment without forcing an athlete through an exhaustive conditioning test.

Velocity-based training

Teams can monitor bar velocity during strength exercises to understand:

• force production

• fatigue

• readiness

• changes in performance

Biomechanics

Markerless or sensor-based systems can potentially assess:

• skating mechanics

• joint movement

• asymmetries

• acceleration

• deceleration

• change of direction

• shooting mechanics

Recovery technology

Teams can increasingly combine the modalities below to create a more complete picture of readiness.

• sleep

• HRV

• subjective wellness

• hydration

• nutrition

• workload

• neuromuscular data

7. The biggest opportunity: replacing “fitness testing” with “readiness testing”

This is where we believe the NHL has an opportunity to become a leader.

Instead of:

Fitness test → pass/fail

NHL teams could move toward:

Daily readiness → individualized training prescription → workload monitoring → injury-risk management

For example:

A player arrives at the rink.

His:

• jump performance is down 8%

• HRV is below baseline

• sleep was poor

• previous game workload was high

• skating workload has accumulated over the previous week

Instead of putting him through a conditioning test, the performance department can modify his workload.

That is a much more sophisticated approach.

8. Are other sports likely to follow?

I would expect some elements of this philosophy to spread, but I would not expect other leagues to simply copy the NHL rule.

Different sports have different labor agreements, physical demands and histories.

The NFL, for example, still explicitly permits certain conditioning testing under its CBA, although the agreement also contains extensive provisions around player health, training-camp acclimation and analysis of performance-tracking data.

So the NHL could become an interesting case study.

If NHL teams demonstrate that:

less punitive testing + better monitoring + individualized preparation = equal or better performance and fewer injuries

then the model becomes much more compelling for other leagues.

The reverse is also true.

If injury rates increase significantly following the implementation of the new system, other leagues will probably be reluctant to adopt similar restrictions.

9. Impact on sports-tech vendors

The CBA creates both winners and losers.

Potential losers

Vendors whose primary value proposition is:

“We help teams conduct a better fitness test.”

could face a more difficult market.

Similarly, technologies designed mainly around one-time testing could have less strategic importance.

Teams may ask:

“Why should I test this athlete once when I can monitor him continuously?”

Potential winners

The biggest opportunity is for companies providing low-friction, repeatable measurement.

Particularly attractive categories could include:

1. Force and power measurement

Because teams need objective readiness measurements without exhaustive conditioning.

2. Athlete monitoring

Workload + recovery + wellness + physiological data.

3. Biomechanics

Especially systems that can measure movement without cumbersome laboratory setups.

4. AI

AI could become particularly valuable if it helps teams turn dozens of data streams into actionable recommendations.

The winning proposition isn’t:

“Here is more data.”

It is:

“Here is what you should do with the player today.”

5. Recovery technology

With 84 games, recovery becomes increasingly important.

6. Injury rehabilitation

Technology that helps teams objectively determine whether a player is ready to progress through rehab or return to competition becomes increasingly valuable.

10. What this means for vendors selling into the NHL

The CBA could actually change how vendors should sell.

A vendor should not lead with:

“Our technology is more advanced.”

Instead:

“The NHL is giving teams less formal preparation time and more games. We help you objectively quantify readiness and manage workload without adding fatigue.”

That is a much stronger business case.

Vendors should also quantify outcomes wherever possible:

• reduced missed games

• faster return to play

• improved availability

• improved performance

• reduced training load

• improved recovery

• better player development

The NHL market is sophisticated.

Teams don’t need another dashboard.

They need actionable information that improves player availability and performance.

11. Recommendations for NHL teams

1. Don’t replace fitness testing with nothing

This is the biggest mistake teams could make.

Removing the bag skate should not mean abandoning objective physical assessment.

Teams should replace it with less-fatiguing objective measurements.

2. Establish individual player baselines

Every player should have a baseline for relevant measures such as:

• force

• power

• jump performance

• movement

• workload

• recovery

• sleep

• cardiovascular metrics

The objective should be to understand each player’s normal, rather than comparing everyone against a single team standard.

3. Create a “readiness score” carefully

Teams should avoid creating a simplistic black-box score.

Instead, combine multiple inputs:

Performance + workload + recovery + medical status + subjective feedback.

The output should support—not replace—professional judgment.

4. Monitor training load continuously

With 84 games, teams need to understand cumulative load.

The question should shift from:

“Is he fit?”

to:

“How much load can he tolerate today?”

5. Integrate performance and medical departments

The best organizations will increasingly break down the traditional silos between:

Strength & Conditioning → Sports Science → Medical → Rehab → Nutrition → Performance

The CBA makes this integration even more important.

6. Measure the impact of the new CBA

NHL teams should track:

• injuries per 1,000 exposures

• soft-tissue injuries

• lower-body injuries

• missed games

• recurring injuries

• training-camp injuries

• early-season injuries

• injury severity

• player availability

Teams should compare these metrics with previous seasons.

The league is effectively conducting a natural experiment.

12. Recommendations for vendors

Vendor #1: Move from testing to monitoring

Don’t sell a test.

Sell a continuous performance-management solution.

Vendor #2: Reduce friction

Technology must be fast.

If it takes 30 minutes every day, adoption will be difficult.

A five-minute measurement that practitioners actually use can be more valuable than an extremely sophisticated test that players rarely perform.

Vendor #3: Integrate

Teams don’t want 15 disconnected dashboards.

APIs, AMS integrations and interoperable data will become increasingly important.

Vendor #4: Focus on outcomes

Vendors should build case studies around:

availability → performance → injury reduction → ROI

rather than simply:

number of measurements → number of sensors → number of data points.

Vendor #5: Make the technology player-friendly

The new CBA may also reinforce the importance of player buy-in.

Technology should ideally help players understand:

• how they are performing

• how they are recovering

• why their workload is changing

• how they can improve

This is especially important as player development becomes a larger component of sports technology.

13. A potential unintended consequence

There is one issue teams should watch carefully.

The elimination of traditional testing could create less standardization between organizations.

One team might have a sophisticated monitoring system involving:

• force plates

• biomechanics

• wearables

• AI

• sleep

• workload monitoring

while another might simply ask players how they feel.

That could create major differences in preparation quality.

In other words:

Removing an old standardized test creates an opportunity—but also a responsibility—to build something better.

14. The bigger strategic shift

The most important aspect of this CBA isn’t actually the bag skate.

It is the philosophical shift behind it.

Old model

Train → test → make players fit → play

Emerging model

Measure → individualize → monitor → adapt → recover → play

That second model is much closer to where elite sports performance is heading.

The NHL is already investing heavily in technology and data. The league’s partnership with Sony, for example, includes expanded use of Hawk-Eye tracking technologies, with NHL tracking data also supporting player health and safety applications.

At the team level, organizations are also expanding sports-science capabilities. Dallas has integrated sports science with strength and conditioning, nutrition and medical support, while Philadelphia recently brought in Daniel Bove to lead athlete performance and wellness after his NBA experience implementing athlete-management systems.

The direction of travel is therefore quite clear.

Conclusion

The NHL’s new CBA represents more than the end of the bag skate.

It represents a potential transition away from one-time, high-fatigue fitness assessment toward continuous, individualized player monitoring.

For players, the agreement should reduce unnecessary physical stress during training camp. For teams, however, it creates a new challenge: how to prepare players adequately for an 84-game season with less formal preparation time.

The injury implications are still unknown.

There is not enough evidence today to conclude that the new CBA will increase NHL injuries. However, previous NHL research shows that reduced preparation and increased game density can be associated with higher injury rates.

That makes workload management, recovery and objective readiness assessment more important—not less.

For sports-tech companies, this could be a significant opportunity.

The strongest vendors will not position themselves as replacements for the bag skate. They will position themselves as part of the next generation of NHL player preparation:

Measure more. Fatigue less. Individualize training. Monitor continuously. Recover intelligently. Keep players available.

And ultimately, that may be the real test of the new CBA:

Can NHL teams use better science and technology to replace traditional fitness testing while simultaneously keeping players healthy enough to handle an 84-game season?

The teams that answer that question successfully could gain a meaningful competitive advantage—not just in sports science, but ultimately on the ice.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

The 2026 US Open concludes this weekend with two finals carrying unusually significant historical implications:

• Women’s final: Aryna Sabalenka vs. Elena Rybakina

• Men’s final: Alexander Zverev vs. Ben Shelton

These matches are about much more than determining the final Grand Slam champions of the year.

Sabalenka is attempting to become the first woman since Serena Williams to win three consecutive US Open titles. Rybakina is preparing to become the new world No. 1 and could begin her reign by defeating the player she is replacing.

On the men’s side, Shelton could end a 23-year Grand Slam drought for American men’s tennis. Zverev, meanwhile, has an opportunity to complete the best season of his career and avenge one of the most painful defeats of his professional journey.

The tournament may also have introduced a new dynamic into the rivalry between Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz. Sinner missed the tournament through injury, Alcaraz was eliminated by Shelton, and two different players will contest the men’s final.

Each possible outcome would create a different chapter of tennis history. That is what makes these finals so compelling: history will be made regardless of who lifts the trophies.

Key Moments of the 2026 US Open

The 2026 US Open has already produced several unforgettable moments.

The tournament’s defining match may have been Shelton’s five-set upset of defending champion Alcaraz. It lasted four hours and 28 minutes and ended at 3:33 a.m.—the latest finish in US Open history.

Shelton defeated Alcaraz 6–7, 6–1, 6–3, 1–6, 7–6, overcoming dramatic momentum swings to claim the biggest victory of his career. The result ended Alcaraz’s 18-match Grand Slam winning streak and guaranteed that a new men’s champion would be crowned in New York. (Source: The Guardian)

Shelton then defeated Frances Tiafoe in four sets in the first US Open men’s semifinal contested by two Black players. He became the first Black American man to reach the US Open final since Arthur Ashe in 1972 and the first American man overall to reach the championship match since Andy Roddick in 2003.

The women’s tournament also made history when its top four seeds reached the semifinals for the first time in 51 years.

Sabalenka defeated Jessica Pegula to reach her fourth consecutive US Open final, while Rybakina came from behind to beat Coco Gauff in three sets. By advancing deep into the tournament, Rybakina also secured the world No. 1 ranking for the first time and ended Sabalenka’s 99-week reign at the top.

Serena and Venus Williams provided another emotional moment by returning to compete together in women’s doubles. The sisters lost an extraordinary three-hour match to Chan Hao-ching and Maya Joint after holding a 5–0 lead in the deciding tiebreak.

Taylor Townsend and Kateřina Siniaková captured the women’s doubles championship. For Townsend, the victory carried particular significance after the obstacles and criticism she faced earlier in her career.

Karolína Muchová and Jakub Menšík also produced a remarkable run to the mixed-doubles title. They saved two match points in the semifinals before defeating Belinda Bencic and Flavio Cobolli in the championship match.

Together, these moments have made the 2026 US Open a celebration of established champions, emerging stars, American tennis and the continued evolution of the sport.

Women’s final: Aryna Sabalenka vs. Elena Rybakina

The women’s final brings together two of the most powerful and accomplished players in tennis.

Sabalenka and Rybakina have developed one of the defining rivalries of this generation. Sabalenka leads their head-to-head series 10–7, but that record does not fully capture how competitive their matches have been.

This will be their 18th meeting and third encounter in a Grand Slam final. They split their first two major finals against one another and have repeatedly met during the latter stages of the sport’s biggest tournaments.

Their rivalry is also compelling because of their contrasting personalities.

Sabalenka plays with visible emotion, intensity and energy. She celebrates loudly, expresses frustration openly and frequently feeds off the atmosphere surrounding a major match.

Rybakina is almost the opposite. Her body language tends to remain calm regardless of the score. She rarely reveals whether she is confident, frustrated or under pressure.

Their personalities may differ, but their tennis is built around similar principles.

Both players possess:

• Powerful first serves

• Aggressive returns

• Deep and penetrating groundstrokes

• The ability to shorten points

• The confidence to attack under pressure

• The physical tools required to dominate on hard courts

This is not merely a final between two players having excellent tournaments. It is a confrontation between the outgoing world No. 1, the incoming world No. 1 and perhaps the two most consistently dangerous hard-court players in women’s tennis.

Sabalenka’s opportunity to complete a rare three-peat

If Sabalenka wins, she will capture her third consecutive US Open title.

No woman has accomplished that since Serena Williams won three straight championships from 2012 through 2014. Before Serena, the women who dominated the tournament for multiple consecutive years included some of the greatest players in tennis history.

A three-peat at any Grand Slam is difficult. Achieving it at the US Open can be particularly challenging because of the environment.

New York presents players with:

• Loud and unpredictable crowds

• Late-night matches

• Humid summer conditions

• Constant media attention

• Intense pressure

• A long season already accumulated in the body

• Limited recovery time between demanding matches

Sabalenka has not merely survived those conditions. She has learned how to thrive in them.

She has reached four consecutive US Open finals and enters this championship match with a 19-match winning streak at the tournament. Her ability to reproduce elite performances year after year in New York has become one of the defining achievements of her career.

Winning a third straight title would give Sabalenka a fifth Grand Slam singles championship. It would also strengthen the argument that she has become the dominant hard-court player of this period.

There would be an additional twist: Sabalenka could lose the world No. 1 ranking and still leave New York holding the trophy.

That would create an unusual contrast between the rankings and the immediate competitive result. Rybakina would officially become the world’s top-ranked player, but Sabalenka would remain the three-time defending US Open champion.

A victory would therefore do more than add another major to Sabalenka’s résumé. It would reinforce her status as one of the most consistent champions the US Open has seen in the modern era.

Rybakina’s opportunity to begin a new era

Rybakina has already achieved something historic during this tournament.

By advancing deep enough in New York, she secured the world No. 1 ranking for the first time and ended Sabalenka’s 99-week reign at the top.

Becoming No. 1 is a major achievement by itself. Winning the US Open, however, would give that transition far greater symbolic importance.

Rybakina would not simply move ahead through ranking calculations. She would take the top position while defeating the player she is replacing in the final of a Grand Slam.

This is only the third time in the 21st century that a Grand Slam final has coincided with a change at world No. 1. That makes the match a rare direct confrontation for leadership of the women’s game. (Source: The Guardian)

Rybakina also began the 2026 Grand Slam season by winning the Australian Open. A victory in New York would mean she opened and closed the major season by winning its two hard-court championships.

That would be a powerful statement about her consistency, durability and ability to adapt over the course of a long season.

It would also further validate her resilience.

Rybakina entered the US Open following health and injury challenges, including an Achilles issue. She nevertheless navigated a demanding draw and defeated Gauff in three sets after losing the opening set in their semifinal.

Her path to the final has therefore required more than serving power and clean ball-striking. It has required physical resilience, tactical adjustment and composure under pressure.

If she wins, Rybakina will leave New York as the US Open champion, a two-time Grand Slam winner in 2026 and the new world No. 1.

That combination would mark the beginning of a new era at the top of women’s tennis.

A final that could define the leading women’s rivalry

The historical importance of this final extends beyond rankings and trophies.

Women’s tennis has featured significant depth in recent years, with Iga Swiatek, Gauff, Pegula and other leading players consistently competing for major titles. But Sabalenka and Rybakina have developed a particularly compelling rivalry because their matches repeatedly occur on the biggest stages.

If Sabalenka wins, she will reinforce her dominance in New York and protect her position as the leading major champion in this rivalry.

If Rybakina wins, she will have defeated Sabalenka in two Grand Slam finals during the same season while taking over the No. 1 ranking.

Either result could reshape how the rivalry is viewed.

The final is therefore not simply about who is better on one particular day. It could influence how this entire period of women’s tennis is remembered.

Men’s final: Alexander Zverev vs. Ben Shelton

The men’s final offers a very different historical storyline.

Zverev represents experience, patience and eventual breakthrough. Shelton represents youth, explosive potential and the possibility of ending one of American tennis’s longest periods without a men’s Grand Slam champion.

Zverev has won all five of his previous meetings with Shelton. Several of those matches have been competitive, but Shelton has yet to cross the finish line against him.

The matchup will also feature two of the biggest servers in the sport. Both players are tall, powerful and capable of controlling games without allowing an opponent to enter the point.

Their broader games, however, are at different stages of development.

Zverev has spent years competing near the top of the rankings. He has experienced major finals, Olympic competition, deep tournament runs, serious injuries and the pressure associated with being expected to win a Grand Slam.

Shelton is only beginning that phase of his career. His athleticism and serving power have never been in question, but his progress in consistency, returning, shot selection and emotional control has turned him into a genuine major contender.

The final is therefore a meeting between a player seeking to consolidate his legacy and one attempting to begin his own.

Shelton’s opportunity to end a 23-year American drought

Shelton is the first American man to reach the US Open final since Roddick won the tournament in 2003.

That illustrates how difficult the past two decades have been for American men at the Grand Slam level.

The United States has continued to produce highly ranked players, deep tournament runs and occasional semifinalists. However, no American man has won a Grand Slam singles title since Roddick’s victory in New York 23 years ago.

During much of that period, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic dominated the sport. Younger champions subsequently emerged, but the American drought continued.

Shelton now has an opportunity to change that narrative in front of his home crowd.

If he wins, he would become:

• The first American man to win a Grand Slam singles title since Andy Roddick in 2003

• The first American man to win the US Open in 23 years

• The first Black American man to win the US Open singles title since Arthur Ashe in 1968

• A Grand Slam champion in his first major final

The significance would extend well beyond Shelton’s individual career.

American tennis has invested heavily in player development, coaching, facilities, analytics and the search for its next men’s major champion. A Shelton victory would provide a visible return on that investment and potentially inspire a new generation of American players.

His style could make that impact even more significant.

Shelton is athletic, expressive and charismatic. He plays with visible enthusiasm and connects naturally with crowds. His left-handed serve is one of the most recognizable weapons in tennis, while his background as an NCAA champion gives him an unusual development story compared with players who entered the professional system much earlier.

His rise demonstrates that college tennis can still provide a legitimate pathway to the highest levels of the professional game.

A victory would therefore create history in several ways: for Shelton, for American men’s tennis, for Black American representation and for the credibility of the collegiate development pathway.

Zverev’s opportunity to complete his greatest season

Zverev enters the final from a very different position.

For years, he was considered one of the best players of his generation not to have won a Grand Slam. He reached major semifinals and finals, won significant tour titles and earned an Olympic gold medal, but the defining Grand Slam victory remained missing.

That changed when he won the 2026 French Open.

He then reached the Wimbledon final and has now advanced to the US Open championship match. This means he has appeared in three consecutive Grand Slam finals during the same season.

If he wins in New York, Zverev will finish this stretch with two major titles from three finals. It would confirm his transformation from perennial contender into consistent Grand Slam champion.

The victory would also carry significant personal meaning because of what happened at this tournament in 2020.

Zverev led Dominic Thiem by two sets in that US Open final and came within two points of winning the championship. He ultimately lost in a fifth-set tiebreak.

That defeat became one of the central stories of his career.

Returning to the same tournament six years later and finally winning the title would complete a long redemption arc. It would demonstrate the mental resilience required to revisit the site of a devastating defeat and produce a different ending.

He would also have to do it against an American opponent supported by the Arthur Ashe Stadium crowd.

The atmosphere is likely to favor Shelton heavily. Zverev will have to manage the crowd, the occasion and the pressure of competing against a first-time finalist carrying the hopes of American tennis.

If he succeeds, the victory would provide evidence of his growth—not simply as a tennis player, but as a competitor capable of handling the emotional demands of the sport’s biggest moments.

A potential generational turning point

The men’s final could also become a generational marker.

A Zverev victory would reinforce the position of an established star who has spent more than a decade on the professional tour.

A Shelton victory would introduce a new American Grand Slam champion at a moment when men’s tennis continues searching for the players who will shape its future.

The contrast is particularly striking because of the different paths they followed.

Zverev became a professional as a teenager and spent years being identified as a future major champion. Shelton developed through American college tennis before accelerating rapidly on the professional tour.

One path represents early specialization and long-term development within the international professional system. The other demonstrates the potential value of allowing a player to mature physically, technically and emotionally within the NCAA environment.

That makes the final relevant not only to tennis fans but also to coaches, performance specialists and development programs.

It raises an important question:

Is there one ideal pathway to producing a Grand Slam champion—or can fundamentally different development systems lead athletes to the same stage?

Sunday’s result will not answer that question completely, but it will give one pathway a historic validation.

Has This US Open Changed the Sinner–Alcaraz Rivalry?

Over the past few years, the central storyline in men’s tennis has been the rivalry between Sinner and Alcaraz.

Their contrasting styles, ages, athleticism and repeated meetings in major finals created the impression that they could dominate the sport together for the foreseeable future.

The 2026 US Open did not end that rivalry, but it introduced a potentially important new dynamic.

Sinner’s absence changed the tournament

Sinner was unable to compete in New York because of a right knee injury that had kept him out since his Wimbledon victory.

This was the first Grand Slam tournament he had missed since making his major debut at the 2019 US Open.

Before his withdrawal, Sinner had won six titles and compiled a 44–3 record in 2026, demonstrating that he remained one of the sport’s dominant players. His absence, however, showed how quickly physical availability can reshape the hierarchy at a major tournament. (Source: NBC Sports)

Availability may now become a more important part of the Sinner–Alcaraz rivalry.

Both players have demonstrated the ability to dominate when healthy, but both have also experienced physical interruptions during 2026. The player who manages his body and schedule most effectively may ultimately gain as much of an advantage as the player who wins their direct matchups.

Sinner’s withdrawal opened one side of the draw and removed one of the tournament’s leading contenders before the first ball was struck.

That opportunity allowed other players—particularly Zverev—to move deeper into the tournament without having to defeat Sinner.

Shelton demonstrated that Alcaraz can be disrupted

Alcaraz returned after being sidelined for more than four months because of a wrist injury. He still reached the quarterfinals, but Shelton ended his title defense and his 18-match Grand Slam winning streak.

The significance of Shelton’s victory went beyond a single upset.

Before that match, Shelton had reportedly lost all 17 of his previous encounters against players ranked inside the world’s top three. Defeating Alcaraz under extreme pressure suggested that Shelton may be developing the consistency, tactical variety and emotional control required to challenge the sport’s leading players.

His serve has always made him dangerous. The more important development was his ability to remain composed through five sets, recover from significant momentum shifts and finish the match against one of the best competitors in tennis.

One victory does not make Shelton an equal member of the Sinner–Alcaraz rivalry. But it established that he possesses the weapons to beat one of them on a Grand Slam stage.

If he can reproduce that level consistently, the conversation surrounding men’s tennis may begin to expand beyond two players.

Zverev has become a consistent Grand Slam factor

Zverev’s season has added another layer to the changing competitive picture.

After winning the French Open, reaching the Wimbledon final and advancing to the US Open final, he has now appeared in three consecutive Grand Slam championship matches.

That level of consistency demonstrates that the men’s game may not belong exclusively to Sinner and Alcaraz.

Zverev is also operating on a different timeline. At 29, he is older and more experienced than both players. He may not represent the next generation in the same way as Shelton, but he has developed into a more complete and resilient Grand Slam competitor.

He has turned the Sinner–Alcaraz rivalry from a potential two-player monopoly into, at minimum, a three-player championship conversation.

Is it a permanent shift or a temporary opening?

That remains the central question.

Sinner missed the US Open. Alcaraz was returning from a long absence. Djokovic also exited before the final. Those circumstances helped open the draw, but Zverev and Shelton still had to capitalize on the opportunity.

That distinction is important.

A new competitive era is not created simply because the leading players are absent or physically limited. It begins when other contenders repeatedly defeat them and reach major finals even when the field is healthy.

Shelton’s victory over Alcaraz provides the first part of that evidence. Zverev’s run of three consecutive major finals provides another.

The next test will be whether they can reproduce those results when Sinner and Alcaraz are both healthy and competing at their best.

This tournament may therefore have shifted the men’s tennis conversation from:

“Will Sinner or Alcaraz win?”

to:

“Who is capable of disrupting their rivalry?”

Sinner and Alcaraz remain the defining rivalry in men’s tennis. However, the 2026 US Open has shown that they may not control every major uncontested.

Zverev is becoming a more consistent Grand Slam champion, while Shelton has demonstrated that his athleticism and serving power can translate into victories over the sport’s very best.

The rivalry has not been replaced. But for the first time in this new era, the field around it may be beginning to take shape.

Conclusion

The 2026 US Open finals offer four distinctly historic possibilities.

Sabalenka could become the first woman since Serena Williams to win three consecutive US Open titles, extending one of the most dominant runs New York has seen in modern women’s tennis.

Rybakina could begin her reign as world No. 1 by defeating the player she is replacing, while completing a season in which she won both the Australian Open and US Open.

Shelton could end the 23-year Grand Slam drought in American men’s tennis, become the first Black American man to win the US Open since Arthur Ashe and validate college tennis as a pathway to the highest level of the professional game.

Zverev could complete his transformation into a multiple-time Grand Slam champion, win two majors during a season featuring three consecutive major finals and finally overcome the memory of his painful 2020 defeat in New York.

The tournament may also have expanded the wider conversation in men’s tennis. Sinner and Alcaraz remain its defining rivalry, but Zverev’s consistency and Shelton’s breakthrough suggest that other players may be ready to challenge their control of the majors.

This is what makes the weekend so compelling: its historical importance does not depend on one particular outcome.

The women’s final could either extend a dynasty or formally begin a new era.

The men’s final could either produce the breakthrough American tennis has awaited for more than two decades or complete one of the sport’s most significant redemption stories.

There will be two champions—but every possible result carries a legacy much larger than a single trophy.

Leave a comment

Share

Next week at Upside, we will host a new series of group podcasts and one-on-one interviews exploring the latest trends, best practices and future direction of sports, health and human performance.

Our upcoming conversations will focus on:

🏥 The Future of Sports Medicine
A group discussion with practitioners from the MLS and NBA examining how sports medicine is evolving.

🧠 Leadership and Skill Development
Practitioners from the NBA, MLS and international soccer will discuss how elite organizations develop better athletes, leaders and people.

🎾 The Future of Tennis
ATP and WTA practitioners and coaches will explore player development, performance, technology and the evolution of the sport.

🧬 One-on-One with the CEO of Tiny Health
A conversation about the microbiome, health innovation and the company’s vision for the future.

We look forward to bringing together leading practitioners, coaches and founders to discuss what is working today—and where the industry is heading next.

Stay tuned!

What to watch on TV this weekend

1. No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Texas
   Angle: How NIL, the transfer portal and escalating football budgets are transforming college programs into professional-style organizations.
   Saturday, 7:30 p.m. ET on ABC. (Source: College football schedule)

2. Formula 1’s first race at Madrid’s new Madring circuit
   Angle: How teams use simulators, digital twins and live telemetry to prepare for a completely unfamiliar track.
   Sunday, 9 a.m. ET on F1 TV. (Source: Official Formula 1 preview)

3. The opening Sunday of the NFL season
   Angle: Are NFL teams doing enough to prepare players for game intensity following limited preseason participation? This connects well with your analysis of preseason acclimation and soft-tissue injuries.
   The national Sunday-night game is Cowboys–Giants at 8:20 p.m. ET on NBC/Peacock. (Source: Sunday NFL schedule)

4. FIBA Women’s World Cup final weekend
   Angle: The narrowing international performance gap and how countries are developing deeper women’s basketball pipelines. Team USA faces Spain in Saturday’s semifinal.
   Saturday, 2 p.m. ET on TNT, truTV and HBO Max. (Source: Semifinal details)

5. The Subway Series: Mets vs. Yankees
   Angle: With the MLB postseason approaching, how teams balance winning now with fatigue, pitching workloads and player availability.
   Saturday and Sunday at 1:35 p.m. ET. Saturday is on MLB Network; local coverage is on YES and SNY.

This week we had the honor to interview again Dr. Ron Dick, associate professor of sports marketing at Duquesne University in the school of business. Ron also worked for 20 years in sports, including 15 years in the NBA with the Sixers and the Nets, and then five years in the NCAA.

