It’s become common, and perhaps cliché to say that AI is going to eventually replace us all. Critics might call that rhetoric alarmist and unrealistic while legislators and unions argue over protections and economics. But at Wimbledon, one of sport’s most tradition laden institutions, that future became a bit more of a present reality.
That’s because the event just announced that after 147 years, next year’s event will no longer use human line judges to call balls in and out. Instead, those jobs will be replaced with live ELC – electric line calling – which uses camera technology to instantly determine the placement of a tennis ball traveling often in excess of 100 miles an hour. That means we won’t see all those folks huddled behind the lines at the back of the courts anymore, those jobs replaced by, well, computers. The alarmists can declare victory on this one.
Of course, this change shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone in the tennis world, even at Wimbledon. Two of the four tennis majors already use the technology – the Australian and US Open – leaving the French as the lone standout, primarily because it’s played on clay. I imagine they’ll adopt it as well soon enough. Beyond cutting payroll, ELC helps to speed up the game and reduces arguments between players and officials. It’s more accurate than the human eye, even if some people don’t want to believe it. And it eliminates some of the judgement and doubt that exists when players are given a limited number of challenges to human calls. In other words, it makes it more likely that the player that won actually wins, not the person who strategizes how to best leverage mistakes.
Beyond line judges, this does eliminate one fairly prominent aspect of the sport – players arguing with officials over bad calls. Just imagine how John McEnroe’s legacy might be different if he played with an electronic umpire. No one to yell at, no one to verbally accost. That said, just this past week, American Francis Tiafoe cursed out the head umpire after a loss in Shanghai because he was penalized for a time violation during the match’s final tiebreak. So even with the benefit of technology, I suppose players will find a way.
As you all well know, technology has been an increasingly critical component of sport officiating, typically used to verify close calls, especially for plays that largely determine the game’s outcome. So a winning touchdown in the final seconds, but maybe not a second down play in the first quarter. And even in those cases, it’s still largely a mix of man and machine, not full automation like we’re seeing in tennis. Perhaps that’s the nature of the game, or perhaps we’