You can watch the video interview below or you can listen to the audio interview above:

📝Show Notes: Through this interview, we touched on:

1. College Football

2. MLB’s end of the season and playoffs

3. WNBA season: WNBA commission retirement.

4. NFL season

5. 2026 US Open tennis

6. NBA season

7. NHL season

8. LIV Golf - bankruptcy

You can read the full transcript of the podcast interview with Ron located at the top of this blog post.

Here are some of the best quotes of our conversation with Ron:

1. College Football

“Only 12% of the 138 schools playing at the highest level of college football attract 70,000 or more fans per home game. For the universities that do not regularly sell out 70,000- or 100,000-seat stadiums, covering the mezzanine or second level with sponsorship signage could be the way of the future.”

“By covering those upper sections, you force everybody into the lower bowl. I think that dresses up the stadium for television, makes the atmosphere appear more intimate and brings the fans closer together.”

“There are only eight universities that attract 100,000 or more fans virtually every game. That includes Michigan, Penn State, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Texas, Tennessee, LSU and Alabama.”

“It is difficult to pick the single best college football atmosphere, but I would put Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, LSU, Alabama and Tennessee near the top. If I had to choose, I would probably call Michigan and Ohio State a tie.”

2. MLB End of the Season and Playoffs

“MLB is getting ready to head into the playoffs. Atlanta is four games ahead of Philadelphia, Milwaukee should win the Central, the Cubs are playing well, and the Dodgers should win the West. Arizona and San Diego are fighting for that final National League wild-card spot.”

“In the American League, it looks as though three teams could come out of the East. Tampa Bay is four games ahead of the Yankees, and Boston is right there. We also have close races in the Central and another battle in the West between Houston, Texas and Seattle.”

“It should be a great final three weeks of the season. I hope we all enjoy the playoffs because we may not have a 2027 season.”

“It is hard to kill the heart of a champion, but I think the Phillies are finally going to break through and make it to the World Series. I believe they will play the Tampa Bay Rays in a rematch of the 2008 World Series.”

3. WNBA Season and Commissioner’s Retirement

“Cathy Engelbert has been the commissioner of the WNBA since 2019 and has decided to retire effective July 1, 2027. Looking at her seven years with the league, her tenure has been very polarizing. Some developments have been great and unprecedented, while other issues have become political, petty and divisive.”

“On the positive side, players’ salaries have increased by 300% to 400%, teams now travel by charter instead of flying commercially, and franchise values have exploded—particularly the value of the New York Liberty.”

“The league is expanding to 18 teams by 2030, with Philadelphia receiving a team that year. That is all positive for the WNBA, and Cathy Engelbert deserves credit for overseeing that growth.”

“Players with superstar power, such as Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, have really catapulted the league to a higher level. When the tide comes in, all the ships go up, so the league should focus on how that attention can benefit everybody.”

“There are still some issues the players and their union need to figure out. But overall, from a financial perspective, Cathy Engelbert’s tenure was a success, and we wish her all the best.”

4. NFL Season

“The NFL season begins with a Super Bowl rematch between the Patriots and Seattle. That is very exciting and a great way to kick-start the season.”

“There is also a game in Melbourne, Australia, featuring the 49ers and the Rams. At least the NFL selected two West Coast teams that are already geographically leaning toward Australia.”

“Melbourne is a beautiful city, and it is also where the Australian Open is played. After the international game, the full slate of NFL games begins on Sunday, and the season will officially be off and running.”

5. 2026 US Open Tennis

Dr. Dick did not provide a detailed assessment or prediction about the US Open. After the host discussed the leading players and the state of the tournament, Dr. Dick said:

“That will all be wrapped up in a couple of days. We will see what happens this weekend.”

Most of the tennis commentary in this section—including the discussion of Carlos Alcaraz, Ben Shelton, Frances Tiafoe, Naomi Osaka and Coco Gauff—came from the host.

6. NBA Season

“After LeBron signed with Philadelphia as a free agent on July 24, ticket sales increased 470-fold. That is an extraordinary increase and demonstrates the level of excitement surrounding his arrival.”

“The October 16 preseason game between the Celtics and the Sixers is currently the highest-selling NBA preseason game on StubHub’s secondary market, even though star players historically do not always play in preseason games.”

“The Sixers will open the regular season against the Cleveland Cavaliers in Philadelphia on October 22. That was probably not scheduled by accident, and demand for those tickets is through the roof.”

“NBA League Pass subscriptions are up 10%. I will probably buy the package because I would like to watch all the craziness surrounding LeBron in Philadelphia and then follow what happens when the Sixers go on the road.”

“League Pass gives fans a convenient way to watch games at their leisure. The highlights and condensed-game formats are also valuable because they allow you to see the most important moments without having to watch the entire game.”

7. NHL Season

“NHL rookie training camps begin on September 11. The veterans arrive on September 16 and 17, and then the teams jump directly into their preseason schedules.”

“The first Penguins game will be in Philadelphia on September 30. What a great way to start the season, with two archrivals playing each other after also meeting in last year’s playoffs.”

“The Flyers beat the Penguins in the playoffs last year, so opening the new season against each other should create a very intense and exciting atmosphere.”

“As far as predicting who will win the Stanley Cup in June, I have no idea yet. I am not ready to go out on a limb and select a champion at this point.”

8. LIV Golf Bankruptcy

“LIV Golf has gone bankrupt. You do the best you can to keep a league afloat, but if the sponsorship revenue is not there, it becomes extremely difficult to sustain the business.”

“LIV Golf always overpaid the players, and that is why so many of them—not all, but many—jumped at the money and decided to join the league.”

“Those players get to keep the money they received. Now, hopefully, they can return to playing on the PGA Tour, and the sport can begin to heal some of the wounds that were created by the division.”

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

Elite sports organizations have traditionally used medical imaging after an athlete reports pain or suffers an acute injury. That model is beginning to change.

More teams are exploring imaging of the Achilles tendon, patellar tendon, hamstrings and other soft tissues throughout the season—not only to diagnose injuries, but also to establish baselines, monitor rehabilitation and better understand how tissues respond to training load.

There is no comprehensive public database showing exactly how many teams have adopted routine soft-tissue imaging. Nevertheless, portable ultrasound, quantitative imaging and faster analysis are making repeated assessments more practical.

The opportunity is significant, but so is the risk of overinterpretation. An abnormal scan does not automatically mean that an athlete is injured, and a normal-looking scan does not guarantee that an injury will not occur.

The objective should not be to scan every athlete and search for abnormalities. It should be to answer a clearly defined clinical or performance question.

Why Imaging Tendons, Achilles and Hamstrings Matters

Soft-tissue injuries are among the most consequential problems in elite sports. Hamstring injuries can lead to substantial time loss and have a meaningful recurrence risk. Achilles tendinopathy can develop gradually, affect performance for months and, in severe cases, progress to rupture.

Imaging can help teams:

• Confirm the location and extent of an acute injury.

• Differentiate muscular, myotendinous and intratendinous injuries.

• Identify partial or complete tendon ruptures.

• Establish an athlete-specific baseline.

• Monitor tissue structure during rehabilitation.

• Compare the injured and uninjured sides.

• Evaluate how tissues are responding to changes in load.

• Support return-to-training and return-to-performance discussions.

• Identify cases that require specialist referral or additional investigation.

• Improve communication among physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength coaches and athletes.

For hamstring injuries, the location can be highly relevant. An injury involving the intramuscular tendon may behave differently from a less complex muscle injury. For the Achilles, imaging can reveal tendon thickening, changes in fiber organization, neovascularity and mechanical properties.

However, structural findings must always be interpreted alongside symptoms, clinical examination, strength, function, workload and the athlete’s history.

The Main Imaging Modalities

1. Conventional musculoskeletal ultrasound

B-mode ultrasound uses high-frequency sound waves to visualize muscles, tendons and other superficial structures in real time.

It can assess:

• Tendon thickness and continuity.

• Fiber organization.

• Muscle tears and hematomas.

• Myotendinous injuries.

• Scar tissue.

• Dynamic movement.

• Side-to-side differences.

Ultrasound is portable, relatively affordable and repeatable. It can also be used at the training facility, during travel or close to the field.

Its main limitation is that it is highly operator-dependent. Probe placement, pressure, angle, athlete position and machine settings can all influence the result. Deep structures and complex proximal hamstring injuries may also be more difficult to visualize than with MRI.

2. Color and power Doppler ultrasound

Doppler techniques assess blood flow within and around soft tissues. In tendinopathy, practitioners may use Doppler to evaluate neovascularity or changes in local vascularity.

Doppler can add useful information to a structural ultrasound examination, but increased blood flow should not automatically be interpreted as proof of pain, injury severity or readiness.

3. Shear-wave and strain elastography

Elastography attempts to quantify tissue mechanical properties, particularly stiffness.

This is attractive in sports because tendons and muscles adapt mechanically to loading, injury and rehabilitation. In theory, teams could monitor whether an Achilles tendon or hamstring is becoming stiffer, softer or more heterogeneous over time.

The technology remains sensitive to:

• Joint and muscle position.

• Recent activity and loading.

• Probe pressure and orientation.

• The size and position of the selected region.

• Device and software differences.

• Operator experience.

A systematic review of Achilles tendon elastography found encouraging evidence for some measures but substantial methodological variation. It concluded that no elastography method had yet demonstrated clear superiority for routine clinical use. Read the systematic review here.

4. Ultrasound Tissue Characterization

Ultrasound Tissue Characterization, or UTC, uses standardized ultrasound acquisition and software analysis to construct a three-dimensional representation of a tendon.

The system evaluates the stability of echo patterns across consecutive images and categorizes tendon structure into different echo types. This can provide a more quantitative assessment of tendon organization than a single conventional ultrasound image.

UTC is especially relevant to Achilles and patellar tendon monitoring. Its potential value lies in evaluating changes over time under a standardized protocol rather than relying on one isolated image.

As with other imaging modalities, changes in UTC findings should not be treated as a direct prediction that an injury will occur. Learn more about the technology.

5. Magnetic resonance imaging

MRI provides highly detailed visualization of muscles, tendons, fascia, bone marrow and surrounding tissues without ionizing radiation.

For hamstring injuries, MRI can help determine:

• Which muscles are involved.

• The location and length of the injury.

• Whether the myotendinous or intramuscular tendon is involved.

• The presence of edema, hemorrhage or retraction.

• Whether an avulsion or complete rupture has occurred.

MRI is particularly valuable for deep or complex injuries and when surgical decisions may be involved.

Its disadvantages include cost, limited portability, access and the time required to perform and interpret the examination. MRI abnormalities can also persist after symptoms and function have improved, making the scan an imperfect standalone return-to-play tool.

6. Advanced quantitative MRI

Emerging MRI techniques include:

• T2 and T2* mapping.

• Ultrashort echo-time imaging.

• Diffusion-tensor imaging.

• Quantitative fat and water mapping.

• MR elastography.

• Radiomics and automated tissue segmentation.

These methods may eventually quantify tissue quality and healing more precisely than conventional visual grading. Most remain more common in research or specialist environments than in daily team operations.

7. Infrared thermography

Thermography measures patterns of skin-surface temperature. It may help identify thermal asymmetries or physiological responses associated with inflammation, altered circulation or workload.

However, thermography does not directly image the internal structure of a tendon or muscle. Environmental temperature, recent exercise, clothing, hydration and the measurement protocol can all affect results.

It should therefore be considered a complementary screening or monitoring signal—not a replacement for ultrasound, MRI or clinical assessment.

Key Vendors

The vendor landscape includes major medical-imaging companies, portable ultrasound providers and specialized tendon-imaging platforms.

Conventional and advanced ultrasound

Major providers include:

• GE HealthCare, which offers LOGIQ, Venue and handheld Vscan platforms.

• Philips, with musculoskeletal ultrasound, Doppler, panoramic imaging and elastography capabilities.

• Siemens Healthineers.

• Canon Medical Systems.

• Esaote, which has a strong musculoskeletal imaging focus.

• Samsung Medison.

• Fujifilm SonoSite.

The availability of individual elastography, Doppler and quantitative tools varies by system, model and country.

Portable and handheld ultrasound

Portable platforms are helping move imaging from radiology departments into team facilities and point-of-care environments.

Relevant vendors include:

• Clarius, which offers wireless handheld probes for musculoskeletal applications.

• Butterfly Network, which provides a handheld whole-body ultrasound platform.

• GE HealthCare through its Vscan products.

• Fujifilm SonoSite through its portable systems.

Portability does not eliminate the need for training. Image acquisition and interpretation should remain in the hands of appropriately qualified practitioners operating within local regulations.

Specialized tendon imaging

UTC Imaging is a specialized provider of Ultrasound Tissue Characterization. Its technology combines a motorized tracker, ultrasound acquisition and software designed to quantify tendon structure longitudinally.

MRI systems

Key MRI providers include:

• Siemens Healthineers

• GE HealthCare

• Philips

• Canon Medical Systems

• United Imaging

• Esaote

These companies provide the scanners and imaging ecosystems used by hospitals, sports-medicine centers and some professional organizations. Teams frequently access MRI through an affiliated hospital or imaging partner rather than owning a scanner.

This list is illustrative rather than a product endorsement.

What the Research Shows

Achilles abnormalities may precede symptoms—but prediction remains difficult

A prospective study evaluated pre-race ultrasound abnormalities in runners and their association with subsequent Achilles injuries. The research supports the possibility that structural abnormalities can identify elevated risk, but it also illustrates why imaging cannot perfectly determine which individual athlete will develop symptoms. Read the study.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that tendon abnormalities detected by ultrasound were associated with a greater risk of developing Achilles or patellar tendon symptoms. However, many athletes with abnormalities remained asymptomatic. Read the review.

This is one of the most important lessons for teams: risk association is not individual injury prediction.

Abnormalities can persist without symptoms

A 2026 two-year ultrasound study of collegiate athletes examined the persistence of abnormalities in the patellar tendon, Achilles tendon and plantar fascia. Its findings reinforce that sonographic abnormalities and clinical symptoms do not always move together. Read the study.

A structurally abnormal tendon may remain pain-free and functional. Conversely, an athlete can experience significant pain without dramatic structural changes on imaging.

MRI provides useful hamstring information—but cannot determine return to play alone

A prospective analysis of 255 hamstring injuries from the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study examined the relationship between MRI findings and return to play. MRI-negative injuries were generally associated with shorter absences, while certain locations and injury characteristics were associated with longer recovery. Read the study.

A systematic review examining MRI and hamstring reinjury risk concluded that MRI findings alone have limited value for predicting reinjury. Read the systematic review.

Another systematic review found that greater muscle or tendon involvement, longer lesions, injuries involving multiple muscles and certain central-tendon or myotendinous injuries were associated with delayed return to play. Clinical findings and rehabilitation progress remained essential. Read the review.

Research involving elite football and track-and-field athletes has also found that intratendinous hamstring injuries can be associated with longer rehabilitation or a greater recurrence risk. Elite football study and elite track-and-field study.

Future Trends

Imaging will become more portable

Handheld ultrasound will make assessments more accessible at training facilities, during preseason testing and while teams travel. The practical advantage will be the ability to examine an athlete quickly and repeat the examination over time.

Teams will develop athlete-specific baselines

Population norms are often inadequate for elite athletes. Future programs will compare each athlete with their own previous scans, symptoms, strength data and workload history.

This could be especially valuable for athletes with a history of Achilles tendinopathy, recurrent hamstring injuries or previous tendon surgery.

Imaging will become more quantitative

Instead of relying primarily on visual interpretation, future platforms will quantify:

• Tendon thickness and cross-sectional area.

• Fiber organization.

• Tissue stiffness.

• Vascularity.

• Muscle architecture.

• Fascicle length.

• Scar-tissue characteristics.

• Changes between scans.

AI will automate acquisition and analysis

AI could help practitioners position the probe, identify anatomical landmarks, segment tissue and detect changes from an athlete’s baseline.

The most valuable systems will not simply label a scan as red, yellow or green. They will show practitioners what changed, quantify the confidence in that finding and preserve clinical oversight.

Imaging will be integrated with other data

Imaging will increasingly be combined with:

• GPS and external workload.

• Strength and force-plate testing.

• Isokinetic assessments.

• Sprint exposure.

• Pain and wellness reports.

• Previous injury history.

• Blood or molecular biomarkers.

• Training and competition schedules.

The goal will be to understand tissue response in context, rather than viewing the scan as an isolated answer.

Dynamic and loaded imaging will grow

Most imaging is performed while the athlete is resting. Future assessments will increasingly evaluate muscles and tendons during contraction, loading or movement.

This could help teams better understand how tissues behave under conditions that are closer to sport.

Recommendations for Teams

Teams considering a soft-tissue imaging program should:

1. Begin with a specific question. Decide whether imaging will support diagnosis, rehabilitation monitoring, baseline development or research.

2. Use qualified practitioners. Acquisition and interpretation should be performed by appropriately trained medical professionals.

3. Standardize the protocol. Control athlete position, joint angle, probe location, device settings, operator, time of day and recent loading.

4. Establish individual baselines. A player’s own longitudinal data may be more meaningful than a single comparison with population norms.

5. Measure reliability first. Teams should determine the normal measurement variation before treating a small change as meaningful.

6. Avoid scanning without a decision pathway. Before collecting data, determine what action could follow each potential finding.

7. Never use imaging in isolation. Combine results with pain, function, strength, range of motion, workload and clinical examination.

8. Do not medicalize every abnormality. Structural variation is common in high-performing and asymptomatic athletes.

9. Avoid promising injury prediction. Imaging may identify risk-related characteristics, but it cannot reliably determine exactly who will be injured.

10. Validate AI-generated outputs. Automated measurements should be checked against expert interpretation and independent research.

11. Maintain consistent hardware and software records. Algorithm or system updates can affect longitudinal comparisons.

12. Protect medical data. Imaging results should be governed as sensitive health information with clear rules around access, retention and use in selection or contract decisions.

Conclusion

Soft-tissue imaging is moving from an episodic diagnostic service toward a more continuous role in athlete management.

Ultrasound, Doppler, elastography, UTC and advanced MRI can give teams new insight into the Achilles tendon, hamstrings and other vulnerable tissues. Portable systems and AI will make these assessments faster, more quantitative and easier to repeat. But more imaging does not automatically mean better decisions.

The central challenge is interpretation. Teams must distinguish normal adaptation from pathology, structural abnormality from symptoms and elevated risk from certain injury prediction.

The organizations that benefit most will be those that use imaging to answer focused questions and combine it with clinical expertise, functional testing and workload data.

The objective should not be to generate more scans. It should be to understand how an athlete’s tissues are responding—and determine whether that information can lead to a meaningful intervention.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Today we have the honor of interviewing a group of NWSL practitioners to discuss the latest trends and best practices related to women teams.

• Mitch Toda, head of medical, North Carolina Courage (NWSL).

• Nicole Surdyka, Director of performance and medical, Orlando Pride (NWSL).

• Juliet Barnes, Director of Medical, Chicago Stars fc (NWSL)

Here are the topics that we covered during the video interview:

• The Current state of performance in the NWSL
  How has the performance and medical environment within the NWSL evolved in recent years, and what challenges are practitioners prioritizing today?

• Female-specific health and injury prevention
  How are clubs incorporating female-specific considerations—including menstrual health, pelvic health, nutrition and hormonal factors—into athlete care? What is being done to better understand and reduce ACL injuries?

• Workload, travel and player availability
  How do you manage workload across the NWSL schedule, national-team windows and extensive travel while keeping players healthy and available? Where are the biggest opportunities to improve scheduling and recovery?

• Technology, AI and player data
  Which technologies are delivering the most value to NWSL practitioners today? How do you separate actionable insights from data overload while protecting player privacy, consent and trust?

• The next five years
  How do you expect health and performance practices in the NWSL to evolve over the next five years? What research, technology, staffing or league-wide standards could have the greatest impact on the women’s game?

You can watch the video interview below by clicking on the Youtube link. You can also listen to the audio interview by clicking on the link at the top of the page:

Here are some of the best quotes of our conversation with Nicole, Mitch and Juliet:

1. Current state of performance in the NWSL

Nicole Surdyka

“The biggest and most impactful change has been the increase in staff resources. We now have a very robust department, which makes things easier because people are not getting burned out as much. But it also requires intentional collaboration.”

“Historically, we have always asked what the women’s game can learn from the men’s game. This is an example where the reverse is also true. The women’s game has done a really great job of prioritizing mental health and mental wellbeing.”

Mitch Toda

“The collective bargaining agreement established a much higher baseline than what existed previously. Generally speaking, there are now more providers—and better-quality providers—supporting the players.”

Juliet Barnes

“The league has incorporated more checks and balances into player care, including mental health support and mandatory opportunities for players to complete screening. It is not enough to add staff; you also have to make sure players can access and use those resources.”

2. Female-specific health and injury prevention

Nicole Surdyka

“The menstrual cycle has often been cited as an obstacle to research rather than something to be embraced and studied further. Just because it adds another layer does not mean the research becomes drastically more challenging.”

“It needs to be done to empower the players. Every athlete wants to feel like she is being treated as an individual, and there is enormous variability in how athletes respond to their menstrual cycles.”

“My call to action would be: Don’t conduct research for the sake of doing it. Do it well. We need a greater quantity of research, but it also needs to be high quality.”

“I hope Project ACL does not take us down a rabbit hole of trying to link the menstrual cycle and ACL injuries. That narrative can be dangerous because it takes attention away from the factors we can actually change.”

Mitch Toda

“The purpose of Project ACL is that we simply do not know enough yet. We have extensive data from the men’s game and some emerging data from the women’s game, but much of it is not yet practical.”

“For now, we focus on proper periodization, wellness monitoring and appropriate weekly strength programs. We have to do the fundamentals well while remaining humble enough to admit that nobody has figured out ACL injuries yet.”

“I rely on specialists in areas such as pelvic health, OB-GYN care and nutrition. Every player responds differently, so the question is how we can support each athlete in doing her job despite how she may be feeling.”

Juliet Barnes

“Players do not want you to collect data simply for the sake of collecting it. The message has to be that the information is being gathered to help them perform—not to find a reason to remove them from training.”

“We can still support players through nutritional and other interventions based on their symptoms. What we should not do is say, ‘You’re on your cycle, so we’re going to modify your training,’ without truly understanding the individual athlete.”

3. Workload, travel and player availability

Juliet Barnes

“We have had to get creative with travel. If we are playing in the Bay Area and San Diego during the same week, we may remain on the West Coast for ten days. We bring the injured players and the necessary staff so everyone can continue progressing with their return to play.”

“Collaboration with national teams is extremely important—understanding when players are traveling, whether they are going overseas and whether they can arrive a day earlier to gain an additional day of recovery.”

“When a player returns from a long international tournament, we may give her five to seven days off, even if that means she misses a club game. We have to consider her total load.”

Nicole Surdyka

“Most soccer medicine research comes from Europe, where teams are not regularly flying six hours to play league matches. That travel has not been adequately accounted for in the way we periodize recovery and prepare players.”

“We have played an 8:00 p.m. game and then had to wake up at 4:00 a.m. for the best available commercial flight. If we know sleep is essential to recovery, what are we doing when players are getting only two or three hours of sleep?”

“When players return from their national teams, we do not always receive sufficient information about what they did. We may then have to tell the club that a perfectly healthy marquee player who just played four 90-minute games needs to rest.”

Mitch Toda

“The most successful teams typically have the greatest roster depth. Increasing squad depth would benefit not only player health but also the quality of the product on the field, because players would be fresher.”

“Charter flights could be a major game changer. If we truly want to support our players, that is a minimum standard the league should strive toward.”

“The worst-case scenario may be a player who goes to the World Cup, reaches the final stages but barely plays. She may actually detrain, creating another challenge when we have to rebuild her training load after the tournament.”

4. Technology, AI and player data

Nicole Surdyka

“We evaluate technology by looking at its total cost—in staff resources and money—and then comparing that with its impact. How much are we actually using it to make decisions?”

“If we are not making decisions from a technology, or if it does not weigh heavily in our decision-making process, we need to ask whether there is something else that should replace it.”

Mitch Toda

“We use wellness reporting, GPS monitoring and force-plate testing, but the goal is to use technology to support informed, collaborative decisions—not to say, ‘You are flagged red, so you cannot play today.’ That does not work.”

“Ultimately, we are working with people. The real value comes from combining the data with human interaction and getting an accurate picture directly from the player.”

“A red recovery flag does not necessarily mean the player cannot train. The player must remain a stakeholder in decisions about her own health and wellbeing.”

Juliet Barnes

“It is about the quality of what you collect, not simply the quantity, and about showing the players why you are collecting it.”

“Players need to see that the information they provide will not automatically cost them minutes or a place in the squad. Otherwise, they may not be honest or may not want to complete the questionnaire at all.”

“You need personnel who can digest the data and make it actionable. Otherwise, it is simply data sitting there.”

5. The next five years

Nicole Surdyka

“I would like to see an innovation team embedded within the club alongside the day-to-day practitioners. That team could answer the performance and medical questions practitioners do not have the time or energy to investigate.”

“That structure could eliminate the seven-year gap between academic research and its translation into practice. The answers could be developed and applied in real time.”

“This is an inflection point in women’s soccer. We can either inherit the negative aspects of the men’s game, including match congestion, or we can make different policy decisions before it is too late.”

“We need brave leaders who are willing to make difficult decisions for the women’s game right now.”

Juliet Barnes

“The league needs more specialized practitioners and a more female-centric ecosystem. Increasing staffing will be critical to supporting the players as the league continues to grow.”

“Larger rosters would also help teams rotate players and manage game load, particularly as more teams are added to the league.”

Mitch Toda

“The seasons will become longer, international demands will increase, there will be more teams, more games and more travel, and the game will continue to become faster and more intense.”

“The key question is how much of the research produced over the next five years will actually be actionable and implementable in player care.”

“A second-team league would provide an important buffer for injured players. Right now, an athlete returning from a long-term injury may have her first competitive exposure in an NWSL first-team game, which is an enormous challenge.”

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

Today LIV Golf filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New Jersey, marking the most consequential moment in the breakaway league’s turbulent four-year history.

The filing does not mean that LIV Golf is immediately shutting down. Chapter 11 allows an organization to continue operating while renegotiating its debts, contracts and ownership structure. LIV listed estimated assets of between $100 million and $500 million and liabilities of between $500 million and $1 billion. Fifty-seven affiliated debtors are included in the proceedings. Check out the Official bankruptcy case information).

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, or PIF, has invested more than $5 billion in LIV since its 2022 launch. It is now providing approximately $49.6 million in bankruptcy financing but plans to end its long-term financial support after the 2026 season. LIV hopes to emerge from bankruptcy under a smaller, more sustainable model backed by private-equity firm BC Partners. (Source: Reuters)

The filing raises major questions about LIV’s future, the stability of player contracts, the balance of power in professional golf and whether some of the game’s biggest stars will attempt to return to the PGA Tour.

How Did LIV Golf Get Here?

LIV Golf launched in 2022 with an ambitious strategy: use unprecedented financial resources to recruit elite golfers, challenge the PGA Tour and introduce a new team-based format.

The league offered enormous guaranteed contracts and record purses to attract players such as Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Brooks Koepka, Bryson DeChambeau, Cameron Smith and, later, Jon Rahm. It promoted shorter 54-hole tournaments, shotgun starts, no cuts and franchised teams.

The strategy successfully disrupted professional golf. It forced the PGA Tour to increase purses, reconsider its tournament structure and provide more financial benefits to its leading players.

However, LIV’s spending was built around continued financial support from PIF rather than revenue generated organically through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and team franchises.

A proposed framework agreement announced by the PGA Tour, DP World Tour and PIF in June 2023 initially appeared to offer a path toward reunifying professional golf. That transaction was never completed, leaving LIV and the PGA Tour operating as competing organizations.

In April 2026, PIF reportedly determined that continued investment in LIV no longer aligned with its strategy and decided to stop funding the league after the season. LIV subsequently sought outside capital and announced that it had reached an agreement with a new lead investor for its next phase. LIV Golf

The Chapter 11 process is intended to facilitate that transition—but on considerably less favorable terms than LIV enjoyed under PIF.

The Main Issues Faced by LIV Golf

1. An unsustainable cost structure

LIV spent heavily on guaranteed player contracts, prize money, event production, international travel and entertainment. That spending helped the league secure recognizable players, but it created a business whose costs substantially exceeded the revenue it was producing.

A challenger can operate at a loss while building an audience. The problem arises when the gap between expenses and commercial revenue remains exceptionally large several years after launch.

2. Dependence on one financial backer

PIF reportedly owns 100% of LIV Golf and provided the financial foundation for virtually every part of the league’s growth.

That gave LIV unusual freedom to spend aggressively, but it also created concentration risk. Once PIF decided to stop providing long-term support, LIV did not have enough diversified revenue or investment to sustain its existing structure.

3. Limited media-rights economics

Media rights are the economic engine of most major sports leagues. LIV struggled to build a television audience and secure media agreements capable of supporting its spending.

The league attracted some dedicated fans and recorded success in individual international markets, particularly Australia. However, it did not consistently convert its expensive player roster into the broad, recurring audience required to produce major media-rights revenue.

4. Difficulty establishing valuable team franchises

LIV envisioned its teams becoming commercially valuable global franchises with their own sponsors, investors, identities and fan bases.

That concept had potential, but most teams remained closely associated with individual captains rather than deeply rooted communities. Creating meaningful franchise value without local markets, permanent home venues or mature fan bases proved difficult.

5. Uncertainty surrounding ranking points and major championships

LIV events historically did not receive Official World Golf Ranking points. As a result, several players fell in the rankings and became increasingly dependent on existing major-championship exemptions or qualifying pathways.

This weakened LIV’s ability to promise players consistent access to the tournaments that still define careers and legacies.

6. Player contracts became major liabilities

Several prominent golfers are listed among LIV’s largest unsecured creditors. Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau and Dustin Johnson are each reportedly owed more than $5 million. (Source: Reuters)

During the restructuring, LIV may attempt to renegotiate guaranteed payments and replace some cash compensation with equity in the reorganized league. Players must determine whether that equity represents a valuable long-term opportunity or a substitute for money they were contractually promised.

Impact on Professional Golf

LIV’s bankruptcy could eventually help reunify the world’s best players, but the immediate outlook is likely to be more complicated.

The PGA Tour now enters any negotiations from a much stronger position. The threat of a permanently expanding, PIF-funded rival has diminished, reducing the PGA Tour’s incentive to make major concessions.

At the same time, LIV’s influence will not disappear. The league changed the economics of professional golf by pushing the PGA Tour to offer higher purses, more limited-field events and greater financial rewards for elite players. Those changes will be difficult to reverse.

The bankruptcy could produce several additional effects:

• Sponsors and broadcasters may become more cautious about making long-term commitments to LIV.

• Tournament hosts will seek assurances that scheduled events will proceed.

• LIV players may pursue unpaid compensation through the bankruptcy process.

• The reorganized league may reduce purses, events, staffing and production costs.

• Golf fans could see more leading players return to traditional tours.

• The PGA Tour may face pressure to develop a fair pathway for players who are not covered by its previous return program.

LIV’s proposed “2.0” model reportedly includes a smaller operation, new investors and greater player ownership. If it succeeds, LIV may survive as a complementary international competition rather than a direct, fully funded challenger to the PGA Tour.

Implications for Players Seeking to Return to the PGA Tour

Bankruptcy does not automatically release every LIV player from every contractual obligation. The treatment of each agreement will depend on its language and what LIV chooses to assume, reject or renegotiate during Chapter 11.

Players whose contracts are rejected could potentially become unsecured creditors and seek opportunities elsewhere. However, contractual freedom from LIV would not automatically restore PGA Tour membership.

In January 2026, the PGA Tour created a limited Returning Member Program for players who won a major championship or The Players Championship between 2022 and 2025. The eligibility group consisted of Brooks Koepka, Bryson DeChambeau, Jon Rahm and Cameron Smith.

The program included several conditions:

• A five-year forfeiture of participation in the PGA Tour’s player-equity program

• No FedExCup bonus payments during the return year

• A $5 million charitable contribution

• A minimum of 15 PGA Tour events

• No simultaneous participation in LIV events

• No automatic entry into every signature event

The application window closed on February 2, 2026, and the PGA Tour explicitly described it as a one-time opportunity rather than a precedent. (Check out the PGA Tour Returning Member Program)

The PGA Tour will now need to decide whether to reopen that program, establish a broader pathway or require most LIV players to regain status through traditional routes.

Leading players with major-championship exemptions and strong commercial appeal are likely to possess more negotiating leverage. Lower-ranked players could face a much harder route involving sponsor exemptions, qualifying school, the Korn Ferry Tour or the DP World Tour.

The most significant question is whether the PGA Tour prioritizes punishment and accountability or reunification and the commercial benefits of bringing recognizable stars back into its tournaments.

Which Major Sports League Could File for Bankruptcy Next?

There is no credible evidence currently establishing that another major sports league is preparing to file for bankruptcy. Naming one as “next” would therefore be speculation rather than analysis.

The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and leading European soccer competitions have diversified media, sponsorship and ticketing revenue, established franchises and long-term commercial ecosystems. Individual clubs can still experience financial distress, but a bankruptcy filing by an entire major league remains unlikely.

The leagues facing the greatest structural risk are generally newer challenger competitions that share some of LIV’s characteristics:

• Heavy dependence on one owner or investor

• Large operating losses

• Limited media-rights revenue

• High player and production costs

• Unproven franchise values

• Uncertain audience growth

• No clear path to profitability

Among nationally visible American competitions, spring-football and other emerging leagues deserve close monitoring because their economics have historically been difficult. However, insufficient public financial information makes it impossible to state responsibly that any specific league is likely to file next.

The broader lesson from LIV is more valuable than an unsupported prediction: access to substantial capital can launch a league and recruit talent, but it cannot permanently replace product-market fit, recurring revenue and a sustainable cost structure.

Conclusion

LIV Golf succeeded in disrupting professional golf, increasing player compensation and forcing the PGA Tour to evolve. But disruption is not the same as building a sustainable business.

The league’s dependence on PIF allowed it to spend at a level its commercial revenue could not support. Once that funding commitment changed, LIV’s structural weaknesses became impossible to ignore.

Chapter 11 gives LIV an opportunity to reorganize rather than disappear. A smaller league with lower costs, outside investment and meaningful player ownership could survive. But “LIV Golf 2.0” will be fundamentally different from the organization that attempted to challenge the PGA Tour through almost unlimited spending.

For the players, bankruptcy creates both risk and opportunity. Some could lose portions of the compensation they were promised. Others may gain leverage to renegotiate their contracts or return to traditional tours.

For the broader sports industry, LIV offers a powerful lesson: even billions of dollars cannot guarantee that a new league will build the audience, media rights, sponsorship revenue and fan loyalty required for long-term survival.

Leave a comment

Share

Dear colleague,

We are excited to share an update on the remaining presentation opportunities for sports technology startups at our upcoming Upside events in the United States and Europe.

📅 Upcoming Upside Events

2026 Austin Peay State University Health & Performance Summit
📅 October 17, 2026
📍 Nashville, Tennessee
🚨 Only one startup presentation spot remains

This summit will bring together leaders from professional sports, healthcare, human performance, sports science, the military and government.

Learn more about the APSU Summit

For sponsorship information, contact Dr. Tim Leszczak, Chair of the APSU Department of Health and Human Performance, at Leszczakt@apsu.edu.

⚽ Upside VIP Lunch - Pro Soccer
📅 December 17–18, 2026
📍 Atlanta, Georgia
🚨 Only four startup presentation spots remain

The event will bring together approximately 50 leading practitioners and decision-makers from MLS and the NWSL, including Performance Directors, Heads of Athletic Therapy, Directors of Rehabilitation, Sports Scientists and representatives from clubs across both leagues.

Selected startups will have the opportunity to:

• 15 minutes presentation in front of MLS and NWSL teams and practitioners

• Demonstrate and exhibit their technology during our speed dating session

• Engage in meaningful conversations with key decision-makers

• Receive feedback from experienced practitioners

• Build relationships in an intimate, highly targeted environment

Only seven startup presentation spots are available. We are currently speaking with approximately 20 interested vendors, and only four spots remain so please hurry up and reach out to us if you want one of the last four spots before we are sold out.

Last year’s VIP Dinner welcomed more than 50 practitioners representing over 20 MLS clubs. You can view the recap and recorded presentations here:

2025 Upside Elite Professional North American Dinner Recap

🇫🇷 Upside Tech Summit—France
📅 First half of 2027
📍 France
🚀 40 booths available for startups to exhibit

We are planning to host this summit at a major stadium, bringing together leading teams, practitioners and decision-makers from Ligue 1, the Premier League, LaLiga, international rugby, basketball, the NBA, MLS, the NFL and other areas of elite sports.

The summit will provide selected startups with opportunities to present their solutions, exhibit their technologies and build relationships with sports organizations from across Europe and North America.

We are also developing additional Upside VIP events with major leagues, teams and sports organizations across the United States and Europe in 2026 and 2027.

Interested in presenting, exhibiting or sponsoring an upcoming Upside event? Contact me at julien@upsideglobal.co. Opportunities will be confirmed on a first-come basis.

Best,

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

For years, wearable companies have competed on battery life, comfort, design and the number of metrics they can generate. The next battleground may be very different: whether those metrics are accurate enough to support the claims being made about them.

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed against Oura in August 2026 alleges that the company overstated the accuracy of its sleep-stage tracking. The case does not establish that Oura did anything wrong, the allegations remain disputed, but it highlights a broader issue for the wearable industry.

Many devices do not directly measure sleep, recovery, stress or readiness. They measure signals such as heart rate, movement, temperature and heart-rate variability and then use algorithms to estimate higher-level outcomes.

That distinction between what a wearable measures, what it estimates and what its marketing claims may become one of the industry’s greatest legal and commercial risks.

Examples of Wearable Companies Facing Accuracy-Related Litigation

Oura

On August 20, 2026, a consumer filed a proposed class action against Oura in the Northern District of California. The complaint challenges the company’s marketing around sleep-stage tracking, including an alleged claim of “95% Sleep Staging Accuracy compared to clinical sleep lab.”

The plaintiff argues that the Oura Ring cannot directly measure the brain activity, eye movements and muscle activity used during polysomnography—the clinical reference standard for identifying sleep stages. Instead, the ring collects signals from the finger, including heart rate, heart-rate variability, temperature, breathing patterns and movement, and uses algorithms to estimate whether someone is awake or experiencing light, deep or REM sleep.

The lawsuit cites a 2025 study published in Scientific Reports that reported approximately 53% agreement for four-stage sleep classification with the Oura Ring Gen3. The complaint alleges that Oura’s accuracy claims are therefore misleading.

These remain allegations, not judicial findings, and Oura has publicly rejected them.

Oura’s Public Response

In its public response, Oura stated: “Our models are not guesswork.”

The company maintains that sleep stages are associated with measurable and reproducible physiological changes, allowing algorithms to estimate sleep stages from peripheral signals even though a ring does not directly measure brain waves.

Oura made several arguments in its defense:

• Its sleep algorithm was trained using thousands of nights during which ring data was collected simultaneously with clinical polysomnography.

• The training data included people of different ages, skin tones, health conditions and sleep profiles.

• Recent Oura-funded and independent studies reportedly found approximately 70% to 79% agreement with polysomnography for four-stage sleep classification and at least 90% agreement for distinguishing sleep from wakefulness.

• Agreement between two human sleep experts is itself imperfect—approximately 83% in healthy adults—making 100% agreement an unrealistic benchmark.

• The 2025 study cited in the lawsuit evaluated older Oura hardware and an algorithm that had since been updated.

• According to Oura, the researchers used only two ring sizes across all participants, contributing to poor fit and unusable data for 14 of the 45 participants.

• Oura argues that the study compared five-minute wearable outputs with 30-second polysomnography periods, which may have reduced the reported agreement.

• The company says the “coin flip” comparison used in the complaint is misleading because random selection among four sleep stages would result in expected accuracy of approximately 25%, not 50%.

Oura acknowledges that its ring is not equivalent to a clinical sleep study and does not directly measure electrical activity in the brain or eye movements. However, it argues that this does not make sleep-stage estimation scientifically invalid. Its algorithms infer sleep stages from physiological patterns associated with each stage.

The company also recognizes that its technology remains imperfect. It says accuracy still needs to improve among older adults, people with sleep disorders and other clinical populations.

Oura’s response exposes the central question the court may eventually have to consider: not whether the ring performs identically to polysomnography, but whether the company adequately substantiated and clearly communicated the specific accuracy claims used to market it.

There is a meaningful difference between saying that a wearable estimates sleep stages using validated physiological signals and implying that it provides the same measurements as a clinical sleep laboratory.

The case may therefore become as much about marketing language, disclosures and consumer interpretation as it is about sensor performance.

Oura’s detailed positions are available in “Sleep Staging Is Not Guesswork” and “Standing Behind Our Science”. The allegations can be reviewed in the filed class-action complaint.

Fitbit

Fitbit faced a class action in 2016 alleging that its PurePulse devices produced inaccurate heart-rate measurements, particularly during higher-intensity exercise. Fitbit disputed both the allegations and the methodology of research commissioned by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Although this was an earlier case, it exposed an issue that remains highly relevant: a sensor may perform reasonably well at rest but become less accurate during sprinting, resistance training, rapid arm movements or other activities involving motion artifacts. (Read the case background).

Dexcom

Wearable medical devices face even greater exposure because inaccurate readings can influence treatment. A 2026 proposed class action against Dexcom alleged problems involving certain continuous glucose-monitoring sensors, including allegedly inaccurate readings and premature sensor failures.

Separately, the FDA listed a 2026 Class II recall involving specific stolen Dexcom G7 lots that had originally been designated for destruction. One affected lot carried an increased risk of missing readings or producing inaccurate readings that could contribute to incorrect treatment decisions.

This particular recall involved the unauthorized distribution of rejected products, so it should not be interpreted as an accuracy judgment covering all Dexcom G7 devices. Read the FDA recall notice.

Together, these examples demonstrate that accuracy-related legal exposure is not limited to smart rings. It can affect fitness trackers, sleep wearables and regulated medical sensors.

Why Wearable Accuracy Matters

No wearable will be perfectly accurate under every condition. The more important questions are:

• Is the device sufficiently accurate for its intended use?

• Has it been validated against an appropriate reference standard?

• Does its marketing accurately describe its capabilities and limitations?

• Could an incorrect measurement lead to a harmful decision?

For a consumer counting daily steps, a modest error may have little consequence. In elite sports, the same error could influence training load, recovery protocols, player availability or return-to-play decisions.

A false recovery score could encourage an athlete to train when additional recovery is needed. An inaccurate heart-rate reading could distort internal-load calculations. Poor sleep classification could lead practitioners to make unnecessary interventions. Incorrect hydration, glucose, temperature or fatigue readings could create even more serious risks.

Accuracy must also be separated into several layers:

1. Sensor accuracy: Did the device correctly capture the underlying physiological signal?

2. Algorithmic validity: Did the algorithm correctly translate that signal into sleep stages, stress, fatigue or readiness?

3. Reliability: Does the device produce consistent results across repeated measurements?

4. Population validity: Does it work across different skin tones, body types, ages, sexes, sports and health conditions?

5. Field validity: Does it remain accurate during movement, sweating, contact, temperature changes and competition?

6. Decision validity: Is the resulting metric appropriate for the decision a practitioner wants to make?

A device could perform well when measuring resting heart rate but poorly when estimating calorie expenditure. It could accurately distinguish sleep from wakefulness while being less reliable at identifying individual sleep stages.

The FTC expects health-related advertising claims to be supported by appropriate scientific evidence, while the FDA distinguishes many low-risk general-wellness products from devices intended to diagnose, treat or manage diseases.

Calling something a wellness product does not automatically protect a company against false-advertising allegations. You can check out the FTC health-products guidance and FDA general-wellness guidance.

The Potential Impact on the Wearable Market

The Oura lawsuit could accelerate several important changes across the industry.

Greater scrutiny of marketing claims

Statements such as “clinical-grade,” “medical-grade,” “95% accurate” or “predicts injuries” will attract more attention. Vendors may need to explain exactly how an accuracy percentage was calculated and which measurement, population and environment it covers.

More independent validation

Internal studies may no longer be enough for sophisticated buyers. Teams, investors, insurers and consumers will increasingly request independent, peer-reviewed studies performed in representative populations and real-world conditions.

A clearer separation between measurements and estimates

Wearable interfaces and marketing materials may need to distinguish more clearly between directly collected signals and algorithmically inferred outcomes.

For example:

• Heart rate is measured.

• HRV is calculated from beat-to-beat intervals.

• Sleep stages are estimated.

• Readiness is a proprietary composite score.

• Injury risk is a probabilistic prediction—not a diagnosis.

Higher costs for startups

Clinical validation, regulatory advice, insurance and legal review are expensive. That could create an additional barrier for early-stage companies, but it may also favor vendors that invest in evidence before making aggressive commercial claims.

More transparent reporting

Vendors may begin publishing confidence intervals, missing-data rates, known limitations and performance across different populations.

Instead of presenting a recovery or readiness score as an exact fact, a platform could communicate the level of confidence in the result and identify when data quality is insufficient.

More cautious adoption by professional teams

Teams may become less willing to run paid pilots based primarily on sales presentations and internal white papers. Procurement processes will likely involve sports scientists, medical personnel, IT, privacy specialists and legal teams much earlier.

Which Vendors Are Most Exposed?

It would be irresponsible to predict that a specific company will be sued without evidence. However, certain types of vendors face considerably greater exposure:

• Smart rings and sleep wearables making highly specific sleep-stage claims.

• Recovery platforms that convert multiple signals into a single readiness score without clearly explaining validation or uncertainty.

• Optical heart-rate wearables promoted for high-intensity or stop-and-start sports.

• Companies claiming to predict injuries before they occur.

• Non-invasive glucose, lactate or hydration wearables making medical-like claims without appropriate authorization and validation.

• Thermography platforms claiming to diagnose injuries or medical conditions from images.

• Wearables claiming to detect concussions, cardiovascular conditions or illnesses.

• AI platforms presenting inferred outputs as directly measured biological facts.

• Vendors using terms such as “clinical-grade” without evidence supporting the specific product, population and use case.

The FDA has already warned consumers against smartwatches and rings that claim to measure blood glucose non-invasively without piercing the skin, noting that it has not authorized such devices for that purpose. You can read more about the FDA warning.

The companies most at risk are not necessarily those with imperfect technology. Every wearable has limitations. The greatest exposure belongs to vendors whose commercial claims go beyond what their evidence can reasonably support.

Recommendations for Teams

Professional teams should not simply ask whether a wearable “works.” They should determine whether it is valid for the specific athlete, activity and decision involved.

Before adopting a wearable, teams should:

• Define the exact decision the technology will support.

• Identify which outputs are measured and which are inferred.

• Request independent validation against the appropriate reference standard.

• Confirm that testing included athletes and activities comparable to the team’s environment.

• Evaluate accuracy during intense movement, sweating, travel and competition—not only under laboratory conditions.

• Review performance across skin tones, sexes, ages and body types.

• Ask which hardware, firmware and algorithm versions were evaluated.

• Determine how missing data and low-confidence readings are handled.

• Establish acceptable error thresholds before beginning a pilot.

• Compare the wearable’s results with existing clinical and performance-assessment methods.

• Require vendors to disclose algorithm changes that could alter historical comparisons.

• Review marketing claims against the evidence provided.

• Include accuracy, support, data ownership, privacy and liability provisions in contracts.

• Avoid using one wearable score as the sole basis for medical, selection or return-to-play decisions.

• Maintain human oversight from qualified medical and performance practitioners.

Teams should also remember that a wearable can still be valuable without being clinically diagnostic. A device may help monitor long-term trends, support conversations with athletes or identify when further assessment is warranted.

The problem begins when a directional wellness signal is treated as an unquestionable clinical fact.

Conclusion

The wearable market is entering an accountability phase.

For the past decade, companies have benefited from excitement around sensors, biomarkers and AI. The next phase will demand more than impressive dashboards and proprietary scores. Vendors will need to demonstrate what their devices measure, how well they measure it, how their algorithms reach conclusions and where their limitations lie.

The Oura lawsuit could ultimately succeed, fail or be settled. Regardless of its outcome, it sends a clear message to the market: precise health and performance claims require precise evidence.

The wearable companies that succeed will not necessarily be those promising the greatest number of metrics. They will be those that communicate uncertainty honestly, validate their technology rigorously and help practitioners understand what the data can, and cannot tell them.

For teams, the lesson is equally clear: do not simply buy the score. Validate the signal, understand the algorithm and evaluate the decision it is being used to make.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

The first week of September produced several notable investment announcements across a wide range of asset classes.

This was not simply a week of traditional venture-capital funding. Capital moved through public-market filings, strategic mergers, minority private-equity investments, professional sports ownership and early-stage startup rounds.

The announcements also illustrate an important shift in the investment market.

Investors are still willing to deploy substantial capital, but they are becoming more selective. The strongest interest appears to be concentrated around companies and assets offering at least one of the following:

• Defensible intellectual property

• Recurring revenue

• Proprietary data

• Strong consumer brands

• Strategic infrastructure

• Scarce sports assets

• Clear paths into large adjacent markets

Here are some of the main investment announcements from the week of September 1–6, 2026, and why they matter.

Main Announcements This Week

1. Public Markets: Oura Files for an IPO

Oura took a major step toward becoming a publicly traded company by filing its S-1 registration statement.

The smart-ring company plans to list on the Nasdaq under the ticker OURA, although it has not yet disclosed its expected IPO price, the number of shares being offered or its final public valuation.

The filing revealed a rapidly growing company with:

• Approximately five million paid members

• Strong revenue growth

• High membership conversion and retention

• Extensive daily engagement

• A large longitudinal biometric dataset

• Growing profitability and positive cash generation

Oura’s investment proposition extends beyond hardware. The company wants investors to view it as a health-intelligence and preventive-health platform connecting continuous biometric data, subscriptions, AI, women’s health, laboratory services and personalized guidance. (check the IPO coverage)

Why it matters

Oura could establish one of the first meaningful public-market valuation benchmarks for the smart-ring category.

Its IPO will also help determine whether public investors are willing to value wearable companies as health and software platforms—or whether they will continue to apply lower consumer-hardware multiples.

A successful listing could influence the valuations and IPO plans of WHOOP, Ultrahuman, Eight Sleep and other connected-health companies.

2. Strategic M&A: GoPro Agrees to Merge With Starman Optical

GoPro entered into a definitive agreement to merge with Starman Optical, a privately held optical-photonics company.

Under the proposed transaction:

• GoPro shareholders will receive an aggregate cash payment of $285 million

• Shareholders will retain approximately 10% of the combined company

• Approximately $92 million in GoPro debt will be repaid

• GoPro will remain publicly listed on the Nasdaq

• The transaction is expected to close by the end of 2026, subject to approvals

GoPro plans to continue supporting its consumer cameras and subscription platform while expanding into optical transceivers, AI infrastructure, defense, government, robotics and aerospace. (Check out GoPro announcement).

Why it matters

This is more than an acquisition of an action-camera company.

The transaction shows how sports and consumer-technology assets can be repositioned around their underlying intellectual property. GoPro’s optics, imaging capabilities, brand and portfolio of more than 2,500 U.S. patents may have applications far beyond action sports.

It also highlights an important investment theme: companies struggling in their original consumer markets may still hold strategically valuable technology that can be redeployed into faster-growing industries.

3. Private Investment: SPAC Acquires a Minority Stake in Campagnolo

Swiss private investment company SPAC agreed to acquire a minority stake in Campagnolo, one of cycling’s most historic premium component manufacturers.

The financial terms and size of the stake were not disclosed.

The Campagnolo family will retain majority ownership and control, while the company will continue operating from Vicenza, Italy.

The investment is expected to support:

• Product development

• Technology and electronics

• Modernization of operations

• Relationships with bicycle manufacturers

• Expansion of the Campagnolo and Fulcrum brands

• Greater engagement with professional cycling

Campagnolo will continue operating independently from SPAC’s other cycling investments, including Pinarello. (Check out Campagnolo announcement)

Why it matters

This transaction demonstrates the continuing appeal of premium sports brands with strong heritage, technical expertise and global recognition.

It also shows that external capital does not always require founders or families to surrender control. A minority investment can provide strategic expertise and additional resources while preserving a company’s independence and identity.

For the cycling industry, the deal reflects the growing importance of electronics, connectivity, data and advanced materials in what was once a primarily mechanical product category.

4. Sports Assets: West Ham’s Ownership Structure Could Change

Czech investor Daniel Křetínský reportedly reached an agreement that could increase his ownership of West Ham United from approximately 27% to 46%.

If completed, the transaction would make Křetínský the club’s largest shareholder. (check out the The Guardian’s report)

Because the transaction remains reported rather than fully completed, it should be viewed separately from the confirmed corporate announcements this week.

Why it matters

Professional sports franchises remain one of the most attractive alternative asset classes for wealthy individuals, family offices, private-equity firms and institutional investors.

Clubs provide exposure to:

• Scarce intellectual property

• Media rights

• Global audiences

• Sponsorship revenue

• Matchday revenue

• Stadium and real-estate opportunities

• Long-term capital appreciation

The potential West Ham transaction also shows that investor appetite can remain strong even when a club faces competitive or operational challenges.

Investors are often purchasing the long-term platform—not simply the current league position.

5. Health-Tech Startup Funding: Stack Health Raises $21 Million

Stack Health raised a $21 million seed round led by 8VC, with participation from A*, Heartland Ventures and the O.H.I.O. Fund.

The company helps employers provide health insurance through individual coverage health-reimbursement arrangements rather than offering one traditional group plan to every employee. (Check out the Funding report).

Why it matters

A $21 million seed round is significant, particularly during a relatively quiet Labor Day funding week.

The investment reinforces continued interest in startups attempting to simplify expensive and inefficient parts of the healthcare system.

Investors are increasingly looking for health-tech businesses that do more than create engagement. They want platforms capable of reducing costs, improving access, simplifying administration and demonstrating measurable economic value.

6. Sports Gaming and Digital Collectibles: Sorare Raises More Than €10 Million

Sorare reportedly completed a new funding round valued at more than €10 million.

The round was supported by existing investors Accel, Benchmark and Partech, while Spanish venture-capital firm Kibo Ventures joined Sorare’s shareholder base. Co-founders Nicolas Julia and Adrien Montfort also participated.

The first portion of the round has reportedly closed, with a second tranche expected over the coming months.

The new capital will primarily be used to:

• Strengthen Sorare’s cash position

• Continue developing its fantasy-sports products

• Introduce new content for its free-to-play Arcade mode

• Support the launch of its 2027 card collections

• Restart NBA activity in October 2026

• Expand the platform’s global community

Sorare operates a fantasy-sports platform and digital marketplace through which users collect, trade and compete with officially licensed digital player cards.

The company has partnerships across soccer, basketball and baseball, including relationships with the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, MLS, NBA, NBPA, MLB and MLBPA.

Signs of Renewed Growth

The funding follows a period of restructuring and strategic change.

Sorare reportedly reduced its workforce by approximately 35% in November 2025 and closed its New York office as it sought to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency.

However, recent operating metrics suggest that the company has started to regain momentum:

• Net revenue increased 85% year over year during the first half of 2026

• More than 100,000 users purchased cards during the period

• Over one million new users joined in the previous 18 months

• Sorare now reports more than three million users

• The company is targeting profitability by the end of 2027

A major driver of this renewed growth appears to be Arcade, Sorare’s free-to-play product.

The introduction of a more accessible game mode represents an important strategic shift. Sorare initially grew through blockchain-based digital cards that required users to purchase assets to compete. Arcade lowers that barrier and allows the company to attract users who may be interested in fantasy sports but are not yet comfortable purchasing digital collectibles.

Why the Investment Matters

Sorare raised $680 million at a reported $4.3 billion valuation in 2021, during the height of investor enthusiasm for NFTs, cryptocurrency and blockchain-based consumer platforms.

Since then, the market has changed considerably.

Investor interest in speculative digital assets declined, regulations became more complex and consumer behavior shifted away from products driven primarily by financial appreciation.

This new round is therefore different from Sorare’s earlier financing.

The investment is less about pursuing growth at any cost and more about supporting:

• Product development

• User engagement

• Accessible gaming experiences

• Cash preservation

• Operational discipline

• A credible path to profitability

The continued participation of Accel, Benchmark and Partech is significant. Existing investors frequently have the most detailed understanding of a company’s performance, risks and internal plans. Their decision to provide additional capital suggests continued belief in Sorare’s long-term opportunity.

Kibo Ventures’ participation also brings a new institutional investor into the company at an important stage of its development.

The Opportunity Ahead

Sorare occupies a potentially valuable position at the intersection of:

• Fantasy sports

• Gaming

• Digital collectibles

• Licensed sports content

• Fan engagement

• Blockchain infrastructure

Its partnerships with major leagues and clubs create an important competitive advantage. Official licenses provide access to teams, athletes, intellectual property and fan communities that would be difficult for a new competitor to replicate.

Sorare also benefits from the broader movement toward interactive sports consumption.

Younger fans increasingly want to do more than watch games. They want to manage teams, compete with friends, collect digital assets and interact with athletes and leagues across multiple platforms.

If Sorare can combine free-to-play acquisition with paid collectibles and sustainable retention, it could develop a more balanced business model than one dependent primarily on high-value card sales.

Key Risks

The company still faces meaningful challenges:

• Uncertain consumer demand for blockchain-based collectibles

• Regulatory differences across international markets

• Dependence on expensive sports-licensing agreements

• Competition from traditional fantasy-sports and gaming platforms

• The difficulty of converting free users into paying customers

• The need to rebuild confidence following restructuring

• Pressure to demonstrate a sustainable route to profitability

Sorare must prove that its recent growth reflects durable engagement rather than a short-term rebound.

Overall Takeaway

Sorare’s new funding round shows that investor interest in digital sports collectibles has not disappeared—but the investment thesis has evolved.

The focus is shifting from speculative NFT growth toward accessible gameplay, licensed sports content, stronger engagement and sustainable economics.

Sorare’s next phase will depend on whether it can successfully convert its global user base and premium sports partnerships into a profitable, long-term fan-engagement platform. (Sources: 2Playbook and Dealroom)

7. AI Startup Funding: Wonderful Reportedly Raises $550 Million

Amsterdam-based Wonderful reportedly raised a $550 million Series C led by Insight Partners at a valuation of approximately $5 billion.

The company is developing an operating system intended to coordinate enterprise AI agents, workflows and applications. (Check out the Funding roundup).

Why it matters

The size of the round shows that investor enthusiasm for AI has not disappeared—but capital is increasingly moving toward infrastructure and platform companies rather than simple AI wrappers.

Enterprises are experimenting with numerous models, agents and applications. The next challenge is managing those tools securely and consistently across an organization.

That same challenge is emerging in sports. Teams are adding AI tools across performance, medical care, scouting, video, ticketing and business operations. Solutions that can connect fragmented tools and data may ultimately create more value than another standalone dashboard.

8. Hybrid Financing Becomes More Prominent

Several companies announced financing packages combining equity with debt or credit facilities.

One example was Félix Pago, which reportedly secured a $200 million financing package consisting of approximately $87 million in equity and a $113 million credit facility.

Why it matters

Hybrid financing can help companies match different types of capital with different business needs.

Equity can finance technology development, hiring and expansion, while debt or credit facilities can support transactions or working capital without forcing founders to accept excessive dilution.

This structure is particularly relevant for fintech, marketplaces, ticketing, commerce and other companies in which capital is used to support transaction volume rather than only product development.

What This Week’s Announcements Tell Us

Several broader themes emerged from this week’s activity.

1. The definition of a sports investment is expanding

Sports investing now includes much more than acquiring teams or funding performance-technology startups.

It encompasses:

• Wearables

• Media and imaging

• Consumer products

• Healthcare

• AI infrastructure

• Data platforms

• Premium equipment brands

• Professional franchises

2. Intellectual property can be more valuable than the original product

The GoPro transaction illustrates how cameras, optics, patents and imaging expertise developed for sports consumers can become valuable across defense, aerospace, robotics and AI infrastructure.

3. Recurring revenue remains highly attractive

Oura’s subscription model is a critical part of its IPO story.

Investors generally value predictable, recurring membership revenue more highly than one-time hardware sales. This is why many wearable and sports-technology companies are trying to build software, services and subscriptions around their devices.

4. Strong brands remain investable assets

Campagnolo and West Ham demonstrate the value of brands that cannot easily be replicated.

Technology can become obsolete, but heritage, community, loyalty and cultural relevance can create durable long-term value when paired with sound management.

5. AI capital is concentrating around infrastructure

Investors appear increasingly interested in companies that can coordinate, deploy or secure AI at scale.

The market may become more difficult for startups whose only differentiation is placing a new interface around a third-party model.

6. Investors are demanding clearer strategic value

Capital remains available, but companies must increasingly demonstrate:

• Genuine market traction

• Defensible differentiation

• Strong unit economics

• Recurring revenue

• Valuable proprietary data

• Clear customer ROI

• A credible route to profitability

Conclusion

This week’s investment announcements show that capital continues to move across sports, health, AI and consumer technology—but it is moving selectively.

Oura is testing public-market demand for wearable health platforms.

GoPro is attempting to transform sports-imaging intellectual property into a broader industrial and AI asset.

Campagnolo is using minority capital to modernize while preserving family control.

Investors continue to pursue scarce professional sports franchises such as West Ham.

Meanwhile, venture capital remains available for startups addressing large healthcare problems or building critical AI infrastructure.

The central takeaway is clear:

Investors are not simply buying products. They are investing in platforms, intellectual property, recurring relationships, trusted brands and scarce assets that can create value across multiple markets.

The companies most likely to attract capital will be those that can explain not only what they sell today—but what strategic position they can own tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

Oura took a major step toward becoming a publicly traded company on September 3, 2026, when it filed its Form S-1 registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company had previously submitted a confidential draft on May 21, 2026.

Oura plans to list on the Nasdaq under the ticker OURA, although it has not yet disclosed the number of shares it will offer, the IPO price range, or the final valuation. (Check out Oura’s IPO announcement).

The filing arrives at an important moment for the wearable-technology industry. Wearables are evolving from step counters and fitness accessories into platforms for sleep, recovery, cardiovascular health, women’s health, metabolic health and preventive care.

Oura’s proposition to investors is therefore broader than selling smart rings. The company wants to be valued as a health-intelligence and preventive-health platform built around three assets:

• A discreet wearable used almost continuously

• A rapidly growing subscription business

• A large longitudinal biometric dataset

The central question for investors will be whether Oura deserves a healthcare- or software-like valuation—or whether it should be valued primarily as a consumer-hardware company facing Apple, Samsung, Garmin, WHOOP and lower-priced smart-ring competitors.

IPO: Key Metrics

The S-1 reveals a company growing exceptionally quickly while beginning to demonstrate profitability and meaningful cash generation.

For the nine months ending June 30, 2026, Oura generated approximately $328 million in operating cash flow and an estimated $261.8 million in free cash flow after capital expenditures. That is particularly notable because many high-growth consumer-health companies reach the IPO market while still consuming cash.

Oura’s operating metrics are equally important:

• Five million paid members as of June 30, 2026

• Approximately 3.1 million rings sold during the first nine months of FY2026

• Around 85% twelve-month membership retention

• Approximately 94% of ring activations converting to paid memberships

• Median daily wear time of roughly 23 hours

• Approximately 65% daily-active-user-to-monthly-active-user ratio

• More than 3.5 app openings per member per day

• Nearly 42 billion hours of longitudinal biometric data

• More than 1,200 health, research and commercial partners

• Distribution through approximately 8,400 retail locations

Hardware still represented approximately 80% of revenue, while memberships accounted for around 20%. However, Oura reported an 89% gross margin on membership revenue, making the subscription business disproportionately important to its long-term earnings potential. (Check out S-1 financial analysis).

Oura has not yet disclosed the IPO price or final share count. Consequently, investors cannot determine whether the stock is attractively priced simply from the business performance. A strong company can still be a poor investment if its shares are offered at an excessive valuation.

Growth Drivers for Oura

1. Continued growth of the smart-ring category

Oura helped establish the smart ring as a credible alternative to the smartwatch. Rings are smaller, screenless and typically easier to wear overnight—an important advantage when sleep and recovery are central use cases.

Oura also benefits from two different sources of customer growth. According to its filing, approximately 29% of new members replaced another wearable with an Oura Ring, while roughly 33% said Oura was their first wearable.

That suggests Oura can both take share from watches and bands and bring new consumers into the wearable category.

2. The hardware-plus-membership model

The ring creates the customer relationship, but the membership can extend its economic value well beyond the initial hardware purchase.

Oura’s membership currently costs approximately $5.99 per month or $69.99 per year. The price has remained relatively stable even as the company has added more features. This gives Oura several possible growth levers:

• Increasing membership prices over time

• Introducing premium membership tiers

• Selling additional health services

• Bundling memberships through employers or insurers

• Increasing retention through more personalized insights

With five million paid members, every additional $10 in annual revenue per member could theoretically produce approximately $50 million in incremental annual revenue before accounting for churn, discounts and revenue-sharing arrangements.

3. Women’s health

Women reportedly represent approximately 72% of Oura’s membership. That differentiates it from many performance-oriented wearables that initially attracted predominantly male consumers.

Temperature trends, cycle insights, fertility applications, pregnancy support and perimenopause features could make Oura’s data more useful across different stages of a woman’s life.

Women’s health also creates opportunities for partnerships with fertility companies, employers, health plans and healthcare providers. If Oura can demonstrate clinical and economic value, this could become more than a consumer subscription category.

4. Preventive health and clinical services

Oura is gradually moving beyond sleep and recovery scores. Its ecosystem now touches cardiovascular health, metabolic health, women’s health, laboratory testing and care navigation.

Potential growth areas include:

• Blood testing through partners such as Quest Diagnostics

• Glucose data integrations

• Sleep-apnea and cardiovascular-risk screening

• Early detection of changes in health

• Personalized AI-generated health guidance

• Employer wellness programs

• Medicare Advantage and insurance partnerships

• Pharmaceutical and clinical-research programs

This is strategically important because preventive health offers a much larger opportunity than the smart-ring market alone. But Oura will need clinical evidence, regulatory discipline and demonstrated healthcare outcomes before investors value it as healthcare infrastructure.

5. International expansion

Only approximately 20% of Oura’s recent revenue came from outside the United States, even though the company operates across dozens of markets.

That leaves meaningful room for growth in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. International expansion could be supported through retailers, telecommunications companies, insurers, professional sports partnerships and local healthcare organizations.

It also brings risks involving regulation, localization, pricing, distribution and data-privacy requirements.

6. Product innovation and replacement cycles

Oura Ring 5, introduced in May 2026, is reportedly 40% smaller than its predecessor and measures more than 50 health metrics.

Repeat purchases are becoming more important: the percentage of sales attributable to repeat purchases reportedly increased from approximately 5% in FY2024 to 11% in the first nine months of FY2026.

This suggests Oura may be developing a smartphone-like replacement cycle. Existing members may upgrade for:

• Smaller and more comfortable hardware

• Better battery life

• Improved sensors

• New materials and designs

• More advanced health features

The risk is that frequent product introductions can also produce inventory write-downs, warranty expenses and customer frustration.

7. AI and Oura’s biometric dataset

Oura has accumulated nearly 42 billion hours of longitudinal biometric data. That dataset could become one of the company’s most defensible assets.

AI may help Oura translate heart rate, temperature, sleep, activity and other signals into more personalized guidance. Over time, the platform could move from reporting what happened to identifying meaningful changes and recommending what the user should do next.

The opportunity is considerable, but so is the responsibility. Incorrect or overstated health guidance could expose Oura to regulatory, legal and reputational risk. The company also acknowledges reliance on third-party AI providers, including OpenAI, Anthropic and Google.

Size of the Wearable Market

Market-size estimates vary considerably because some researchers include only watches, rings and fitness bands, while others also include headphones, medical wearables, smart clothing and extended-reality devices.

IDC offers one of the clearest shipment-based measurements. It estimates that worldwide wearable shipments reached 611.5 million units in 2025, representing 9.1% annual growth. IDC expects shipments to reach approximately:

IDC’s totals include earwear, watches, wristbands and emerging form factors. It specifically expects smart rings and screenless devices to support longer-term growth. (Check out IDC Worldwide Wearable Device Tracker).

Oura uses a different approach in its filing and estimates its serviceable addressable market at more than $90 billion in 2026. This includes existing and adjacent categories the company may eventually serve.

The distinction matters. Oura currently sells only a few million devices annually in a market exceeding 600 million wearable shipments. Its overall unit share is therefore small. But it has a much stronger position within the dedicated smart-ring segment.

The more valuable opportunity may not be capturing a large percentage of total wearable shipments. It may be owning a high-value segment built around premium hardware, recurring subscriptions and preventive-health services.

Why You Should Consider Buying the Stock

It would be premature to say investors “should” buy Oura because the IPO price and final valuation have not been disclosed. The following represents the bullish investment case, not a personalized recommendation.

1. Exceptional revenue growth

Oura more than doubled revenue in FY2025 and then generated another 74% increase during the first nine months of FY2026.

Revenue growth will eventually slow, as Oura itself warns. Nevertheless, reaching more than $1.2 billion in nine-month revenue demonstrates substantial consumer demand and makes Oura much more than a niche wearable company.

2. It is already profitable

Oura generated $71.2 million in operating income, $60.8 million in net income and more than $260 million in estimated free cash flow during the first nine months of FY2026.

That combination of rapid growth and positive cash flow is unusual and gives Oura more flexibility to invest in R&D, marketing, healthcare partnerships and international expansion.

3. Strong subscription economics

Approximately 94% membership conversion, 85% twelve-month retention and an 89% membership gross margin are potentially Oura’s most attractive metrics.

The subscription creates recurring revenue after the ring is sold and should improve revenue visibility. As membership becomes a larger percentage of the business, Oura’s blended margins could expand.

4. High engagement and continuous data collection

Median daily wear time of approximately 23 hours gives Oura access to continuous physiological data. High engagement also suggests that users are deriving ongoing value from the platform.

This strengthens Oura’s ability to improve its algorithms, personalize its services and build switching costs around a member’s health history.

5. Category leadership and intellectual property

Oura has become one of the strongest brands in the smart-ring category. Its portfolio includes more than 1,100 patents and patent applications, and it has actively enforced intellectual property involving smart-ring design and functionality.

Patent protection does not eliminate competition, but it may make it more difficult or expensive for smaller rivals to copy Oura’s core product.

6. Multiple growth paths

Oura does not depend on a single expansion opportunity. Growth could come from:

• More ring sales

• Replacement purchases

• Membership growth

• Higher subscription revenue

• International markets

• Employers and insurers

• Women’s health

• Laboratory and metabolic services

• AI-powered guidance

• Clinical research and pharmaceutical partnerships

7. Potential to become a preventive-health platform

The strongest long-term case is that Oura becomes the daily interface between consumers and their health data.

If it can connect continuous biometrics, medical history, laboratory results and clinical services, Oura could eventually occupy a more valuable position than a traditional device company.

Reasons for caution

The investment case depends heavily on valuation. Oura’s most recent private financing reportedly valued it at approximately $11 billion. At that valuation, the company would trade at roughly nine times its first-nine-month FY2026 revenue, or a lower multiple if annualized revenue is used.

That may be supportable if growth remains high and subscription revenue expands. It could be expensive if growth slows rapidly or public investors classify Oura primarily as consumer electronics.

Other significant risks include:

• Competition from Apple, Samsung, Garmin, WHOOP and cheaper rings

• Dependence on discretionary consumer spending

• A premium device price plus a recurring membership fee

• Hardware warranty and manufacturing risks

• Patent litigation, including disputes involving Samsung

• Approximately 80% concentration in the U.S. market

• Heavy dependence on hardware, which still generates about 80% of revenue

• Dependence on a limited number of large retailers

• Regulatory exposure as Oura moves closer to medical applications

• Privacy and cybersecurity risks involving sensitive health data

• The possibility that Apple or Samsung bundles similar insights into existing ecosystems

• Post-IPO volatility and lockup-related selling

A sensible investment judgment should therefore wait for Oura’s amended filing, which will disclose the price range, share count, dilution, use of proceeds and implied market capitalization.

Impact on the Wearable Market

Establishing a public valuation benchmark

Oura’s IPO may create the first major modern public-market benchmark for the smart-ring industry.

Private wearable companies, investors and potential acquirers will be able to compare businesses using metrics such as:

• Revenue growth

• Hardware gross margin

• Subscription penetration

• Retention

• Customer acquisition cost

• Engagement

• Free-cash-flow conversion

• Revenue per user

• Device-replacement rates

If Oura receives a premium valuation, investors may become more willing to finance other hardware-plus-subscription companies.

Greater pressure on WHOOP and other private companies

Oura’s public financial disclosures make it more difficult for private competitors to rely on undisclosed user or revenue claims.

WHOOP, Ultrahuman and others will increasingly be compared with Oura’s five million paid members, 85% retention and positive free cash flow.

Faster investment by Apple and Samsung

A successful Oura listing would validate consumer demand for screenless and minimally intrusive health wearables.

Apple and Samsung may respond by accelerating:

• Sleep and recovery features

• Smart-ring development

• AI-powered health recommendations

• Women’s-health functionality

• Subscription services

• Clinical partnerships

• Preventive-health programs

Samsung already competes directly through the Galaxy Ring, while Apple could approach the same opportunity through the Apple Watch, AirPods, health software or a future form factor.

More consolidation and patent disputes

The category remains fragmented, but smaller companies may struggle to match Oura’s scale, distribution, research relationships and legal resources.

That could result in:

• Acquisitions of sensing and algorithm startups

• Licensing agreements

• Partnerships between wearables and healthcare companies

• Additional patent litigation

• Consolidation among smaller ring manufacturers

• Investment by pharmaceutical, diagnostics and insurance companies

A shift from devices to health ecosystems

Oura’s filing reinforces a broader evolution: the device itself is becoming the entry point, not the complete product.

Future wearable competition will increasingly focus on who can best combine:

• Continuous sensor data

• Medical and laboratory information

• Personalized AI

• Coaching and recommendations

• Clinical validation

• Healthcare distribution

• High user trust

The winners may not necessarily sell the most devices. They may be the companies that create the most useful and trusted health ecosystem around those devices.

Which Wearable Startups Could File for an IPO Next?

1. WHOOP — the clearest candidate

WHOOP appears to be the most likely pure wearable company to follow Oura.

The company raised $575 million in March 2026 at a reported valuation of approximately $10.1 billion. WHOOP reportedly has at least 2.5 million members, was operating-cash-flow positive in 2025 and reached an annual subscription-revenue run rate of approximately $800 million.

CEO Will Ahmed has described an IPO as the company’s next step, although reports suggest the listing could still be within a roughly 12–24-month window. (Source: Financial Times coverage).

WHOOP’s opportunity is similar to Oura’s but its model is different: WHOOP places the device inside a subscription relationship and has historically focused more heavily on performance, strain and recovery.

Its expansion into ECG, healthspan, women’s health and laboratory testing suggests it also wants to be valued as a preventive-health platform.

2. Strava — already confidentially filed

Strava is not a wearable manufacturer, but it is part of the same connected-fitness ecosystem and could become one of the next major public offerings in the category.

Strava reportedly confidentially filed for an IPO in late 2025 or early January 2026. The company was valued at approximately $2.2 billion in its May 2025 financing and has more than 180 million registered users. (Source: Reuters report)

Strava is important to wearable manufacturers because it operates as a device-independent activity network. A successful Strava IPO would reinforce the value of wearable data, fitness communities and subscription software.

3. Ultrahuman — credible longer-term candidate

Ultrahuman is one of Oura’s most direct smart-ring competitors. The company also offers metabolic-health products, blood testing and environmental sensing.

However, it appears unlikely to file immediately. Following a reported $70 million financing at a $365 million valuation, management indicated that it wants to demonstrate approximately eight quarters of profitability before pursuing a listing. 2028 appears to be the earliest stated IPO window. (Source: Ultrahuman funding and IPO outlook).

Oura’s public performance will be particularly important to Ultrahuman because it will establish valuation benchmarks for smart-ring revenue, subscriptions and profitability.

4. Eight Sleep — a possible but less certain candidate

Eight Sleep combines sleep sensing, thermal regulation, software and subscriptions through its Pod mattress system.

The company participates in many of the same themes as Oura—sleep, recovery, longevity and continuous biometric monitoring—but no confirmed public filing has been announced. It should be considered a possible longer-term candidate rather than an imminent IPO.

Conclusion

Oura’s IPO filing represents a milestone not only for the company but for the entire wearable-technology industry.

The filing reveals a business with several compelling characteristics: exceptional revenue growth, five million paid members, strong retention, high-margin subscription revenue, positive operating income and substantial free cash flow.

Oura’s opportunity is much larger than selling rings. The company is attempting to build a preventive-health platform connecting continuous biometric data, AI, laboratory services, healthcare partners and individualized guidance.

However, the investment case remains incomplete until Oura publishes its IPO price and valuation. The company still derives approximately 80% of its revenue from hardware, operates in a highly competitive market and faces litigation, regulatory, privacy, manufacturing and consumer-demand risks.

At a reasonable valuation, Oura could offer investors exposure to one of the strongest growth companies in consumer health. At an aggressive valuation, investors may be paying today for a healthcare-platform transformation that still has to be proven.

The IPO’s wider importance may be equally significant. A successful listing could open the public markets to WHOOP, Strava and eventually Ultrahuman or Eight Sleep, while accelerating investment and consolidation across the wearable industry.

Oura is therefore not merely testing investor demand for a smart ring. It is testing whether public markets believe that the next major consumer-health platform can begin with a wearable—and eventually become something much larger.

Leave a comment

Share

What to watch on TV this weekend:

Saturday, September 5

• Springboks vs. New Zealand All Blacks — 11:10 a.m., RugbyPass TV
  The third Test of rugby’s greatest rivalry takes place at FNB Stadium in Johannesburg. The four-Test series is tied 1–1 after New Zealand won 33–16 and South Africa responded with a 33–26 victory.

• US Open tennis — throughout the day, ESPN/ESPN2
  Third-round singles action from Flushing Meadows, with the tournament beginning to produce its biggest matchups.

• Baylor vs. Auburn — 3:30 p.m., ABC
  One of the strongest Power Four matchups of college football’s opening weekend.

• Boise State at Oregon — 3:30 p.m., CBS
  Oregon opens its season against a dangerous Boise State team.

• Inter Miami vs. Atlanta United — 7:30 p.m., Apple TV
  Lionel Messi enters the match after recording four goals and one assist in Miami’s previous game.

• Clemson at No. 11 LSU — 7:30 p.m., ABC
  The headline college-football matchup of the weekend and Lane Kiffin’s debut as LSU head coach.

• New York Yankees at San Diego Padres — 7 p.m., Fox
  An attractive interleague series during the MLB playoff race.

Sunday, September 6

• Formula 1 Italian Grand Prix — 9 a.m., Apple TV
  Formula 1 visits Monza, one of the championship’s fastest and most historic circuits.

• Arsenal vs. Chelsea — 11:30 a.m., USA Network
  A major London rivalry and the standout Premier League match of the weekend.

• United States vs. Italy — FIBA Women’s Basketball World Cup — 2:30 p.m., TNT
  The heavily favored United States continues its World Cup campaign.

• IndyCar Grand Prix of Monterey — 3 p.m., Fox
  The IndyCar field competes at California’s iconic Laguna Seca circuit.

• Washington Spirit at Portland Thorns — 4 p.m., CBS
  The most compelling NWSL matchup on Sunday’s schedule.

• NASCAR Southern 500 — 5 p.m., USA Network
  A NASCAR crown-jewel race at Darlington and the opening event of the championship Chase.

• Wisconsin vs. Notre Dame — 7:30 p.m., NBC
  The Shamrock Series and Sunday’s biggest college-football matchup.

• Louisville vs. Ole Miss — 7:30 p.m., ABC
  Two ambitious programs meet in another nationally televised season opener.

Top five events of the weekend

1. Springboks vs. All Blacks

2. Clemson vs. LSU

3. Formula 1 Italian Grand Prix

4. US Open tennis

5. Arsenal vs. Chelsea

The NFL regular season begins next week, so there are no NFL games this weekend.

You may also like:

(1) 🏀 Upside Basketball Study: Relative Rest Influences NBA Performance and Game Outcomes

Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2026) by Anthony G. Pinzone, Ryan W. Gant, Megan K. Magee, Jacob E. Barkley and Adam R. Jajtner.

🧩 Introduction

Does having more rest than an opponent provide a meaningful competitive advantage in the NBA?

This study examined every regular-season game from the 2022–23 and 2023–24 NBA seasons to determine how relative rest influenced scoring, defense, point differential and the likelihood of winning.

Rather than looking only at how many days a team had between games, the researchers introduced the Relative Rest Index—or RRI—which compares one team’s rest with its opponent’s rest.

The findings were clear: teams with a relative rest advantage had better point differentials and higher odds of winning. The effect appeared to be driven more by defensive performance than offensive scoring.

Authors:

• Anthony G. Pinzone

• Ryan W. Gant

• Megan K. Magee

• Jacob E. Barkley

• Adam R. Jajtner

Institutions:

• California State University San Marcos

• Kent State University

Download the full study by clicking on the link below:

Download full study

🧪 Study Overview

Design: Retrospective observational analysis of NBA regular-season games.

Seasons analyzed:

• 2022–23

• 2023–24

Sample:

• 2,461 games

• 4,922 team-game observations

• All 30 NBA teams

Data source: Basketball-Reference, with game dates and times checked against NBA.com when necessary.

Outcomes analyzed:

• Game result

• Point differential

• Points scored

• Points allowed

The statistical models also accounted for:

• Home versus away games

• Opponent quality

• Stage of the season

• Competitive season

• Repeated observations within the same game

📊 What Is the Relative Rest Index?

The Relative Rest Index compares a team’s rest interval with the rest interval of its opponent:

RRI = Team’s days of rest − Opponent’s days of rest

For example:

• RRI of +2: The team had two more rest days than its opponent.

• RRI of 0: Both teams had approximately equal rest.

• RRI of −2: The team had two fewer rest days than its opponent.

The researchers divided teams into five categories:

• −2 days or less

• −2 to −0.5 days

• −0.5 to +0.5 days

• +0.5 to +2 days

• +2 days or more

Teams with an RRI of −2 days or less served as the reference group.

📈 Key Findings

🏆 More Relative Rest Increased the Odds of Winning

Compared with teams that had at least two fewer rest days than their opponents:

• Teams with a 0.5–2-day rest advantage had 1.50 times the odds of winning.

• Teams with a rest advantage of at least two days had 1.66 times the odds of winning.

The unadjusted results followed the same pattern:

• Teams with a 0.5–2-day advantage won 54.5% of their games.

• Teams with an advantage of at least two days won 58.1%.

• Teams with a disadvantage of at least two days won only 42.1%.

These associations remained after accounting for game location, opponent quality and the point in the season when the game was played.

➕ Rest Advantage Improved Point Differential

Teams with more rest than their opponents also produced better scoring margins.

Compared with teams at a rest disadvantage of at least two days:

• An RRI of 0.5–2 days was associated with a 3.10-point improvement in point differential.

• An RRI of at least two days was associated with a 3.36-point improvement.

In a league where many games are decided by only a few possessions, a three-point change can be competitively meaningful.

🛡️ The Strongest Effect Appeared on Defense

Relative rest was associated with fewer points allowed.

Compared with teams at a disadvantage of at least two days:

• Teams with approximately equal rest allowed 2.41 fewer points.

• Teams with a 0.5–2-day rest advantage allowed 3.27 fewer points.

This suggests that rest may influence defensive performance through factors such as:

• Transition effort

• Defensive rotations

• Closeouts

• Communication

• Rebounding

• Decision-making

• Repeated high-intensity movements

The study did not measure these mechanisms directly, so they should be treated as possible explanations rather than proven causes.

🎯 More Rest Did Not Significantly Increase Points Scored

Relative rest was not significantly associated with points scored.

This was one of the study’s most important findings. The competitive advantage associated with relative rest appeared to come primarily through better defense and overall point differential, rather than an increase in offensive production.

🏠 Home-Court Advantage Remained Powerful

Playing at home was associated with:

• A 4.50-point improvement in point differential

• 2.27 more points scored

• 2.26 fewer points allowed

• 1.70 times the odds of winning

Home teams won 56.1% of the games included in the analysis.

⚔️ Opponent Quality Still Mattered

Playing against an opponent with a stronger recent winning percentage was associated with:

• A lower point differential

• Fewer points scored

• More points allowed

• Lower odds of winning

This reinforces the importance of evaluating rest within the context of opponent quality rather than treating the schedule as the only factor affecting performance.

📅 The Results Were Consistent Across Both Seasons

The researchers found no meaningful difference in the relationship between RRI and performance across the 2022–23 and 2023–24 seasons.

The NBA introduced policies intended to encourage greater player availability before the 2023–24 season, but the relationship between relative rest and team performance did not meaningfully change.

The study also did not provide strong evidence that load-management restrictions caused better or worse team performance.

🧠 Implications for NBA Teams and Practitioners

The study suggests that teams should evaluate recovery relative to their upcoming opponent.

Knowing that a team has two days of rest is useful, but it does not provide the complete competitive context. Two days could represent an advantage if the opponent is playing on consecutive nights—or a disadvantage if the opponent has been off for four days.

RRI provides a simple scheduling metric that can be added to existing performance-monitoring systems.

It may help teams identify games in which they are more likely to experience:

• Defensive fatigue

• Reduced movement quality

• Slower decision-making

• Lower physical readiness

• A competitive disadvantage late in the game

It may also support decisions involving practice intensity, recovery, travel, tactical preparation and rotation planning.

However, RRI is a team-level scheduling metric. It does not replace individual athlete monitoring or prove that a particular player is recovered.

📌 Recommendations

For Performance and Medical Staff

• Calculate RRI before every game.

• Add opponent rest to existing schedule-congestion dashboards.

• Combine RRI with player minutes, workload, travel, sleep and recovery data.

• Pay particular attention to defensive readiness when the team has a substantial rest disadvantage.

• Avoid assuming that every athlete responds to rest in the same way.

For Strength and Conditioning Staff

• Reduce unnecessary training load during periods of negative RRI.

• Prioritize recovery between games during congested schedule periods.

• Monitor neuromuscular readiness before games with a rest disadvantage.

• Preserve high-quality tactical work without adding avoidable physical fatigue.

• Individualize recovery according to recent playing time and athlete history.

For Coaches

• Consider relative rest when planning rotations and practice intensity.

• Prepare for possible defensive declines when facing a more-rested opponent.

• Emphasize transition defense, communication and rotational discipline.

• Avoid treating RRI as a reason to expect a loss; use it as one contextual input.

• Consider whether tactical adjustments can reduce the physical cost of schedule disadvantages.

For Performance Analysts

• Track relative rest rather than team rest alone.

• Separate offensive and defensive outcomes when evaluating schedule effects.

• Include home-court advantage and opponent quality in internal models.

• Examine whether RRI has a greater effect in the fourth quarter or during clutch situations.

• Explore position-specific and player-specific responses to schedule congestion.

⚠️ Limitations

The authors identified several important limitations:

• The study was observational and cannot prove that relative rest caused the results.

• Only two NBA seasons were included.

• Detailed team travel itineraries were unavailable.

• The analysis did not include time-zone changes or whether teams returned home between road games.

• Practice and training loads were not included.

• Player availability, injuries, rotation age and individual recovery strategies were not examined.

• The study evaluated team-level outcomes rather than individual performance.

• Rest duration does not necessarily represent sleep quality or physiological recovery.

• Other factors, including tactical matchups and roster changes, may have influenced game results.

Future research should compare RRI directly with conventional rest intervals and investigate its influence across different NBA eras, travel schedules, players and game situations.

✅ Conclusion

Relative rest appears to influence team performance and game outcomes in recent NBA competition.

Teams with more rest than their opponents produced better point differentials and higher odds of winning. The effect was most visible in points allowed, suggesting that rest advantage may be expressed more strongly through defensive performance than offensive scoring.

RRI is not a complete recovery metric and should not be used in isolation. Nevertheless, it provides teams with an inexpensive and practical way to add opponent context to schedule and recovery analysis.

The central takeaway is simple:

It is not only how much rest your team has that matters. It is how much rest your team has relative to its next opponent.

(2) 🏈 Upside NFL Study: Gradual Preseason Practice Acclimation Reduces Lower-Extremity Strains

Published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (2026) by Mackenzie M. Herzog, Kristin Y. Shiue, Rebecca Y. Lee, Leigh Weiss, Erin Sanchez, Kristy B. Arbogast, Tyler Williams, Allen K. Sills and Christina D. Mack.

🧩 Introduction

Approximately one in four NFL players sustains a lower-extremity strain each season. Nearly 20% of those injuries occur during the short training-camp period at the beginning of preseason.

Could gradually increasing practice duration help reduce that injury burden?

This study combined league-wide medical records, wearable tracking data and practice schedules to identify preseason strategies associated with fewer hamstring, quadriceps, adductor and calf strains.

Based on the initial findings, the NFL and NFL Players Association implemented a mandatory league-wide practice acclimation ramp before the 2022 preseason.

Training-camp lower-extremity strains subsequently fell by 35%—from 288 in 2021 to 186 in 2023.

Authors:

• Mackenzie M. Herzog

• Kristin Y. Shiue

• Rebecca Y. Lee

• Leigh Weiss

• Erin Sanchez

• Kristy B. Arbogast

• Tyler Williams

• Allen K. Sills

• Christina D. Mack

Organizations represented:

• IQVIA

• New York Giants

• Biomechanics Consulting & Research

• Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

• Minnesota Vikings

• National Football League

Download the full study by clicking on the link below:

Download full study

🧪 Study Overview

Design: Observational descriptive epidemiology study followed by evaluation of a league-wide intervention.

Study period: 2018–2023 NFL seasons.

Sample:

• 6,720 unique players

• All 32 NFL clubs

• 82 club-seasons included in the preintervention practice-strategy analysis

• Complete league-wide injury counts and rates available for all clubs

Preintervention period: 2018–2021

Postintervention period: 2022–2023

Data sources:

• NFL league-wide electronic medical records

• Wearable player-tracking data

• Club practice schedules

• NFL activity calendars

Tracking information came from devices supplied by:

• Catapult

• Zebra Technologies

• Polar

• Kinexon

• STATSports

The researchers used the wearable data primarily to determine individual participation and practice duration.

🦵 Injuries Examined

The primary outcome was lower-extremity muscle strains involving the:

• Hamstrings

• Quadriceps

• Adductors

• Calf muscles

The study included strains regardless of whether they resulted in missed participation.

The researchers also examined:

• Time-loss lower-extremity strains

• Time-loss noncontact injuries

• Recurrent lower-extremity strains during the regular season

• Injuries across the entire preseason and regular season

A recurrent strain was defined as another injury to the same muscle on the same side after the player had returned to full participation.

📊 Five Preseason Practice Strategies

The researchers examined how teams structured the first three practices of training camp between 2018 and 2021.

Five general strategies were identified:

1. Gradual 15-Minute Ramp

Practice duration increased by approximately 15 minutes with each of the first three practices.

2. Less Than 10-Minute Ramp

Practice duration increased each day, but by less than 10 minutes.

3. High-Low Duration Variation

Teams alternated practice duration, with the second practice longer than the first and third.

4. Stable Duration

Practice duration remained relatively consistent across the opening sessions.

5. Reverse Ramp

Practice duration decreased each day, meaning the longest practice occurred at the beginning of training camp.

The first three strategies were classified as gradual acclimation approaches.

📈 Key Findings

📉 Gradual Acclimation Was Associated With Fewer Strains

Teams using a gradual 15-minute ramp, a smaller ramp or high-low variation experienced lower training-camp strain rates than teams using stable-duration or reverse-ramp strategies.

The gradual approaches were associated with a 19% lower rate of lower-extremity strains per club practice:

• Incidence rate ratio: 0.81

• 95% confidence interval: 0.68–0.95

• P = .01

The result remained consistent after accounting for total practice time.

This is important because the teams following gradual strategies accumulated a similar amount of total training-camp practice time. The difference was not necessarily how much they practiced overall, but how that exposure was distributed during the opening days.

🏥 The Findings Led to a League-Wide Intervention

The preliminary results were presented to coaches, front-office executives and medical and performance staff before the 2022 preseason.

The NFL and NFLPA then worked with experts to introduce a mandatory gradual practice-acclimation ramp through the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The intervention:

• Limited practice duration during the first six training-camp practices.

• Gradually increased exposure as players acclimated.

• Included a second ramp when padded and contact practices began.

• Was supported by individual education sessions with all 32 clubs.

• Encouraged teams to consider intensity, distance and position-specific movements—not only practice time.

The educational sessions emphasized the purpose of the intervention rather than treating it only as a time restriction.

📉 Training-Camp Strains Decreased by 35%

League-wide lower-extremity strains during training camp declined from:

• 288 in 2021

• 215 in 2022

• 186 in 2023

That represented:

• A 25% reduction during the first year

• A further 13% reduction in the second year

• A total 35% decrease from 2021 to 2023

• 102 fewer strains in 2023 than in 2021

⏱️ Time-Loss Strains Also Declined

When the analysis was limited to injuries that caused players to miss participation, the number of strains decreased from:

• 230 in 2021

• 187 in 2022

• 163 in 2023

The largest reductions occurred during the opening stages of training camp:

• 38% reduction during Week 1

• 33% reduction during Week 2

These are the periods when athletes are adapting to football-specific training and then integrating contact.

🔁 Recurrent Strains Fell by 50%

The benefits were not limited to training camp.

Recurrent lower-extremity strains during the regular season decreased from:

• 22 in 2021

• 11 per year during 2022 and 2023

That represented a 50% reduction in recurrent strains.

The study cannot establish that the acclimation ramp alone produced the reduction, but the finding suggests that improving early-season preparation may have effects extending beyond training camp.

📅 Total Season Strains Declined

From preseason through the end of the regular season, league-wide lower-extremity strain incidence decreased by 19% between 2021 and 2023.

The largest reduction occurred during the active training-camp intervention period, but decreases were also observed later in preseason and during the regular season.

🏟️ Most Clubs Experienced Improvement

Compared with the preintervention seasons:

• 21 of 32 clubs—66%—had a lower median number of training-camp lower-extremity strains in 2022–2023.

• 18 clubs—56%—had a lower median number of noncontact time-loss injuries.

The intervention did not eliminate injuries, and not every club improved. However, the league-wide trend was favorable.

🧠 Why the Gradual Ramp May Have Worked

NFL players arrive at training camp with different levels of conditioning and preparation. They must rapidly adapt to:

• Football-specific running

• Accelerations and decelerations

• Sprinting

• Cutting

• Position-specific movements

• Longer practices

• Equipment

• Contact

A sudden increase in duration and intensity may expose tissues to demands for which they are not fully prepared.

Gradual acclimation allows players to progressively adapt while still reaching similar total practice volumes later in camp.

The study also reinforces an important point: practice duration is only a proxy for load.

A 90-minute high-intensity practice can create different demands from a 90-minute technical session. Teams must still evaluate distance, high-speed running, accelerations, collisions and individual participation.

📌 Recommendations

For Coaches

• Avoid scheduling the longest practice on the first day of training camp.

• Increase practice exposure gradually during the opening sessions.

• Introduce a second ramp when contact or padded practices begin.

• Preserve the quality and intensity needed for football preparation while managing duration.

• Coordinate practice planning with medical and performance staff.

For Performance Staff

• Combine practice-duration limits with individual wearable data.

• Monitor total distance, high-speed running, sprint exposure, accelerations and decelerations.

• Account for position-specific demands.

• Track activities completed outside structured team practice.

• Compare each player’s preseason load with their recent training history.

• Identify players who require a more individualized acclimation schedule.

For Medical Staff

• Monitor early symptoms involving the hamstrings, quadriceps, adductors and calves.

• Review previous injuries and recurrence risk before camp.

• Communicate emerging problems before they become time-loss injuries.

• Integrate medical-record data with workload and participation information.

• Monitor athletes closely during the introduction of contact.

For Sports Organizations

• Use league-wide data to identify common injury patterns.

• Translate research findings into simple, actionable policies.

• Educate coaches, executives, medical teams and performance staff together.

• Explain the purpose behind new requirements.

• Evaluate the intervention after implementation and refine it over time.

• Preserve flexibility for teams while establishing evidence-based guardrails.

⚠️ Limitations

The study has several important limitations:

• It was observational and cannot prove that the practice ramp caused the reduction in injuries.

• Other changes between 2021 and 2023 may have influenced injury trends.

• Practice duration is a relatively broad measure of training load.

• Practice intensity and activity type can vary substantially within the same duration.

• Individual players may have experienced different exposure from the overall club strategy.

• Players entered training camp with different conditioning histories.

• Age, previous injury, fitness and activities outside practice were not fully incorporated.

• Approximately 24% of club-seasons were excluded from the preintervention strategy analysis because of missing or incomplete wearable data.

• Wearable data were voluntarily provided during the earlier seasons.

• The findings may not directly generalize to college, high school or youth football.

• The study only examined selected lower-extremity strains and noncontact injuries.

The study also involved researchers and consultants connected to the NFL, NFLPA, NFL clubs and IQVIA. The paper reports these relationships and notes that the NFL Injury Database is funded by the NFL and NFLPA.

✅ Conclusion

A data-driven, gradual preseason practice ramp combined with league-wide education was associated with a major reduction in lower-extremity strains across the NFL.

Training-camp strains decreased by 35%, producing 102 fewer injuries in 2023 than in 2021. Recurrent regular-season strains also fell by 50%.

The results do not mean that practice time alone determines injury risk. Duration is only one component of load, and the study does not establish causality.

However, the initiative provides a compelling model for professional sports:

1. Combine medical, scheduling and wearable data.

2. Identify a modifiable league-wide risk factor.

3. Translate the finding into a simple intervention.

4. Educate every organization on how and why to implement it.

5. Measure the results and refine the approach.

The central takeaway is clear:

Teams may not need to practice less during preseason. They may need to progress practice demands more gradually.

(3) Multi-League Study: Westward Evening Travel Hurts Winning

Study: Greater circadian disadvantage during evening games for NBA, NHL and NFL teams travelling westward
Authors: Jonathan Roy and Geneviève Forest
Journal: Journal of Sleep Research, 2018
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.12565

Download the full study below by clicking on the button below:

Download full study

Introduction

Professional teams frequently cross one to three time zones during the season. Although these trips are shorter than international travel, the repeated disruption can place athletes out of alignment with their internal body clocks.

This study examined whether travel direction and game time were associated with away-team winning percentages in the NBA, NHL and NFL.

The underlying premise was that many physical and cognitive performance measures peak in the late afternoon. An evening game after westward travel may occur late at night according to the visiting athletes’ internal clocks—when their bodies are beginning to prepare for sleep.

Study overview

The researchers analyzed 12,829 regular-season away games played from 2010 through 2015:

• NBA: 5,909 games

• NHL: 5,640 games

• NFL: 1,280 games

Games were categorized by:

• Westward, eastward or same-time-zone travel

• One to three time zones crossed

• Afternoon games: 5:00 p.m. ET or earlier

• Evening games: 5:30 p.m. ET or later

• Visiting-team win or loss

The researchers also compared the overall quality of western and eastern teams. They found no significant differences in total winning percentages, suggesting that regional team quality did not explain the primary findings.

Key findings

1. Westward teams recorded the lowest evening win rates

Travel direction was significantly associated with overall winning percentage in the NBA and NHL:

• NBA: p < 0.0001

• NHL: p = 0.011

• NFL: p = 0.058, representing a statistical trend rather than a conventionally significant result

2. The effect was concentrated in evening games

For evening games, travel direction remained significant in:

• NBA: p < 0.0001

• NHL: p = 0.003

The NFL displayed the same directional pattern, but the result was not statistically significant, potentially because its sample contained far fewer evening games.

By contrast, the researchers found no significant travel-direction effect during afternoon games in any of the three leagues.

3. The number of time zones mattered

For evening games, the number and direction of time zones crossed were significantly associated with winning percentage:

• NBA: r = 0.43

• NHL: r = 0.48

• NFL: r = 0.34

Because westward travel was coded in the negative direction and eastward travel positively, these relationships indicate progressively poorer outcomes toward the west and better outcomes toward the east.

The travel variable explained:

• 18.5% of variation in NBA winning percentages

• 23.2% in the NHL

• 11.3% in the NFL

Why this matters

Local game time does not necessarily represent an athlete’s biological time.

For example, an Eastern-time-zone team playing a 7:30 p.m. game on the West Coast may experience the contest as 10:30 p.m. according to its body clock—particularly without enough time to adapt. That can affect alertness, reaction time, decision-making, strength expression and other performance components.

Eastward travelers may experience the opposite situation: an evening game can occur closer to their late-afternoon biological performance window.

The findings therefore suggest that teams should evaluate schedules through a circadian-time lens, not simply count travel distance or days on the road.

Practical recommendations for teams

1. Track body-clock time

   Record each athlete’s origin time zone, local time, biological time and expected adaptation when evaluating training and competition schedules.

2. Flag westward evening games

   Treat evening competition after westward travel as a potentially higher-risk performance scenario, especially when multiple time zones are crossed.

3. Build individualized light plans

   Strategically timed light exposure—and avoidance of light at inappropriate times—can help move circadian timing in the desired direction.

4. Protect sleep opportunities

   Coordinate flights, hotel arrivals, meals, meetings and treatment schedules so athletes receive sufficient sleep instead of losing recovery time to logistics.

5. Consider earlier arrival

   When the schedule permits, arrive early enough to allow partial adaptation. The appropriate timing will depend on direction, time zones crossed and individual response.

6. Use afternoon start times strategically

   The study found no significant travel-direction effect during afternoon games. When teams or leagues can influence scheduling, earlier games may reduce the disadvantage associated with westward travel.

7. Monitor individual differences

   Chronotype, habitual sleep timing and prior travel may change how athletes respond. Team-level rules should be supplemented by individualized plans.

Important limitations

This was a retrospective observational study, so it demonstrates an association—not proof that circadian misalignment caused the losses.

The analysis also did not comprehensively adjust for opponent strength, injuries, lineup availability, rest differential, back-to-back games, exact flight timing, arrival day or individual sleep and circadian measurements. Its fixed Eastern Time cutoff may not perfectly represent each athlete’s biological phase.

The results should consequently inform travel planning and future research rather than serve as a standalone prediction model.

Conclusion

Across nearly 13,000 away games, westward travel was associated with the poorest winning percentages when NBA, NHL and NFL games were played in the evening. The same disadvantage was not evident during afternoon competition.

The practical message is straightforward:

Travel direction, time zones crossed and biological game time should be treated as performance variables—not merely scheduling details.

You may also like:

This week we have the honor of interviewing a group of experts in biomechanics in elite sports. We discussed the state of the market, the biggest barriers to a wider adoption, the main strengths and limitations of 3D markerless solutions, and how you see the space evolving in the next 5-10 years.

• Dr. Robert Butler, Director of High Performance, Nashville SC (MLS).

• Luis Justiniano, Director of Sales, Elite Sports Americas, Qualisys

• Jordan Troester, Director of Performance, Red Bull Performance Center

• Felix Proessl, Senior Director of Sport and Data Science, Colorado Rapids (MLS)

• Nikki Jansson, Field Application & Support Engineer, Qualisys.

Here are the topics that we covered during the video interview:

• How would you describe the current state of biomechanics in sports?

• Where is biomechanics delivering the most value for practitioners today?

• What are the biggest barriers to wider adoption of biomechanics?

• What are the main strengths and limitations of today’s 3D markerless motion capture solutions?

• How do you see biomechanics evolving over the next 5–10 years, and what role will AI play?

You can watch the video interview below by clicking on the Youtube link. You can also listen to the audio interview by clicking on the link at the top of the page:

Here are some of the best quotes of our conversation with Rob, Luis, Jordan, Nikki and Felix:

1. Current state of biomechanics in sports

Jordan Troester, Red Bull Performance Center

“Biomechanics is at an inflection point. Everyone believes it may hold answers to our injury questions, performance questions and everything in between. The technology is reaching the point where it can become point-and-click and user-friendly for strength coaches, athletic trainers and physical therapists.”

“Biomechanics lived in laboratories and universities for decades. Motion capture is now where force plates were 10 to 15 years ago: ready to move into practitioners’ hands.”

Dr. Robert Butler, Nashville SC

“Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it will tell you what you want to hear. That is the humbling part of being a coach with new measurement tools: determining whether what you have always believed is actually producing the outcome you expected.”

“The technology is there. What interests me is how it will shape coaching curriculums, athlete-development programs and health programs—and whether it can motivate meaningful change.”

Luis Justiniano, Qualisys

“Historically, biomechanics was performed in a controlled environment with sophisticated equipment. It was a tedious process, and teams might wait a week for a report. By then, the actionable information they needed was often already late.”

“We are moving toward collecting more in-game data and comparing it with what we collect in the laboratory. Psychological pressure and other contextual factors can produce very different movement patterns.”

Felix Proessl, Colorado Rapids

“Markerless motion-capture technology has allowed practitioners in complex team sports to begin asking questions that were previously more accessible in controlled sports such as baseball.”

“In complex team sports, practitioners are trying to determine which pieces of that complexity can be simplified and placed into a repeatable, standardized testing battery.”

Nikki Jansson, Qualisys

“We are at a point of transition. We are not completely sure where biomechanics will go, but initiatives such as the NBA’s are helping other elite sports explore how this technology can benefit their programs.”

2. Where biomechanics delivers the most value

Jordan Troester

“I am most optimistic about use cases involving specific—and often individual—problem-solving. If you have a clear question, kinematics can provide deeper insight and help you make a decision.”

“The people who approach biomechanics with a specific problem-solving mindset will be more successful than those who simply capture everything and hope to learn from it eventually.”

Felix Proessl

“It needs to start with a question. A clear intervention and a clear question allow everything downstream—the collection, analysis and interpretation—to make sense.”

“The alternative is assessing 10 different movements simply because everybody else does it, without knowing why they matter to your environment.”

Dr. Robert Butler

“I am not looking at all 25 athletes coming through the system. I am looking for the two or three who need more attention than I anticipated.”

“Biomechanics can become another part of the signal—alongside sleep, wellness questionnaires, GPS data and conversations with the athlete—to help us understand athlete health and how that individual is organizing movement on a given day.”

“People typically respond consistently within themselves when they are fatigued, frustrated, worn down or approaching an injury. Identifying what is organic to that individual can be very powerful.”

Nikki Jansson

“Teams are using biomechanics in return-to-play initiatives and protocols. The important part is having the right staff to translate the data—not only to athletes and practitioners, but also to the front office so leadership understands the value of the technology.”

Luis Justiniano

“It is about asking the right question. If you collect a large amount of data but cannot manage it, you hit a wall and end up with a system that collects dust.”

“A coach wants to know whether movement changed—but, more importantly, whether that change was meaningful.”

3. Biggest barriers to wider adoption

Felix Proessl

“There is a mythical expectation that an optimal ground truth exists for movement. Athletes are some of the best compensators, and they operate within a range rather than around one perfect point.”

“The challenge is understanding what represents healthy and expected variability—and what represents unhealthy variability or movement outside the athlete’s normal boundaries.”

Jordan Troester

“As the capability becomes more widely available, people with less experience will be responsible for handling the data and interpreting the results.”

“There is a long process of education required to understand which metrics matter, what constitutes meaningful change and how much natural variability is associated with each measure.”

“Biomechanics will take off when the average person understands it well enough to find it useful.”

Dr. Robert Butler

“You cannot examine 697 variables related to speed, power, displacement, takeoff and everything else simply to find something—because you will find something. The question is whether it is meaningful and repeatable.”

“One reason biomechanics has not achieved wider adoption is that it is presented as everything, rather than as the one or two things that matter most.”

“It is no longer primarily a space or location issue. It is a purpose, intent and focus issue. The simpler we make biomechanics, the faster it will gain traction.”

4. Strengths and limitations of 3D markerless motion capture

Luis Justiniano

“The strength of markerless technology is scalability: moving from testing players occasionally toward testing them much more regularly, with less invasive systems that can adapt to indoor, outdoor and travel environments.”

“We must remain mindful of variability and accuracy. Whatever you measure at home must be repeatable when you test somewhere else.”

“A single-camera solution may be sufficient if you only need something simple, such as knee flexion. But rotational movements require multiple perspectives and triangulation.”

Felix Proessl

“Automation significantly reduces the time between testing and delivering information. That immediacy can make an enormous difference for coaches and athletes.”

“A limitation is that athletes know they are being tested and may change their behavior. Telling someone to ‘move naturally’ is much more difficult than giving them a clear objective such as jumping as high and as fast as possible.”

“That is why in-game assessment is so appealing. During competition, players are not thinking about being tested; they are trying to perform.”

Jordan Troester

“Visualization and reporting of kinematic data are critical for adoption. This information is still unfamiliar to many practitioners, creating a major opportunity for education and growth.”

Dr. Robert Butler

“The more cameras you have tracking points on the body simultaneously, the better your estimate of where those points are in space.”

“If the metric is meaningful enough, you can scale the clinical or performance question to the equipment available. The goal is to identify important metrics while minimizing friction.”

Nikki Jansson

“More cameras allow you to capture more data points and improve accuracy. A phone may be more portable, but it could be tracking only one plane of motion rather than the many data points available through a multicamera system.”

5. Future evolution and AI’s role

Luis Justiniano

“AI is a broad term, and there is a lot of misunderstanding around it. Computer vision is already part of AI, and we have been using it for a long time.”

“AI can help compile and flag information across multiple athletes and say, ‘There is something here—look into it.’ It should then be up to the practitioner to investigate.”

“We do not want AI telling practitioners that an athlete is red, yellow or green. We are not going to cross the line and pretend to be the experts interpreting the final result.”

Nikki Jansson

“AI is a powerful tool, but we need to be cautious about how it is used and make sure its outputs are not misinterpreted.”

“Practitioners are experts for a reason. Their education and years of experience must remain central to interpreting the data.”

Dr. Robert Butler

“AI will help only if it makes the search more efficient and focuses on meaningful questions that can lead to changeable outcomes.”

“Biomechanics may be more valuable for identifying signs of fatigue or changes in performance than for true injury prediction.”

“If you do not have a meaningful story connecting the analysis to what is actually happening, the information will become noise rather than a signal that creates change.”

“We are going to gain a better understanding of whether people are moving differently and whether that helps explain why the body is not functioning at its optimal level.”

Felix Proessl

“Optical tracking and pose estimation present an exciting opportunity for long-term evaluation and contextualization of performance during games.”

“The outcomes may be less detailed than laboratory measurements, but information such as body orientation, scanning rates and action types can still provide valuable technical and tactical insights.”

“GPS tells us how much high-speed running an athlete accumulated, but biomechanics and optical tracking can provide context about how that running occurred—whether it was linear, curvilinear, a recovery run or a run in behind.”

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Dear colleague,

We are excited to announce that only four presentation spots remain for sports technology startups at our upcoming Upside VIP Lunch in Atlanta.

⚽ Upside VIP Lunch
📅 December 17–18, 2026

The event will bring together approximately 50 leading MLS / NWSL practitioners and decision-makers, including Performance Directors, Heads of Athletic Therapy, Directors of Rehabilitation, Sports Scientists and representatives from clubs across the league.

Selected sports technology startups will have the opportunity to:

• Present directly to MLS / NWSL teams and practitioners

• Demonstrate and exhibit their technology

• Participate in meaningful conversations with key decision-makers

• Build relationships in an intimate, highly targeted environment

Only seven startup presentation spots are available. We are currently speaking with approximately 20 interested vendors, and only four spots remain.

If you want to sponsor, exhibit and present at our VIP Lunch, please contact us as soon as possible at julien@upsideglobal.co. Presentation opportunities will be confirmed on a first-come basis.

Last year’s VIP Dinner welcomed more than 50 practitioners representing over 20 MLS clubs.

You can view the recap and recorded presentations from last year’s event here:

📅 What’s Next for Upside

2026 Austin Peay State University Health & Performance Summit
📅 October 17, 2026
📍 Tennessee
Link here

This summit will bring together leaders from organizations across professional sports, health, performance, sports science, the military and government.

For sponsorship information, contact Dr. Tim Leszczak, Chair of the APSU Department of Health and Human Performance, at Leszczakt@apsu.edu.

🇫🇷 Upside Tech Summit—France
📅 First half of 2027
📍 France

We are planning to host this summit at a major stadium, bringing together leading organizations from Ligue 1, the Premier League, LaLiga, international rugby, basketball, the NBA, MLS, the NFL and other elite sports.

We are also developing additional Upside VIP events with major leagues and teams across the United States and Europe in 2026 and 2027.

Interested in attending, speaking, presenting, exhibiting or sponsoring an upcoming Upside event? Contact me at julien@upsideglobal.co.

Best,

Julien

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

When Performance Technology Becomes an Ecosystem

What consolidation means for practitioner judgment, data agency, and athlete-centered service

By Jordan Stewart-Mackie, PhD Researcher in Wearable Technology Implementation | August 2026

Sports performance technology is moving beyond selling individual devices. Increasingly, the strategic contest is about who can connect measurement, monitoring, program delivery, and decision support inside one high-performance environment.

VALD’s acquisitions of GymAware and BridgeAthletic are a timely example. In eight days, a company already established in strength, movement and rehabilitation assessment added real-time velocity-based training and a platform for designing, delivering and analyzing programs. VALD describes the intended pathway as one connected workflow: testing, prescription, execution, analysis and management.

The practitioner’s paradox: when capability outpaces capacity

The modern practitioner must hold the micro, mesco and the macro in view at all times while going deep enough to individualise support. Breadth keeps the system moving; depth changes performance outcomes. Both depend on finite time, attention and cognitive bandwidth.

Consolidation can reduce fragmentation and expand what a department can see and do. Yet as products, data pathways and workflows converge, wider technological capability does not automatically create greater practitioner capacity or better athlete service. If integration adds more information to manage without returning time or improving decisions, coverage may widen while interpretation, relationships and individualisation become thinner. The test is not how much the ecosystem can do, but whether it creates the space to understand what matters for this athlete, at this moment, and act with precision.

Practitioners have spent years stitching together specialist products, duplicated records and disconnected datasets. A well-integrated ecosystem could ease that burden, return time to practitioners and build a more coherent and holistic picture of the athlete. But it also changes the decision environment around them: product roadmaps, data pathways, metric definitions, support models and commercial incentives can begin to converge under one owner.

An acquisition, then, is more than a business event; for the organizations using the technology, it is a system-change event. The relevant question for practitioners is not whether consolidation is inherently good or bad. It is whether the organization can use it to solve the right problems, at the right level and at the right time, while preserving the judgment, data agency, and quality of service for their coaches, athletes, and senior management.

When technology becomes an ecosystem, the practitioner is no longer selecting only a tool. They are deciding how much of the performance workflow should depend on one company’s architecture.

Ownership rarely changes performance on its own. What happens between the announcement and the athlete is a chain of smaller decisions, each capable of helping or hindering high-performance outcomes.

Figure 1. Ownership change reaches the athlete through product, data, and decision layers, with practitioner judgment mediating every stage. Acquisition changes ownership: implementation determines performance impact.

The opportunity: less friction, stronger connection

Performance departments routinely move between assessment, monitoring, medical, video, and program-delivery systems, exporting, cleaning, matching, and reformatting data before it becomes usable. This fragmentation carries a real operational cost across all major stakeholders. Too often, insight arrives after the practical decision has already been made. In those environments, highly skilled practitioners become human middleware, spending time and energy reconciling systems instead of connecting with athletes to support them, refine their craft, and build stronger relationships and understanding.

A connected ecosystem can shorten the path from assessment to intervention.

• Assessment can inform session prescription.

• Real-time data can drive intent and competition.

• Seamless program delivery can preserve the planned dose or enable detailed adjustments.

• Reassessment can help review responses and plan proactively.

When these elements genuinely communicate, staff spend less time deciphering information and more time strengthening the feedback loop with coaches and athletes.

This is the strongest case for consolidation: fewer repeated entries and avoidable handoffs, more context inside the decision window, and greater shared access to engineering, validation, security, education, and support. But connection is an opportunity, not an outcome. The strategic question is not how much can be connected, but which friction should disappear, and which human interactions must remain.

A unified dashboard does not automatically produce a unified understanding. More variables in one place do not correct weak validity, ambiguous definitions, or unclear decision rights. Integration creates value only when it improves the speed, quality, and usability of a real decision.

The responsibility: preserve the judgment layer

Tech companies consistently claim new metrics and platforms provide better decisions, better outcomes, better performance. But technology does not make the final performance decision. People do, drawing on more than the platform’s own data: professional knowledge, direct experience, and the instinct built from both, filtered through the context of this athlete, this moment, this level of risk.

That judgment is rarely exercised from a position of full authority. It looks like reading the right moment to raise a concern, noticing whose timeline you are actually working to, keeping enough distance from a system to leave without losing years of history, resolving disagreement with the least friction necessary to protect the athlete, and making a clear, ownable call without waiting for permission that may never arrive. Shared ownership should still not become collective ambiguity: problem, evidence, owner, and review point need to stay explicit. Practitioners should still inspect a recommendation’s variables and override its output when context demands it. A coach needs clarity about what changed; an athlete needs feedback that builds understanding, not a score that simply instructs them.

None of this positions practitioners against technology companies. The strongest relationship is reciprocal and contestable: vendors bring scale, engineering and product capability; practitioners bring contextual knowledge and implementation experience; coaches and athletes reveal whether the design holds up under real high-performance constraints. Trust should be earned through transparency, responsiveness and relevant evidence, not inferred from familiarity, confidence or polished marketing. The goal is not to defend old fragmentation. It is to ensure efficiency strengthens professional reasoning instead of quietly replacing it.

The technology cycle also moves faster than the conventional evidence cycle: product versions, algorithms and interfaces can change several times before an applied study reaches publication. That does not make evidence less important. It means durable science, real-world feedback, transparent versioning and practitioner judgment must operate on different clocks while informing the same decisions. That gap is not temporary. As one practitioner-researcher’s recent reflection on the field also argues, professional capability increasingly depends on working responsibly within it.

Integration is not interoperability

Integration means products work together inside a defined environment. Interoperability means data, definitions, and workflows can move across environments without losing essential meaning or function.

The distinction matters because an ecosystem can be highly integrated and still be difficult to navigate or leave. In our pursuit of a frictionless workflow, we trade the minor daily friction of managing specialized tools for the catastrophic paralysis of a consolidated ecosystem we can never afford to leave. The organization may retain access to its outputs but gradually become dependent on one vendor’s definitions, transformations, and composite scores to understand the athlete. This is more than technical lock-in. It can become an epistemic lock-in the system starts to shape not only where the data lives, but how the organization thinks.

Avoiding that dependency does not require rejecting a unified platform. It requires preserving the ability to reconstruct meaning outside it. Exported data should include units, timestamps, protocol details, field definitions, and relevant version information. Historical records should remain usable, and interfaces should support data movement in time for the decisions they serve. An organization’s own performance philosophy, thresholds, communication practices, and longitudinal athlete record should not exist only inside a vendor dashboard.

An integrated ecosystem is most valuable when participation is beneficial, but departure remains possible. Portability is not a rejection of partnership; it is what keeps the partnership chosen rather than inherited.

Measurement meaning must survive the merger

The common distinction between “raw measurement” and “proprietary estimate” is useful, but incomplete. Wearables and performance technologies do not offer unmediated access to physiological truth. They capture signals or proxies under defined conditions, then transform them:

Captured signal → processed signal → derived variable → model estimate → composite output → human decision

Each transition introduces assumptions and uncertainty. An R-R interval sits closer to the captured cardiac signal than a heart-rate-variability calculation. Sleep variables are model-based estimates. Bar velocity still depends on device, setup, sampling, and processing. A readiness score adds another layer through combination rules that may not be visible.

The practitioner’s question is therefore not simply, “Can we access the raw data?” It is: “What happened to the signal, what uncertainty entered, and is the resulting information adequate for this specific decision or performance question we are trying to answer?”

A prime example is OURA, currently facing a class-action lawsuit.

Weeks before a planned IPO at an $11 billion valuation, a class-action suit alleges Oura’s marketed “95% Sleep Staging Accuracy” can’t be substantiated by a ring measuring proxy signals, not the brain activity a clinical sleep lab requires. Oura disputes this and cites its own validation research.

This becomes especially important after acquisition. Firmware, filtering, feature extraction, reference populations, or scoring logic may change while a metric keeps the same name. Apparent historical continuity can conceal a genuine change in measurement meaning. The reverse is equally true: retaining a raw export does not guarantee comparability if the sensor, placement, sampling rate, or protocol has changed underneath it.

Emerging foundation models raise the stakes on this discipline rather than lowering them. Large models can learn useful representations across extensive wearable datasets, but transfer across device ecosystems is not yet demonstrated. Google’s SensorFM, for instance, was trained at population scale on one device family using one-minute aggregated signals; its own authors describe transfer to other hardware as further work, not a proven result. A recent review of sports digital-twin research reaches a parallel conclusion, naming standardization, interoperability, human expertise, governance and real-world validation as conditions for responsible adoption. As platforms become more intelligent, provenance cannot become less visible.

Athlete trust is part of data quality

Athletes experience consolidation through burden, feedback, access and consequence. They notice when another login appears, when a familiar metric disappears, when data collection expands, or when a score changes how staff respond.

Weak transparency and poor feedback can change reporting behaviour. In one qualitative study of elite Australian athletes, participants described uncertainty over who could see their data, and several said they had entered inaccurate figures rather than risk their performance being questioned. Trust, in other words, is not a soft cultural benefit layered on after implementation. It shapes the quality of the data entering the system in the first place.

Consolidation can reduce burden by eliminating repeated entry and disconnected interfaces. It can also connect increasingly sensitive layers of health, medical, behavioural, and performance information. Athlete-centredness should not be assumed to describe the acquisition itself; it must describe how the resulting ecosystem is implemented, governed and accepted.

Practitioners must be pragmatic and forward-thinking to keep the transition as seamless as possible and not cumbersome for key stakeholders. Operational disruption can be minimized while meaningful changes to data access, processing, purpose, or consequence remain ethically visible. Athletes should understand what is collected, who can see it, why it matters, what it can influence, and where human judgment stays in control.

A practical revalidation after acquisition

Technology is commonly evaluated at purchase and reviewed at renewal. A material acquisition should trigger a focused review in between. The purpose is not to presume failure; it is to verify continuity and surface new opportunities before workflows become dependent on untested assumptions. That review should hold across three horizons at once, because a change that helps this week can still cost the organization a season later.

Figure 2. The same change can be beneficial at one planning horizon and costly at another: micro service, meso interpretation, macro capability.

Six checks turn that review into practice:

1. Start with the decision. Define which practical decision the connected workflow should improve, who owns it, when the information must arrive, and what action could change. If no decision becomes clearer or faster, added integration may only create more reporting.

2. Re-map provenance. Confirm whether the sensor, firmware, processing, metric definition, algorithm, reference data, or versioning practice will change. Record the method behind longitudinal variables rather than relying on a familiar label.

3. Test portability and reconstructability. Verify export completeness, API access, latency, historical downloads, data dictionaries, and a secondary route out. A spreadsheet backup is only useful if it preserves enough metadata to recover meaning.

4. Revisit governance with the athlete in view. Clarify any change in data control or processing, role-based access, retention, secondary use, model training, and athlete-facing explanation. Legal rights vary across jurisdictions; practical transparency should not.

5. Separate the service from the interface. Preserve internal reporting logic, coaching language, longitudinal baselines and communication routines outside the vendor’s presentation layer. If the interface changes, the quality of athlete support should not change.

6. Stress-test continuity. Ask what happens if a product is bundled, repriced, materially redesigned, unsupported, or discontinued. Define the minimum service that must continue, the information required to migrate, and the time and cost of doing so.

These questions belong in a constructive vendor conversation, not a defensive one. Companies that can explain lineage, portability, governance, and continuity clearly give practitioners stronger reasons to trust the ecosystem. Practitioners who can articulate the realities of use give companies better information to build with. Strong relationships accelerate learning, but they do not replace evidence; they help uncertainty become visible sooner.

Building a sustainable performance ecosystem

Sustainability in high performance is not simply maintaining a subscription or keeping every device connected. It is the capacity to preserve service quality as technologies, staff, athletes, and organizational priorities change. In a high-performance environment, change is a permanent operating condition rather than a phase to get through. The environments that thrive are not the ones that eliminate it, but the ones that get better at absorbing it without losing direction.

That takes more than technical resilience. It takes capability distributed across people: staff who understand the constructs being measured, coaches who know how information enters a decision, athletes who understand the purpose and consequences of monitoring, and leaders who can tell operational convenience apart from strategic dependency. Clear language, shared ownership, and explicit decision rights reduce coordination cost and protect performance momentum.

The strongest system is not necessarily the one with the most products under one logo. It is the one that can use connected technology while retaining the ability to question it, adapt it, and replace a component without losing the history or reasoning that supports the athlete. Innovation is not the accumulation of new capability; it is the disciplined conversion of capability into better decisions and better service.

Figure 3. Six questions for evaluating a consolidated technology ecosystem. Green, amber, and red are starting points for a conversation, not a verdict.

The test: for whom is the ecosystem optimized?

Commercial scale, cross-selling and platform growth are legitimate company objectives. They are not automatically the same as the objectives of a high-performance program. That is why the final test is not the size of the dataset, or the number of products connected. It is whether the ecosystem improves decisions under pressure while strengthening the service the athlete actually experiences.

Practitioners do not need to resist consolidation to protect their role. They need to become more deliberate stewards of the relationship between signal, context, and action: keeping information interpretable, uncertainty visible, and technology accountable to the decision it’s been authorized to support.

Progress is the ability to adapt without losing purpose, judgment, or service quality.

Integration should reduce friction without reducing freedom. If a smarter data stack leaves the organization less able to understand, challenge, or change it, performance has not advanced. Dependency has simply become more convenient.

That question will only sharpen as the market keeps consolidating. Some organizations will rationally choose to stay modular, not from resistance to change but because depth, portability and control sometimes matter more than convenience, and which dependencies to accept is now as strategic a question as which ecosystem to join. Staying solo, chosen deliberately and reviewed as rigorously as any acquisition, is sometimes the more sophisticated choice, not the more cautious one.

The Practitioner’s Failsafe: True operational fluency isn’t the absence of friction; it is the presence of optionality. As a practitioner, you can reap the benefits of a low friction consolidated ecosystem as long as you have engineered a failsafe exit strategy or backup.

Selected sources

• VALD, acquisition of GymAware, 11 August 2026, and acquisition of BridgeAthletic, 19 August 2026.

• Garmin, acquisition of TrainingPeaks and TrainHeroic, 22 July 2026 (related consolidation activity elsewhere in the sector).

• Surber v. Oura, class-action complaint reported by Inc., filed N.D. California, 20 August 2026.

• Coventry, M. et al., “I lied a little bit”: elite Australian athletes’ perspectives on self-reported data, Physical Therapy in Sport, 2023.

• Robertson, S. et al., Development of a sports technology quality framework, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2024.

• Behrens, M. et al., Global insights on wearable technology adoption by coaches, Sports Medicine – Open, 2025.

• Liu, X. & McDuff, D. (Google Research), SensorFM: towards a general intelligence and interface for wearable health data, 2026.

• Sédiri, A. et al., Digital twins in sports science: a comprehensive narrative review, Biology of Sport, 2026.

• Windt, J. et al., “To tech or not to tech?” A critical decision-making framework for implementing technology in sport, Journal of Athletic Training, 2020.

• Dunne, D., Introducing Phronesis: practical wisdom for the AI era of performance science, Hexis, 2026.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Today we have the honor of interviewing a group of experience soccer practitioners who have participated in soccer world cups including the latest 2026 Soccer World Cup in the US. The goal of this group podcast was to talk about their experience competing in the World Cup, the best practices, the does and don’ts.

• Pierre Barrieu – Assistant Coach & Performance Manager, Canada Soccer Men’s National Team.

• Derek Lawrance – Athletic Trainer, U.S. Men’s National Team.

• Guilherme Passos – Head of Sports Science, Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF)

Here are the topics that we covered during the video interview:

• The Reality of Preparing for a World Cup
  Everyone talks about preparing for a World Cup, but what does that actually look like behind the scenes? What were the two or three priorities your staff focused on in the months leading up to the tournament that you believe had the greatest impact?

• Training vs. Recovery During a Congested Tournament
  With matches every few days, how did your philosophy shift from improving performance to maintaining performance? How did you balance training, recovery, and keeping players fresh?

• Injury Prevention and Return-to-Play Under Pressure.
  A World Cup creates enormous pressure to have your best players available. How did you approach injury risk reduction and return-to-play decisions when every match could determine the tournament?

• Biggest Lessons Learned
  Looking back, what’s one thing you would absolutely do again—and one thing you would do differently—if you were preparing another national team for a World Cup tomorrow?

• One Key to Success
  If you had to choose just one factor that has the greatest impact on keeping elite players healthy, available, and performing throughout a World Cup, what would it be—and why?

You can watch the video interview below by clicking on the Youtube link. You can also listen to the audio interview by clicking on the link at the top of the page:

Here are some of the best quotes of our conversation with Derek, Pierre and Guilherme:

1. The Reality of Preparing for the 2026 Soccer World Cup

Pierre Barrieu

“For us, the objective was pretty simple: we wanted to be healthy and fit. But we experienced an avalanche of injuries. I had more injuries with this Canadian national team than in the previous three World Cups combined.”

“We had ACL injuries, Achilles injuries, ankle surgeries and long-term concussions. It was one for the ages, but we managed it well—and the future is bright.”

Derek Lawrance

“Preparing for a World Cup is about using every camp beforehand to define how we will operate: how we assign responsibilities, monitor and screen players, and determine which technologies actually provide information we can apply.”

“We tried to replicate the World Cup environment as much as possible before the tournament so that the players could arrive feeling comfortable, relaxed and ready.”

“Even details such as the distance between the therapy room and the recovery area matter. If the recovery room is too far away, a player may simply decide to return to his room instead.”

Guilherme Passos

“Our main concern was understanding how the players would arrive at camp. Some finished their seasons two weeks before the World Cup, while others were still playing in the Champions League final.”

“We focused heavily on the training facility and hotel—making sure the physiotherapy and recovery areas were organized functionally so the players could use them easily and remain relaxed.”

✅ Summary - Key recommendations for teams

• Prioritize player health and match fitness while maintaining contingency plans for late injuries.

• Coordinate with clubs early and create individualized arrival, recovery and preparation plans.

• Test staff workflows, monitoring technologies and operational processes before the tournament.

• Design the hotel, training and recovery areas to make the players’ daily routines as easy as possible.

2. Training vs. Recovery During a Congested Tournament

Pierre Barrieu

“Having six days between matches allowed us to spend time not only maintaining performance, but also improving it.”

“When you have players returning from injuries, the additional days give you a better chance of getting them back and more time to focus on their individual needs.”

“Managing performance and recovery is much easier when you win, because so much of a team’s success comes down to the atmosphere between the players. When you win, there tend to be fewer conflicts.”

Derek Lawrance

“The longer cadence between games made a significant difference. We could play, recover, give the players a full day off and then follow a proper periodization plan going into the next match.”

“The additional recovery time allowed players to recover more fully and, if the training was managed properly, helped produce a better product on the field.”

Guilherme Passos

“The most difficult part of a World Cup is keeping the non-starting players fit. You often need those players during the most important stage of the competition.”

“Using youth players during the match-day-plus-one session can be an effective strategy for increasing the load on players who did not start and keeping them prepared throughout the tournament.”

“Microdosing strength training is one of the best strategies for giving players the strength stimulus they need during a World Cup.”

“Acclimatization was also a major priority. Most of our players compete in Europe, so we brought them to the United States almost ten days before the opening match to adapt to the conditions and the heat.”

✅ Summary - Key recommendations for teams

• Individualize training according to match minutes, injury history and recovery status.

• Prioritize recovery for starters while using match-day-plus-one sessions to maintain non-starters’ fitness.

• Continue microdosing strength training and provide complete days off when possible.

• Prepare players in advance for the tournament’s heat, humidity and time zone.

3. Injury Prevention and Return-to-Play Under Pressure

Pierre Barrieu

“We watch out for the safety of the players—not only for the World Cup, but for the short, medium and long term of their careers. We have an obligation not to put them at risk.”

“We spent countless hours communicating with club medical and performance teams, reviewing each player’s return-to-play plan and making sure we were aligned.”

“The timeline of a club may be different from the timeline of a national team. At the end of the day, we put the player at the center of the process and make sure his long-term future is not compromised.”

“We knew some players would not return to training or performance until potentially the fourth game. You can take that route with one or two players, but doing it with more would be irresponsible.”

Derek Lawrance

“Tournament results can dictate how you approach a player’s return. After clinching the group, we had ten or twelve days before the knockout match, which allowed us to buy additional recovery time.”

“In an all-or-nothing match, your risk tolerance may change. You consider what the player wants, the medical information and the match situation—but if the player is not adamant about pushing, perhaps you do not do it.”

“The player’s wishes matter, but the competitive situation also matters because it can dictate how the return-to-play process is structured.”

Guilherme Passos

“A return-to-play decision must always involve the player, the medical staff and the coaching staff.”

“We always prioritize the player’s health and safety, but there is a gray area when deciding whether a player should compete or remain out of the match.”

✅ Summary - Key recommendations for teams

• Put the player’s long-term health at the center of every return-to-play decision.

• Include the player, coaching staff, national-team medical staff and club medical team in the process.

• Establish clear return-to-training, return-to-play and return-to-performance benchmarks.

• Create an environment in which players feel comfortable reporting injuries early.

4. Biggest Lessons Learned

Pierre Barrieu

“I would always look to hold the preparation camp in challenging weather conditions so the team is better prepared for what lies ahead.”

“Playing at home created a great deal of excitement and emotion—perhaps too much at times. Managing that environment, including the presence of families, was more difficult than it would have been at an away World Cup.”

“Looking back, there is not much that I would change. We were very satisfied with how we approached the tournament.”

Derek Lawrance

“If an injured player’s clearance is going to come close to the final roster decision, I would bring him into the national training center early and spend a full week evaluating and rehabilitating him.”

“Having the player with us every day could allow us to deliver more treatment, better understand his potential and possibly shorten the return-to-play window.”

Guilherme Passos

“Using youth players to help prepare and maintain the fitness of the non-starting group is something I would definitely keep for the next World Cup.”

“Bringing an additional goalkeeper was extremely useful. It helped us balance the training load and avoid placing too much work on the remaining goalkeepers.”

“You cannot keep players in camp for 50 days without giving them a free day. I would place even greater emphasis on working with the technical staff to identify the right time to give the players time off.”

✅ Summary - Key recommendations for teams

• Bring injured or borderline players into camp early for extended evaluation and rehabilitation.

• Replicate the tournament’s expected weather and playing conditions during preparation.

• Keep non-starters ready through competitive training sessions and carefully manage their workloads.

• Schedule strategic days off and manage the emotional demands surrounding players and their families.

5. One Key to Success

Pierre Barrieu

“I have always had this dream of players sleeping in their own beds, on their own mattresses and with their own pillows. I believe that would be a massive advantage.”

“If we could provide every player with his own mattress and pillow at the base camp, I think it could give us the best return on our investment.”

Derek Lawrance

“The biggest factor is the players’ commitment to arriving in the best health and fitness possible—not simply doing enough to make the roster.”

“Players need to be open about physical issues before they become bigger problems. If they communicate with us, we have an opportunity to help them.”

“I understand why players may hesitate to report an issue because they fear they will not be selected, but hiding something can allow it to manifest into a more serious problem.”

Guilherme Passos

“We sent the players a questionnaire asking which pillows and mattresses they preferred. We then tried to provide those options at the base camp and purchase the exact same products whenever possible.”

✅ Summary - Key recommendations for teams

• Prioritize sleep and reproduce each player’s preferred sleeping environment whenever possible.

• Encourage players to arrive fully fit rather than merely healthy enough to earn selection.

• Build trust so players communicate physical problems before they become serious injuries.

• Create shared responsibility among players and staff for health, recovery and availability.

You may also like:

Introduction

Yesterday, the All Blacks and Springboks added another memorable chapter to one of international sport’s greatest rivalries. South Africa defeated New Zealand 33–26 in Cape Town, responding to the All Blacks’ 33–16 victory at Ellis Park one week earlier and tying their four-Test series at 1–1.

The result captured what makes this rivalry so compelling: extraordinary physical intensity, tactical adjustments, momentum swings and two proud teams capable of responding immediately to adversity. Although New Zealand scored four tries to South Africa’s three, the Springboks’ defensive resilience and Cheslin Kolbe’s 18 points proved decisive.

The rivalry dates back to 1921 and has become a recurring contest for rugby supremacy. As of August 30, 2026, the teams have played 112 Tests: New Zealand has won 64, South Africa 44, with four draws. They have also combined to win seven of the 10 men’s Rugby World Cups—four for South Africa and three for New Zealand.

What makes the rivalry exceptional is not simply its history. It brings together two distinctive rugby identities. The All Blacks are renowned for their speed, skill, support play and ability to turn mistakes into tries. The Springboks are celebrated for their physicality, set-piece power, defensive pressure and ability to win matches by the smallest margins.

Yet both teams have continually evolved. South Africa now possesses a dangerous and creative backline, while New Zealand understands that championships also require forward power, tactical kicking and defensive discipline. Every meeting therefore becomes more than a rugby match—it is a test of identity, adaptability, resilience and the standards required to become the best team in the world.

The biggest games in the rivalry

The beginning: New Zealand 13–5 South Africa, 1921

The first Test between the two countries was played in Dunedin on August 13, 1921. New Zealand won 13–5, but South Africa responded in the second Test before the third match finished in a draw.

That first series established a pattern that would define the rivalry: neither country was prepared to accept the other as rugby’s dominant nation. Every subsequent tour became a test not only of the players and coaches, but of each country’s entire rugby system.

New Zealand’s historic series victory, 1956

Before 1956, New Zealand had never defeated South Africa in a complete Test series. The Springboks were widely viewed as the All Blacks’ greatest obstacle.

New Zealand finally won the four-Test home series 3–1, securing it with an 11–5 victory at Eden Park. The achievement carried enormous national importance and demonstrated that beating South Africa required more than attacking talent. It demanded forward strength, physical preparation and an ability to withstand sustained pressure.

That lesson remains relevant today: teams cannot defeat the Springboks by avoiding the physical contest entirely.

The controversial 1981 tour

South Africa’s 1981 tour of New Zealand became one of the most politically and socially significant sporting tours ever staged.

Because South Africa was still governed under apartheid, the tour produced large protests, civil unrest and deep divisions within New Zealand. The rugby became secondary to a broader debate about whether sport could—or should—remain separate from politics.

New Zealand won the Test series 2–1, but its significance extended far beyond the results. The tour demonstrated that the All Blacks–Springboks rivalry was connected to national identity, international politics and social change.

Any serious history of this rivalry must recognize both its sporting greatness and its difficult political history.

The 1995 Rugby World Cup final: South Africa 15–12 New Zealand

The 1995 World Cup final at Ellis Park remains the rivalry’s most iconic match.

The tournament was South Africa’s first Rugby World Cup following its return to international competition. Before the final, President Nelson Mandela entered the Springbok dressing room wearing captain Francois Pienaar’s No. 6 jersey. He later presented Pienaar with the Webb Ellis Cup.

On the field, the Springboks contained an All Blacks team featuring Jonah Lomu, who had dominated the tournament. The match went to extra time before Joel Stransky’s drop goal secured a 15–12 South African victory.

The image of Mandela presenting the trophy to Pienaar became a symbol of national reconciliation. This was more than a famous rugby match—it became one of the clearest examples of sport contributing to a country’s political and cultural transformation.

New Zealand’s breakthrough in South Africa, 1996

One year after losing the World Cup final, the All Blacks returned to South Africa and achieved something no New Zealand team had previously accomplished: winning a Test series on South African soil.

Led by Sean Fitzpatrick and featuring stars such as Jonah Lomu, Zinzan Brooke, Jeff Wilson and Christian Cullen, New Zealand won the first two Tests before South Africa claimed the third.

The result was historically significant because generations of All Blacks had tried—and failed—to win a full series in South Africa. It remains one of New Zealand rugby’s defining accomplishments.

The Ellis Park classic: New Zealand 38–27 South Africa, 2013

The 2013 Rugby Championship decider at Ellis Park represented the rivalry at its attacking best.

South Africa needed a bonus-point victory to win the competition, while New Zealand was also pursuing a bonus point. That created an unusually open and aggressive contest.

The teams combined for nine tries, with the All Blacks winning 38–27 and completing a perfect Rugby Championship campaign. The match demonstrated that the rivalry was not limited to set pieces, defense and tactical kicking. Both teams could produce high-speed, ambitious and technically sophisticated rugby under immense pressure.

South Africa’s revival in Wellington, 2018

South Africa’s 36–34 victory in Wellington was an important turning point.

The Springboks entered the match under significant pressure and had not defeated New Zealand in Wellington since 1998. They survived an extraordinary All Blacks comeback and defended through the closing stages to secure the victory.

The result helped restore South Africa’s belief under Rassie Erasmus. Approximately 14 months later, the Springboks won the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

It illustrated how one result against a respected rival can transform a team’s confidence, reinforce its identity and accelerate a larger turnaround.

The 2019 World Cup pool match: New Zealand 23–13 South Africa

New Zealand defeated South Africa 23–13 during the pool stage of the 2019 World Cup. The All Blacks produced a devastating attacking burst and appeared better prepared for the occasion.

However, South Africa did not panic. The Springboks continued refining their game, managed the remainder of the tournament and eventually defeated England in the final.

They became the first men’s team to lose a pool match and still win the Rugby World Cup. That campaign demonstrated the difference between reacting emotionally to a setback and using it as information.

The 2023 Rugby World Cup final: South Africa 12–11 New Zealand

The 2023 final in Paris was the first World Cup final between the teams since 1995—and another contest decided by the smallest possible margin.

South Africa won 12–11 despite failing to score during the second half. All 12 points came from Handré Pollard penalties. New Zealand played much of the match with 14 players after captain Sam Cane received the first red card in a men’s Rugby World Cup final.

Pieter-Steph du Toit produced a remarkable defensive performance, completing 28 tackles. Beauden Barrett scored the match’s only try, but New Zealand missed a conversion and a late penalty that could have changed the result.

South Africa became the first men’s country to win four World Cups and the second, after New Zealand, to win consecutive titles. The Springboks remain undefeated in World Cup finals and have defeated the All Blacks in both finals they contested against each other.

Record results and the 2026 series

The rivalry has remained remarkably unpredictable.

In 2017, New Zealand defeated South Africa 57–0, which remains the largest winning margin in the series. In September 2025, however, South Africa responded with a 43–10 victory in Wellington—the heaviest defeat in All Blacks Test history.

The teams are now contesting a four-Test series in 2026, their first four-Test series of the professional era.

New Zealand won the opening Test 33–16 at Ellis Park on August 22. South Africa responded with a 33–26 victory in Cape Town on August 29.

That immediate reversal captures the rivalry perfectly: dominance in one match provides no guarantee in the next.

What makes this rivalry so special?

Two of rugby’s most successful nations

The simplest explanation is sustained excellence. These are not merely two historic teams; they are the two most successful countries in men’s Rugby World Cup history.

South Africa has won four titles—in 1995, 2007, 2019 and 2023—while New Zealand won in 1987, 2011 and 2015. Together, they account for 70% of all men’s Rugby World Cups played.

When the Springboks and All Blacks meet, the match frequently feels like an unofficial contest for rugby’s highest standard.

Distinctive national identities

The All Blacks jersey, silver fern and haka form one of the most recognizable identities in global sport. Representing New Zealand carries an expectation that players will protect and improve a legacy established across generations.

The Springboks also represent something larger than a team. Their modern identity is closely connected to South Africa’s diversity, resilience and desire for unity. The evolution from the symbolism of Mandela and Pienaar in 1995 to Siya Kolisi becoming the country’s first Black Test captain is central to the Springbok story.

Both jerseys carry emotional and cultural weight that cannot be manufactured through marketing.

Contrasting—but evolving—rugby philosophies

The traditional contrast gives the rivalry tactical clarity:

• New Zealand looks to create speed, space and uncertainty.

• South Africa looks to create pressure, collisions and difficult decisions.

• The All Blacks want to punish defensive disorganization.

• The Springboks want to force opponents into physical and tactical errors.

However, both teams have evolved. South Africa now possesses dangerous backs and sophisticated attacking structures. New Zealand continues to invest in forward power, contestable kicking and breakdown efficiency.

Their greatest strength is not simply having an identity. It is knowing which parts of that identity must remain and which parts must evolve.

Mutual respect

The rivalry is fierce, but it is generally built on respect. Each team recognizes the other as a measuring stick.

For the All Blacks, beating South Africa proves they can withstand the most demanding physical test in rugby. For the Springboks, beating New Zealand demonstrates that they can control a team capable of exploiting a single mistake from anywhere on the field.

Both teams believe the opponent exposes weaknesses that other countries may not. Their matches therefore provide unusually valuable information ahead of major tournaments.

Pressure and unpredictability

Matches between these teams create conditions that resemble knockout rugby:

• Possession becomes harder to protect.

• Set pieces carry greater consequences.

• Discipline becomes decisive.

• Tactical decisions must be made under extreme fatigue.

• Small mistakes can determine the result.

The 2023 World Cup final was decided by one point. The 1995 final required extra time. That history gives every encounter the possibility of becoming part of rugby folklore.

The 2027 Rugby World Cup

The next men’s Rugby World Cup will be played in Australia from October 1 to November 13, 2027. It will be the first men’s edition featuring 24 teams and a round of 16. (Source: Official Rugby World Cup 2027 information)

New Zealand has been drawn into Pool A with host Australia, Chile and Hong Kong China. South Africa is in Pool B with Italy, Georgia and Romania. (Source: Official 2027 pools).

Both teams should be favored to advance, but the expanded knockout format adds another elimination match—and therefore another opportunity for an upset, injury or disciplinary incident.

Why South Africa will be a favorite

South Africa will enter the tournament as the defending back-to-back champion and the only four-time winner.

Its primary advantages include:

• Exceptional depth, particularly among the forwards.

• A dominant scrum and powerful maul.

• A proven ability to win low-scoring knockout matches.

• Strong tactical kicking and aerial pressure.

• Tactical flexibility from the coaching staff.

• A bench capable of changing the physical balance of a match.

• A culture that remains composed in close finishes.

In the 2023 knockout stage, South Africa defeated France, England and New Zealand by one point each. That was not a coincidence. The Springboks repeatedly demonstrated that they could make sound decisions when fatigue, pressure and consequences were at their highest.

Their primary challenge will be squad evolution. Several members of their championship core will be older by 2027. South Africa must introduce younger players without losing its leadership, cohesion and competitive edge.

Why New Zealand will be a favorite

New Zealand has reached five World Cup finals and has never failed to qualify for the quarterfinals.

The All Blacks remain dangerous because of:

• Their ability to turn turnovers into points rapidly.

• High skill levels across virtually every position.

• Outstanding support play and spatial awareness.

• A deep domestic development culture.

• The ability to change the tempo of a match.

• Extensive experience performing under World Cup pressure.

• A history of responding strongly after disappointing results.

Their challenge is consistency. Against South Africa, France, Ireland and other leading opponents, spectacular attacking ability alone is insufficient. New Zealand must maintain its discipline, set-piece stability and accuracy when matches become slower and more confrontational.

They are favorites, but not the only favorites

South Africa and New Zealand belong in the leading group, but neither should be considered inevitable.

France, Ireland, England, Argentina and host Australia could all become serious contenders. Injuries, player development, coaching decisions and the knockout bracket will influence the tournament considerably.

The Springboks and All Blacks are favorites because their systems consistently produce teams capable of winning the World Cup—not because their current form guarantees the result in 2027.

What other teams can learn from them

1. Build a clear identity

Players must understand how their team intends to win.

South Africa’s physicality and New Zealand’s speed are not simply tactical choices. They influence player development, selection, conditioning, training design and decision-making.

Teams should clearly define:

• Their most repeatable competitive advantage.

• The situations they want to create.

• The pressure they want to place on opponents.

• The behaviors that remain non-negotiable under fatigue.

2. Develop depth before it becomes necessary

South Africa’s use of its bench has become a strategic weapon. The All Blacks have historically maintained competition through a broad development pathway.

Teams should not wait for injuries to test alternative combinations. Emerging players need meaningful responsibilities during important matches.

Depth must be experienced—not merely listed on a roster.

3. Prepare for multiple types of matches

World Cups are rarely won through one style alone.

A champion may need to win an open, high-scoring match one week and a defensive battle the next. Teams should prepare for scenarios including:

• Playing with 14 players.

• Protecting a narrow lead.

• Chasing points late in a match.

• Escaping sustained territorial pressure.

• Managing a dominant opposing scrum.

• Attacking against a set defense.

• Making decisions in difficult weather.

The 2023 final showed that contingency preparation can be just as important as a team’s preferred game plan.

4. Train decision-making under fatigue

Technical execution and decision-making tend to decline when players become tired, but World Cup matches are often decided during that exact period.

Training should reproduce the cognitive demands of competition: scoreboard pressure, limited time, defensive noise and physical fatigue.

Players need experience deciding when to kick, carry, contest, slow the match or increase its tempo.

5. Treat set pieces as attacking platforms

South Africa demonstrates that scrums and lineouts can do more than restart play. They can produce penalties, territory, psychological pressure and scoring opportunities.

Even teams that favor open rugby need a stable set-piece platform. Without reliable possession, an ambitious attacking system has limited value.

6. Connect culture to daily behavior

Both countries have powerful traditions, but tradition only matters when it affects preparation.

Culture should be visible in:

• Training standards.

• Leadership responsibilities.

• Accountability.

• Selection decisions.

• Responses to defeats.

• The willingness of experienced players to develop younger teammates.

The lesson is not to copy the haka or Springbok symbolism. It is to build an authentic identity that players feel responsible for protecting.

7. Use defeat as information

Both teams have suffered historic losses and responded.

South Africa lost to New Zealand during the 2019 World Cup before winning the tournament. New Zealand lost its opening match in 2023 and still reached the final. In 2026, South Africa rebounded from a 33–16 defeat at Ellis Park to win 33–26 one week later in Cape Town.

Elite teams review failure without allowing it to destroy confidence. They separate structural problems from temporary execution errors and respond with targeted adjustments.

8. Combine data with experience

Performance data, video analysis, GPS, injury monitoring and tactical modeling can improve preparation. But these tools should support—not replace—coaching judgment and player communication.

The best systems turn information into a small number of clear and actionable insights. In a high-pressure match, players cannot process an endless dashboard. They need simple, shared solutions.

9. Master the small margins

Championship teams do not assume they will always dominate. They prepare to win by one point.

That means prioritizing:

• Discipline.

• Goal-kicking.

• Restarts.

• Exit plays.

• Lineout accuracy.

• Breakdown decisions.

• Substitution timing.

• End-of-match communication.

South Africa’s three consecutive one-point knockout victories in 2023 offer the clearest possible evidence.

Conclusion

The All Blacks–Springboks rivalry has endured because it continually brings together rugby’s history, highest standards and most demanding competitive questions.

Can New Zealand create enough speed and space to escape South Africa’s pressure? Can the Springboks control the match without allowing the All Blacks to turn one loose kick or turnover into a try? Can either team preserve its identity while adapting to the other?

For more than a century, the answers have changed from match to match.

New Zealand currently leads the overall series, while South Africa holds the advantage in World Cup finals and owns a record four titles. Their 2026 series has already produced one victory for each side, reinforcing that neither team can control the rivalry permanently.

Both will travel to Australia in 2027 as legitimate World Cup favorites. Yet their greatest contribution to the sport may extend beyond trophies.

They demonstrate that sustained excellence requires a clear identity, deep player development, tactical evolution, cultural meaning and the ability to perform when the margin between victory and defeat is almost nonexistent.

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

Introduction

The US Open is the final Grand Slam of the tennis season and arguably the sport’s most energetic major. Played at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, New York, it combines elite competition with night sessions, large crowds, entertainment, celebrity culture and continuous technological innovation.

The 2026 tournament, which is starting this weekend, runs through September 13, with the singles main draw beginning August 30. It arrives at an important moment for tennis. Prize money has reached record levels, artificial intelligence is becoming central to the fan experience, and significant upgrades are underway at Arthur Ashe Stadium.

The competition also appears unusually open. Jannik Sinner has withdrawn from the men’s draw, defending champion Carlos Alcaraz is returning from a four-month injury absence, and women’s world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka enters New York without reaching a final since April.

Beyond the competition, the US Open offers a view into the future of elite tennis. Electronic line calling, artificial intelligence, computer vision, biomechanics, biomarkers and individualized performance platforms are changing how matches are officiated, analyzed, experienced and prepared for.

History of the US Open

The tournament began in 1881 as the U.S. National Championships. The inaugural event featured 26 men competing on grass at the Newport Casino in Rhode Island.

Women’s singles was introduced in 1887, but the tournament did not become fully “open” to both amateur and professional players until 1968. Arthur Ashe won the first men’s championship of the Open era, while Virginia Wade captured the women’s title.

Several developments helped distinguish the US Open from the other Grand Slams:

• In 1973, it became the first Grand Slam to award equal prize money to men and women.

• In 1975, it became the first major to stage matches under the lights.

• In 1978, the tournament moved from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows.

• Arthur Ashe Stadium opened in 1997 and remains the world’s largest tennis stadium.

• Blue courts were introduced in 2005 to improve ball visibility.

• A retractable roof was added to Arthur Ashe Stadium in 2016.

• The renovated Louis Armstrong Stadium opened in 2018.

• Electronic line calling eventually replaced line judges across the tournament.

The US Open is also the only major that has been played on three different surfaces. It was contested on grass until 1974, on green clay from 1975 through 1977, and on hard courts after moving to Flushing Meadows in 1978.

Its history reflects a willingness to experiment. Equal prize money, night tennis, tiebreaks, electronic officiating, an expanded mixed-doubles event and AI-powered digital products all demonstrate how the tournament has frequently moved faster than tennis’s more traditional institutions. US Open history

Major Men’s and Women’s Winners

The US Open’s list of champions includes many of the most important players in tennis history.

Major men’s winners

Before the Open era, Richard Sears, William Larned and Bill Tilden each won seven men’s singles championships.

The leading men in the Open era include:

Jimmy Connors is particularly significant because he won the tournament on grass, clay and hard court. Roger Federer remains the only man in the Open era to win five consecutive US Open singles titles, accomplishing the feat from 2004 through 2008.

Picture: Jimmy Connors

Other memorable champions include Andre Agassi, who became the first unseeded man of the Open era to win in 1994, and Andy Roddick, whose 2003 victory remains the most recent Grand Slam singles title by an American man.

Picture: Roger Federer

Carlos Alcaraz won his second US Open title in 2025 and returns in 2026 as the defending champion.

Picture: Carlos Alcaraz

Major women’s winners

Molla Mallory owns the overall women’s record with eight singles championships. Helen Wills Moody won seven.

The leading women in the Open era include:

Chris Evert won four consecutive titles from 1975 through 1978, including championships on both clay and hard courts. Serena Williams won her first US Open in 1999 and her sixth in 2014, demonstrating remarkable longevity across different generations.

Picture: Chris Evert

Other influential champions include Althea Gibson, who broke racial barriers in American tennis; Billie Jean King, whose advocacy helped produce equal prize money; Venus Williams, who won consecutive titles in 2000 and 2001; and Coco Gauff, who won in 2023 at age 19.

Picture: Serena Williams

Aryna Sabalenka won in 2024 and successfully defended her title in 2025. She is pursuing a third consecutive championship in 2026. US Open championship records

Picture: Aryna Sabalenka

The Economics of the US Open

The US Open has developed into much more than a tennis competition. It is a three-week sports and entertainment platform supported by ticketing, premium hospitality, sponsorship, broadcasting, merchandise, food and beverage sales, and digital engagement.

Attendance and economic impact

The 2025 tournament attracted a record 1,144,562 fans, including approximately 240,000 visitors during Fan Week. The event is broadcast in roughly 290 countries and requires more than 7,000 team members to operate.

The USTA estimates that the US Open generates more than $1.2 billion in annual economic impact for New York City. That spending benefits hotels, restaurants, transportation providers, retailers, temporary workers and tourism businesses throughout the region. USTA Arthur Ashe Stadium investment announcement

The tournament’s economics extend well beyond tickets. In 2025, food and beverage sales increased by 19%. More than 738,000 Honey Deuce cocktails were reportedly sold at $23 each, producing close to $17 million in sales from one signature product.

The tournament also featured 28 official corporate partners, combining long-standing relationships with newer brands seeking access to an affluent, international audience. Boardroom’s 2025 US Open business recap

Record player compensation

The 2026 US Open will distribute $108 million in player compensation, a 20% increase from 2025 and the largest package in tennis history.

The men’s and women’s singles champions will each receive $5.5 million, while players losing in the first round of the main draw will earn $140,000. The increased compensation reflects pressure from players seeking a larger share of Grand Slam revenue and greater participation in decisions involving prize money and player welfare. ATP’s 2026 prize-money announcement

The issue is not simply how much the champions earn. Tennis players generally operate as independent contractors and pay for their travel, coaching, physical therapy, fitness support, nutrition and other professional expenses.

Increasing early-round and qualifying compensation may therefore have a greater effect on the broader player population than simply increasing the champion’s prize.

Infrastructure investment

The USTA is undertaking an $800 million, privately financed transformation of Arthur Ashe Stadium and the National Tennis Center.

The project includes:

• A new $250 million Player Performance Center

• Expanded courtside seating

• New luxury suites

• Enhanced hospitality areas

• Larger concourses

• Improved retail and food spaces

• Additional elevators and escalators

• A redesigned main entrance

The complete project is scheduled to open by the 2027 US Open. Combined with the previous renovation completed in 2018, the USTA will have invested nearly $2 billion in the tournament and its venue without using taxpayer funding.

The investment shows where the economics of major sporting events are moving: more premium inventory, improved hospitality, better player facilities and a more seamless experience for both on-site and digital audiences.

The Importance of Technology

Technology influences almost every part of the modern US Open, from officiating and performance analysis to athlete preparation, broadcasting, content production and venue operations.

Electronic line calling

The most visible change has been the replacement of line judges with electronic line calling. Camera-based systems track the ball and determine whether it lands inside or outside the court.

This offers several advantages:

• More consistent line decisions

• Fewer disputes between players and officials

• Faster resolution of close calls

• Data that can be used in broadcasts and analysis

• Reduced dependence on large teams of line judges

The technology has also changed the role of officials. Match assistants now handle several responsibilities previously performed by line judges, while human officials remain available as backups if the electronic system fails.

Match and tactical analysis

Players and coaches now use video, ball-tracking data and statistical platforms to study:

• Serve placement and effectiveness

• Return positioning

• Rally length and pace

• Shot direction and depth

• Movement patterns

• Performance under pressure

• Opponent tendencies by score and court position

Because in-match coaching is now permitted under defined conditions, the ability to translate data into a simple tactical instruction has become increasingly important.

The team with the most data does not necessarily have the advantage. The advantage belongs to the team that can quickly identify what matters and communicate it effectively to the player.

AI-powered fan engagement

IBM and the USTA have worked together since 1992. Their digital platforms now serve more than 14 million fans globally each year.

For the 2026 tournament, the organizations introduced several AI-powered experiences:

• Live Updates: A personalized homepage that allows fans to prioritize particular players and matches.

• Serve Quality: A new metric that uses limb tracking to assess serve mechanics.

• Likelihood to Win: A continuously updated probability model based on current and historical statistics, expert input and match momentum.

• Key Moments: An AI-generated explanation of the turning points behind changes in win probability.

• Match Chat: A conversational assistant that answers questions using live information, historical data, images and video.

The Serve Quality system tracks 21 points across the player’s body and racket 50 times per second. It is expected to generate approximately 1.2 billion data points during the tournament (Source here)

These tools make matches easier to understand for casual viewers while giving experienced fans access to greater analytical depth.

Biomarkers and individualized performance management

While tournament technology focuses heavily on officiating and fan engagement, players and their private performance teams increasingly use biomarkers to understand what is happening inside the athlete’s body.

Picture: Orreco

Blood testing and other physiological assessments can provide information related to:

• Inflammation and recovery

• Immune-system status

• Iron and energy availability

• Hydration and nutritional requirements

• Internal responses to training and competition

• Hormonal health and menstrual-cycle considerations

This is particularly relevant at the US Open. Players may compete in extreme heat and humidity, play late into the night and then have limited recovery time before their next match.

An athlete may say that they feel ready while objective biomarkers indicate incomplete recovery, increased inflammation, low energy availability or a greater risk of illness.

The greatest value comes from establishing personalized baselines. Comparing a player with population averages is often less useful than identifying meaningful changes from that athlete’s normal range.

Biomarkers should support—not independently determine—decisions. Results must be interpreted alongside symptoms, match load, training history, sleep, nutrition, travel and clinical assessments.

Computer vision and biomechanical analysis

Computer vision uses cameras and AI to analyze movement without necessarily requiring athletes to wear sensors. It can track joints, body positions, racket movement and ball trajectories using ordinary or specialized video.

Video: Orreco Tennis’ Trax platform uses AI-powered, three-dimensional skeletal tracking to analyze a player’s body positioning and movement patterns from video without requiring wearable sensors.

At the 2026 US Open, IBM’s Serve Quality system analyzes 21 points across the player’s body and racket 50 times per second. It evaluates elements including the ball toss, consistency, accuracy and transfer of energy from the legs through the torso and into the racket.

For players and coaches, computer-vision technology can help assess:

• Serve mechanics and joint angles

• Changes in movement caused by fatigue

• Court coverage and acceleration

• Balance during wide defensive shots

• Loading differences between the left and right sides

• Technical changes between sets or tournaments

• Movement deviations during rehabilitation

The next step will be connecting biomechanics with workload and physiology.

A decline in serve speed becomes more meaningful when the performance team can determine whether it is associated with a technical change, accumulated fatigue, inflammation, reduced recovery or physical discomfort.

AI and the Orreco Tennis approach

Orreco represents an example of how AI, biomarkers and computer vision can be brought together around an individual athlete.

Its platform combines:

• Biomarker surveillance

• Training and competition load

• Wellness information

• Medical notes

• Women’s health information

• Recovery data

• Computer-vision movement analysis

• Injury-risk indicators

• AI-supported reporting and decision support

Orreco’s Bayesian models continuously learn from each athlete, creating adaptive personal ranges instead of relying only on standardized thresholds.

Its Motion Signal technology uses computer vision to identify changes in movement patterns that may be associated with noncontact soft-tissue injury risk. Its biomarker tools assess objective internal responses, while its AI capabilities help organize the information and identify athletes or performance areas requiring attention. (Check the info on Orreco’s performance-intelligence platform)

For a tennis player, the potential workflow could look like this:

1. Computer vision detects a change in movement or serve mechanics.

2. Match and training data reveal a recent increase in external load.

3. Biomarkers indicate elevated inflammation or incomplete recovery.

4. Wellness and medical information provide additional context.

5. AI brings the information together and highlights the most relevant concern.

6. The performance team decides whether to adjust training, recovery, nutrition or competition preparation.

The important point is that AI is not making the final medical or coaching decision. It is helping the player’s team interpret several complex data sources more quickly.

Orreco is not being presented as an official US Open tournament technology. It illustrates how players and their private performance teams can use integrated AI and sports-science systems while preparing for and competing at events such as the US Open.

Wearables and athlete health

The USTA and US Open announced Oura as an official wearable partner in 2026. Although wearable use during competition remains governed by tennis rules and approval processes, the partnership reflects the growing importance of sleep, recovery, readiness and athlete wellness. (Check the US Open–Oura partnership)

The larger opportunity is to connect physical, technical and tactical information.

A change in serve speed means more when it can be considered alongside:

• Recent workload

• Sleep quality

• Movement efficiency

• Biomarker results

• Previous injuries

• Match duration

• Environmental conditions

• Subjective wellness

The challenge is avoiding data overload. Players and coaches do not need dozens of disconnected dashboards. They need a small number of reliable, actionable insights.

Favorites to Win the 2026 US Open

This year’s predictions are more uncertain than usual because several leading players enter with significant questions involving injuries or form.

Men’s Favorites

1. Carlos Alcaraz

Alcaraz is the defending champion and remains the market favorite, but his preparation is far from ideal. He is returning after four months away because of a wrist injury and has not played a singles tournament since April.

Picture: Carlos Alcaraz

His athleticism, variety and ability to involve the New York crowd make him exceptionally dangerous. The main question is whether he can immediately withstand seven best-of-five-set matches following such a long absence.

He opens against Roman Safiullin.

2. Alexander Zverev

With Jannik Sinner withdrawing because of a knee injury, Zverev becomes the top seed.

Picture: Alexander Zverev

He won his first Grand Slam at the 2026 French Open and subsequently reached the Wimbledon final. His serve, backhand and hard-court experience make him one of the safest choices in an unpredictable draw.

Zverev also reached the US Open final in 2020.

3. Novak Djokovic

Djokovic is pursuing a record 25th Grand Slam singles title. His experience, return of serve and ability to manage high-pressure matches mean he cannot be dismissed.

Picture: Novak Djokovic

However, physical durability is now a greater concern. Winning seven matches over two weeks on hard courts may be more challenging than winning any individual matchup.

4. Ben Shelton

Shelton may be the leading American candidate. His left-handed serve is particularly effective on New York’s hard courts, and he enters with confidence after defending his Canadian Open title.

Picture: Ben Shelton

His challenge is converting explosive tennis into consistent five-set performance. If he controls his unforced errors, the home crowd could become an important advantage.

5. Arthur Fils

Fils enters as one of the most dangerous younger players after winning Cincinnati. His athleticism and aggressive hard-court game make him a credible contender, although he has less experience in the later rounds of Grand Slam tournaments.

Picture: Arthur Fils

Men’s assessment

Alcaraz has the highest ceiling, but Zverev may offer the most reliable path through the tournament. Shelton and Fils are realistic breakthrough candidates.

Sinner’s absence makes the tournament significantly more open.

Women’s Favorites

1. Aryna Sabalenka

Sabalenka is seeking her third consecutive US Open title. Her power, serve and hard-court record make her the official favorite.

Picture: Aryna Sabalenka

However, she has not reached a final since April and struggled during the North American lead-in events. The question is whether her proven success in New York can outweigh her recent form.

2. Iga Świątek

Świątek enters with momentum after winning in Toronto. She has already won the US Open and remains one of the best returners and tactical problem-solvers in women’s tennis.

Picture: Iga Świątek

Faster hard courts do not always suit her as naturally as clay, but her movement, discipline and ability to dominate return games make her a leading contender.

3. Coco Gauff

Gauff may have the best combination of current form and home-crowd support. The 2023 champion arrives after winning Cincinnati and has continued working on the technical reliability of her serve and forehand.

Picture: Coco Gauff

Her defense, speed and ability to extend points are already elite. If her serve remains stable, she has a strong opportunity to win her second US Open.

4. Elena Rybakina

Rybakina’s serve and first-strike power are well suited to hard courts. She has been one of the season’s strongest hard-court performers, although fitness concerns and a less impressive historical record in New York create uncertainty.

Picture: Elena Rybakina

5. Jessica Pegula

Pegula has reached the final and semifinal in New York over the past two seasons and is one of the most consistent hard-court players on tour.

Her return game and ability to redirect pace make her a serious contender, particularly if the leading power players struggle.

Picture: Jessica Pegula

Other players to watch include Naomi Osaka, Amanda Anisimova, Mirra Andreeva and Marta Kostyuk.

Women’s assessment

Sabalenka remains the player to beat because of her consecutive titles, but Gauff and Świątek enter with stronger recent form.

The women’s field appears deep enough that the eventual champion may be determined by health, serve consistency and the ability to recover between difficult matches. Recent market odds listed Sabalenka first, followed by Świątek, Gauff and Rybakina.

How Technology Is Likely to Affect Future US Opens

The next stage of tennis technology will move beyond simply displaying more statistics. Technology will increasingly interpret information, personalize it and deliver it to the right person at the right time.

1. AI assistants will become the primary interface

Instead of navigating numerous menus and statistics, fans, coaches and analysts will be able to ask questions naturally:

• “Why is this player losing?”

• “Show me every break point.”

• “Compare the players’ serve mechanics.”

• “What changed during the second set?”

• “Create a two-minute recap focused on the American players.”

• “How has her return position changed since the first set?”

The platform will assemble live data, historical context, video and commentary into an immediate answer.

2. Automated and personalized broadcasts

Fans may eventually receive different versions of the same match.

A new fan could see basic explanations, while an experienced coach could receive detailed tactical and biomechanical analysis. International audiences could receive automated commentary in their preferred languages.

Highlights will increasingly be generated according to an individual’s favorite players, countries or types of points.

3. Computer vision will monitor fatigue and technique

The 2026 Serve Quality metric demonstrates the direction of travel.

Future systems could evaluate:

• Changes in serve mechanics caused by fatigue

• Movement efficiency and court coverage

• Stroke preparation and contact position

• Balance during wide defensive movements

• Technical changes between sets

• Potential indicators of physical discomfort

• Differences between current movement and a healthy baseline

These insights could make broadcasts more educational and support athlete preparation. However, medical or injury-related interpretations will require proper scientific validation and responsible communication.

4. Biomarkers and movement data will converge

Future athlete-management platforms will combine internal and external information.

A player’s performance team may be able to ask:

• “Why has her first-serve speed declined during the last two matches?”

• “Is the change primarily technical, physical or fatigue-related?”

• “How is his movement different from his healthy baseline?”

• “Which recovery intervention is most appropriate before the next round?”

• “Does the biomarker profile support a normal training session?”

• “What changed in her mechanics after the second set?”

• “How should tomorrow’s preparation change based on tonight’s match load?”

AI could evaluate video, computer-vision data, match statistics, biomarkers, sleep, wellness, travel, environmental conditions and medical history before presenting the performance team with the most likely explanations.

5. Predictive systems will become more personalized

Most early athlete-monitoring systems relied heavily on population averages and fixed thresholds. Future platforms will increasingly learn what is normal for each athlete.

This could help answer more useful questions:

• Is this workload unusually high for this player?

• Is the athlete recovering more slowly than usual?

• Does this movement deviation normally appear before discomfort?

• How does this player respond to night matches?

• Which recovery strategies have worked best for this individual?

However, predictive systems should express uncertainty rather than presenting their outputs as guarantees. An injury-risk score is not a diagnosis, and a recovery score does not replace clinical judgment.

6. Wearables and environmental information will connect

Future analysis may combine court temperature, humidity, rally demands, match duration and permitted athlete data.

This could improve:

• Heat-risk management

• Hydration strategies

• Scheduling

• Recovery planning

• Sleep interventions

• Travel preparation

• Return-to-play decisions

The challenge will be governance. Players must know what information is collected, who owns it, who can access it and whether it can be used commercially or competitively.

7. Smarter venues

The renovated National Tennis Center is likely to use technology to improve:

• Crowd movement

• Entry and security

• Food and beverage ordering

• Wayfinding

• Queue management

• Energy consumption

• Premium hospitality

• Accessibility

• Real-time scheduling communication

The objective will be to make an event attended by more than one million people feel more personalized and less congested.

8. Officiating will become increasingly automated

Electronic line calling is already established. Future systems may assist with net touches, double bounces, foot faults, shot-clock administration and other rule decisions.

Human officials will remain important for judgment, player management and unusual situations. Their role will continue shifting from observing every line to supervising a technology-supported competition environment.

9. Digital and physical experiences will merge

Augmented reality could allow spectators to view ball trajectories, serve placement, player movement and live statistics through mobile devices or venue displays.

Remote viewers may eventually enter virtual versions of Arthur Ashe Stadium, select viewing positions and interact with other fans.

The opportunity is not to replace the live experience. It is to extend the energy and information of the US Open beyond the stadium.

10. The best interface, not the most data, will win

Elite tennis already produces enormous amounts of technical, tactical, physical and medical information.

The winning platforms will not necessarily be those that collect the most data. They will be the ones that:

• Integrate information seamlessly

• Explain why an insight matters

• Make uncertainty visible

• Protect athlete privacy

• Deliver information at the right time

• Provide a clear and intuitive user experience

• Support rather than replace human expertise

A coach does not need another complicated dashboard. The coach needs to know what changed, why it may have changed and what decision should be considered next.

Conclusion

The US Open has evolved from a small grass-court competition in Newport into one of the world’s largest annual sports and entertainment events.

Its importance can be measured in several ways: more than one million attendees, over $1.2 billion in annual economic impact, $108 million in player compensation, global distribution and an $800 million venue transformation.

Its influence also comes from its willingness to challenge convention.

The tournament pioneered equal prize money and Grand Slam night tennis. It embraced electronic officiating, retractable roofs, data-driven coverage and now generative AI and computer-vision-based biomechanical insights.

Around the tournament, players and their performance teams are beginning to use more sophisticated combinations of biomarkers, video, computer vision, workload data, sleep, wellness and AI. Platforms such as Orreco illustrate how these previously disconnected data sources can be brought together to support recovery, preparation, performance and injury-risk management.

The 2026 competition reflects that combination of history and change. Alcaraz, Zverev and Djokovic face challenges from a new generation in an open men’s draw. Sabalenka is pursuing a third consecutive title while Gauff, Świątek and other contenders attempt to end her New York dominance.

The central takeaway is that the US Open is no longer simply a tennis tournament. It is a global laboratory for the future of sports—where competition, technology, sports science, media, business and entertainment increasingly operate as one connected experience.

What to watch on TV this weekend?

• U.S. Open Tennis begins — The main draw starts Sunday in New York. First-round coverage begins at noon, with players including Carlos Alcaraz and Coco Gauff scheduled to open their campaigns. Official U.S. Open schedule

• South Africa vs. New Zealand Rugby — The Springboks host the All Blacks in Cape Town on Saturday for the second Test of their four-match series—one of international rugby’s greatest rivalries. World Rugby

• College Football Week Zero — The 2026 season begins with North Carolina vs. TCU in Dublin at noon Saturday. Other games include San Jose State at USC, NC State at Virginia, Hawaii at Stanford and Memphis vs. UNLV. NCAA season preview

• NASCAR at Daytona — The Coke Zero Sugar 400 takes place Saturday at 7:30 p.m. This is traditionally one of NASCAR’s most unpredictable races because of Daytona’s superspeedway format. NASCAR weekend schedule

• IndyCar doubleheader at Milwaukee — The series races Saturday afternoon and again Sunday at 1 p.m. at the historic Milwaukee Mile. Official IndyCar schedule

• PGA Tour Championship — The PGA Tour’s season-ending event concludes Sunday at East Lake Golf Club in Atlanta, with final-round television coverage beginning at 1:30 p.m. on CBS. Weekend television schedule

• Premier League Soccer — Notable games include Nottingham Forest vs. Liverpool and Newcastle vs. Tottenham on Saturday, followed by Brighton vs. Chelsea and Ipswich Town vs. Manchester United on Sunday. Weekend television schedule

• Little League World Series Finals — The international and U.S. championship games take place Saturday, followed by the overall championship Sunday at 3 p.m. on ABC. Weekend television schedule

• Major U.S. matchups — MLB features Red Sox–Yankees, Dodgers–Tigers and Astros–Mets, while the WNBA has Chicago at New York Saturday and Minnesota at Atlanta Sunday. Weekend television schedule

Leave a comment

Share

You may also like:

🎾 Upside Tennis Study: Rally Dynamics and Match Characteristics at Grand Slam Tournaments

Published in International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport (2026) by Jan Carboch, Vendula Redlichova, Tomas Polivka, Katerina Poradkova, Tereza Vajsejtlova, Dominik Pesek & Lucie Zavetova.

🧩 Introduction

How much do court surface and sex influence the pace, duration and physical demands of elite tennis rallies?

This study analyzed men’s and women’s matches from all four 2025 Grand Slam tournaments. The researchers compared rally pace, point duration, time between points, number of shots and work-to-rest ratios.

The findings show that Grand Slam tennis is highly surface-specific. The US Open produced the fastest rally pace, while the French Open produced the slowest. Yet across every tournament, most points were decided quickly: 54–66% ended within the first four shots.

Authors:

• Jan Carboch

• Vendula Redlichova

• Tomas Polivka

• Katerina Poradkova

• Tereza Vajsejtlova

• Dominik Pesek

• Lucie Zavetova

Institution:

• Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Download the full study by clicking on the button below:

Download full study

🧪 Study Overview

Design: Observational, point-by-point video analysis of elite Grand Slam matches.

Tournaments:

• Australian Open

• French Open

• Wimbledon

• US Open

Study period: 2025 Grand Slam season.

Sample:

• 4,647 points

• 80 matches

• 10 men’s and 10 women’s matches from each tournament

• Only the second set of each match was analyzed

Variables measured:

• Point duration

• Number of rally shots

• Time between points

• Rally pace

• Work-to-rest ratio

Rally pace was calculated by dividing point duration by the number of shots. Work-to-rest ratios were calculated for each individual point rather than from match-level averages, allowing a more precise representation of match demands.

Reliability: Inter-rater reliability ranged from ICC 0.89–1.00, while intra-rater reliability ranged from ICC 0.93–1.00.

📊 Typical Match Characteristics

Lower rally-pace values indicate less time between opposing racket contacts and therefore faster play.

📈 Key Findings

⚡ The US Open Produced the Fastest Rally Pace

Rally pace was fastest at the US Open for both groups:

• Men: 1.13 seconds per shot

• Women: 1.20 seconds per shot

For men, the US Open was significantly faster than the French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open. For women, it was faster than the other tournaments by effect-size comparisons, while the French Open was significantly slower than all three.

This suggests that players at the US Open faced the greatest time pressure during rallies.

🧱 The French Open Produced the Slowest Rally Pace

Clay at the French Open produced the slowest rally pace:

• Men: 1.31 seconds per shot

• Women: 1.50 seconds per shot

Men also played the most shots per rally at the French Open, averaging 7.55, compared with 5.35 at Wimbledon and 5.87 at the US Open.

The slower, higher bounce of clay gives players more time to retrieve balls and can extend rallies. Surface-related differences in rally length were much clearer in men’s matches than women’s matches.

🎯 Most Points Were Decided Within Four Shots

The percentage of points completed within the first four shots was:

Across the four tournaments, 54–65% of men’s points and 59–66% of women’s points ended within four shots.

This means that nearly two-thirds of points were often decided within two shots per player, emphasizing the importance of:

• The serve

• The return

• Serve-plus-one patterns

• Return-plus-one patterns

• Early-rally positioning and decision-making

👨 Men Generally Played at a Faster Rally Pace

Men exhibited a faster rally pace than women overall. Tournament-specific statistically significant differences were found at:

• French Open: men 1.31 s vs. women 1.50 s

• US Open: men 1.13 s vs. women 1.20 s

The largest differences between men’s and women’s match characteristics appeared at the French Open. No statistically significant gender differences were found at Wimbledon, suggesting that grass produced the most similar match dynamics.

Even small differences in available time can influence preparation, perception, positioning and whether a player can execute an offensive rather than defensive shot.

👩 Women’s Rally Length Was More Consistent Across Surfaces

Women averaged between 4.27 and 4.45 shots per rally at all four tournaments, with no significant tournament effect.

Men ranged from 5.35 shots at Wimbledon to 7.55 at the French Open, showing greater surface-related tactical variation.

The researchers also observed that women tended to use a relatively consistent, aggressive, return-oriented strategy across surfaces. On clay, women appeared more likely than men to finish points with the return shot.

⏱️ Wimbledon Had the Shortest Breaks Between Points

Time between points was shortest at Wimbledon:

• Men: 20.0 seconds

• Women: 20.1 seconds

At the other Grand Slams, men averaged 24.4–26.6 seconds, while women averaged 23.2–23.6 seconds.

This faster overall rhythm may reflect shorter rallies, lower recovery demands and the distinctive movement demands of grass, although weather and other contextual factors may also contribute.

🔋 Work-to-Rest Demands Were Higher Than Previously Reported

Point-by-point calculations produced typical work-to-rest ratios of:

• Men: approximately 1:6 to 1:8

• Women: approximately 1:5 to 1:7

Selected tournament values included:

• Men at the US Open: 1:7.55

• Men at the French Open: 1:5.93

• Women at the US Open: 1:6.60

• Women at the French Open: 1:4.60

These ratios reflect more rest per unit of work than the commonly cited 1:2 to 1:5 range. The authors argue that point-by-point analysis provides a more accurate estimate than dividing averaged match-level work and recovery values.

🧠 Implications for Tennis Coaches and Practitioners

The study reinforces that training should reflect the actual demands of the tournament and surface.

Players preparing for the US Open may need drills that reproduce faster rally pace and reduced decision time. French Open preparation may require greater tolerance for longer rallies, especially in men’s tennis, together with tactical patience and efficient movement on clay.

At every tournament, however, the opening four shots remain critical. Training volume alone is not enough; coaches should prioritize the quality, placement and tactical intent of serves, returns and the next shot.

📌 Recommendations

For Technical and Tactical Training

• Prioritize serve-plus-one and return-plus-one patterns.

• Train serve placement and the quality of the next shot.

• Develop aggressive but controlled return strategies.

• Practice early-rally decision-making under realistic time pressure.

• Include longer rallies to preserve match-like variability.

For Surface-Specific Preparation

• Reproduce the faster rally pace expected at the US Open.

• Prepare for longer men’s rallies and slower pace on French Open clay.

• Train movement, balance and abbreviated preparation for grass.

• Adjust tactical expectations by surface rather than using one uniform match model.

For Conditioning and Recovery

• Use point-by-point work-to-rest ratios when designing drills.

• Target approximately 1:6–1:8 for men and 1:5–1:7 for women, while adapting to the player and tournament.

• Emphasize high-quality execution rather than accumulating excessive repetitions.

• Include adequate recovery so technical quality is maintained during high-intensity drills.

For Performance Analysis

• Analyze rally pace rather than relying only on rally length.

• Separate men’s and women’s demands where meaningful.

• Evaluate point-ending patterns by surface.

• Account for weather, opponent, playing style and tactical context when interpreting tournament averages.

⚠️ Limitations

The authors identified several limitations:

• Only 80 matches were analyzed.

• Only the second set of each match was included.

• Points were treated as independent even though they were nested within games and matches.

• Weather, ball characteristics, scoreline, player style, opponent quality, fatigue and mental state were not controlled.

• Matches were selected partly according to video availability and quality.

• Findings represent elite Grand Slam players and may not generalize to junior or lower-ranked players.

Future research should use hierarchical or mixed-effects models, examine full-match progression and compare elite results with junior and lower-ranked populations.

✅ Conclusion

This study demonstrates that rally dynamics vary meaningfully across Grand Slam tournaments and between men’s and women’s tennis.

The US Open created the fastest rally pace, while the French Open created the slowest. Men’s rally length varied substantially by surface, whereas women maintained a more consistent pattern across tournaments. Point-by-point analysis also suggested that elite tennis provides more recovery relative to playing time than conventional averaged estimates imply.

Above all, most points ended within four shots. Coaches should therefore build preparation around surface-specific time pressure, realistic recovery and high-quality serve, return and early-rally combinations.

The central takeaway: at Grand Slam level, the first four shots shape most points.

⚽ Upside Soccer Study: Subsequent Injury Risk After Return to Play From Lower-Extremity Muscle Injuries

Published in The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (2026) by Guangze Zhang, Michel S. Brink, Dominik Szymski, Lorenz Huber, Werner Krutsch, Volker Alt, Karen aus der Fünten, Tobias Tröß, Tim Meyer, Koen A.P.M. Lemmink & Anne Hecksteden.

🧩 Introduction

When a professional soccer player returns from a lower-extremity muscle injury, how does the risk of another injury change over time?

This study shows that the answer depends on which muscle was injured and whether the original injury was acute or caused by overuse.

Researchers followed professional male players from Germany’s first and second Bundesliga across three seasons. They examined noncontact, time-loss injuries after players returned to full training and competition following hamstring, quadriceps, adductor or calf injuries.

The findings demonstrate that subsequent-injury risk is not constant. Acute hamstring, adductor and quadriceps injuries carried greater risk immediately after return to play, while overuse calf injuries produced a delayed peak approximately three weeks later.

Authors:

• Guangze Zhang

• Michel S. Brink

• Dominik Szymski

• Lorenz Huber

• Werner Krutsch

• Volker Alt

• Karen aus der Fünten

• Tobias Tröß

• Tim Meyer

• Koen A.P.M. Lemmink

• Anne Hecksteden

Institutions:

• Saarland University

• University of Groningen / University Medical Center Groningen

• University Medical Centre Regensburg

• FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, University Medical Centre Regensburg

• Stuttgart University

• University of Innsbruck

• Medical University of Innsbruck

Download the full study by clicking on the button below:

Download full study

🧪 Study Overview

Design: Prospective injury surveillance with descriptive time-to-event analysis.

Competition: First and second German Bundesliga.

Study period: Three consecutive seasons, from 2022–23 through 2024–25.

Participants:

• 1,475 professional male players across the study period

• 796 players from 23 clubs in 2022–23

• 881 players from 27 clubs in 2023–24

• 748 players from 23 clubs in 2024–25

Injury dataset:

• 1,640 total injuries

• 678 hamstring, adductor, quadriceps or calf injuries included as index injuries

• 374 acute injuries

• 304 overuse injuries

• 635 of the 678 included injuries were evaluated with ultrasound and/or MRI after clinical examination

Return to play: Full availability for team training and competition.

Subsequent injury: A noncontact, time-loss injury occurring in the same season after return to play. This included both recurrent injuries at the same site and new injuries elsewhere.

Medical teams classified each index injury as:

• Acute: sudden onset without a repetitive mechanism

• Overuse: gradual onset and/or related to repetitive microtrauma

The researchers used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and cubic-spline modeling to estimate continuous subsequent-injury risk during the first 100 days after return to play.

📊 Observed Subsequent-Injury Rates

These percentages describe observed noncontact subsequent injuries during the same season. They should not be interpreted as causal effects or as the probability of reinjuring the original muscle specifically.

📈 Key Findings

🚨 Risk After Return to Play Was Time-Varying

The risk of a subsequent injury changed throughout the weeks following return to play rather than remaining constant.

After acute hamstring, adductor and quadriceps injuries, risk was elevated soon after the player returned. It then generally declined during the first several weeks.

This means a player being medically cleared does not mark the end of risk management. The early post-return period remains a distinct transition phase requiring individual monitoring and progressive exposure.

🦵 Acute Adductor Injuries Had the Highest Observed Rate

Of the 84 acute adductor injuries, 33 were followed by a noncontact subsequent injury, an observed rate of 39.3%—the highest among the acute injury groups.

Risk shortly after return was approximately twice the later baseline level, fell by roughly half within four weeks and then remained comparatively low, although the curve showed a modest later rise around three months.

Only three of the 33 subsequent injuries were recurrences. The result therefore reflects broader vulnerability after the original injury, not simply repeated adductor injury.

⏳ Acute Hamstring Risk Declined More Gradually

After 154 acute hamstring injuries, 43 players sustained a subsequent injury (27.9%).

The elevated risk declined steadily over approximately 50 days. The study’s conclusion characterized this risk as diminishing within roughly 12 weeks before leveling off.

Hamstring injuries also had the largest recurrence component among acute injuries:

• 18 recurrences

• 41.9% of all observed subsequent injuries after acute hamstring injury

This may partly explain why the hamstring risk curve declined more slowly than the curves following acute adductor and quadriceps injuries.

📉 Acute Quadriceps Risk Fell Sharply in the First Month

After acute quadriceps injury, 22 of 84 cases were followed by a subsequent injury (26.2%).

Risk was elevated immediately after return but dropped substantially during the first four weeks. A small temporary increase followed later.

Only two subsequent injuries were quadriceps recurrences, emphasizing that monitoring should consider the player’s whole-body injury risk rather than only the previously injured site.

🐄 Acute Calf Risk Was Lower and More Stable

Acute calf injuries produced the lowest observed subsequent-injury rate:

• 11 subsequent injuries among 52 cases

• 21.2%

• No recurrences observed

Unlike the other acute groups, risk was relatively low during the first days after return and remained comparatively stable across the post-return period.

⏰ Overuse Calf Injuries Produced a Delayed Risk Peak

The most distinctive overuse pattern occurred after calf injury. Rather than peaking immediately, subsequent-injury risk rose to a peak around three weeks after return to play.

Although it declined afterward, risk remained higher than for the other overuse groups until approximately day 50.

This finding suggests that an apparently successful first week back may not indicate that the vulnerable period has passed. Accumulating training and match exposure may reveal risk later in the return process.

🔄 Overuse Hamstring and Quadriceps Risk Was Highest Early

Overuse hamstring and quadriceps injuries followed similar trajectories. Risk was relatively elevated when players returned to full availability, reached its lowest level within approximately one month and then fluctuated modestly.

Observed subsequent-injury rates were similar:

• Overuse hamstring: 28.1%

• Overuse quadriceps: 27.7%

The recurrence share was 29.6% after overuse hamstring injuries and 16.7% after overuse quadriceps injuries.

📍 Similar Overall Rates Can Hide Different Risk Windows

The four overuse groups had nearly identical observed subsequent-injury rates—between 27.2% and 28.1%—and their survival curves were not significantly different (P = .98).

However, their hazard curves differed in timing. Overuse calf injuries showed a delayed peak, while overuse hamstring and quadriceps injuries showed higher risk immediately after return.

This is one of the study’s most practically important findings: an average percentage alone cannot show when a player is most vulnerable.

🧠 Implications for Soccer Teams and Practitioners

Return-to-play decisions should be specific to the original injury rather than based on one universal post-injury protocol.

The findings support treating full team availability as the beginning of a monitored return-to-performance phase. Medical and performance teams should integrate:

• The injured muscle group

• Acute versus overuse onset

• Tissue healing and functional capacity

• Training and match exposure after return

• Recurrence risk at the original site

• New-injury risk elsewhere in the body

• Psychological readiness

• The player’s position, movement demands and competitive schedule

The distinction between recurrence and subsequent injury is especially important. Most observed events were not reinjuries of the original muscle. A narrow focus on the healed tissue may therefore miss broader effects of deconditioning, compensatory movement, incomplete restoration of capacity or rapid loading.

📌 Recommendations

For Return-to-Play Decision-Making

• Avoid using one standard clearance pathway for all lower-extremity muscle injuries.

• Evaluate the injury mechanism, tissue involved, severity and functional role of the muscle.

• Combine clinical assessment with strength, running, change-of-direction and football-specific testing.

• Assess psychological readiness alongside physical criteria.

• Document the rationale and objective criteria used for full clearance.

For Post-Return Load Management

• Continue structured monitoring after the player resumes full training and competition.

• Progress high-speed running, sprinting, accelerations, decelerations and match minutes deliberately.

• Pay particular attention to the first four weeks after acute adductor and quadriceps injuries.

• Maintain enhanced monitoring for roughly 50 days after acute hamstring injury.

• Watch for a delayed vulnerability period around week three after overuse calf injury.

• Coordinate rehabilitation, medical, strength and conditioning, and coaching decisions.

For Injury Surveillance and Analytics

• Track both recurrences and all subsequent noncontact injuries.

• Analyze risk by time since return rather than relying only on seasonal averages.

• Separate acute and overuse index injuries.

• Record daily training and match exposure to improve interpretation of post-return risk.

• Review each club’s outcomes by injury site and rehabilitation pathway.

⚠️ Limitations

The authors identified several limitations:

• The study was observational and descriptive, so it cannot establish causality.

• Return to play was defined as full availability, but clubs did not use one standardized set of objective clearance criteria.

• Injury grades and severity categories could not be analyzed separately because subgroup sample sizes were limited.

• The hazard curves were descriptive and differences between them were not formally tested statistically.

• Smaller groups, particularly acute calf injuries, increased the possibility of model overfitting.

• Training and match exposure after return was not incorporated into the risk estimates.

• End-of-season censoring may have influenced the observed proportion of recurrences.

• Occasional transfers out of the league were not explicitly modeled.

• Findings may not generalize beyond elite adult male professional soccer, particularly to women, youth or lower-level players.

Future research should include larger samples, standardized return-to-play criteria, daily exposure data and separate analyses of recurrent versus new injuries, injury severity, women’s soccer and youth populations.

✅ Conclusion

This study demonstrates that subsequent-injury risk after return to play is dynamic and injury-specific.

Acute hamstring, adductor and quadriceps injuries produced elevated risk soon after return, with different rates of decline. Acute adductor injuries had the highest observed subsequent-injury rate at 39.3%. Overuse injuries produced more variable trajectories, and overuse calf injuries were notable for a delayed risk peak approximately three weeks after return.

For medical and performance teams, the practical message is clear: full availability should not end the return process. Post-return monitoring, exposure progression and risk management should reflect the injured muscle and mechanism of injury.

The central takeaway: return to play is a risk transition—not the finish line.

⚾ Upside MLB Study: Do Veteran Pitchers Get More Favorable Strike Calls?

Published by Brock Sport Performance Analytics (SPA) Lab, Volume 1 (2026) by Meagher-Sturgeon.

🧩 Introduction

Do veteran MLB pitchers receive strike calls that younger pitchers do not?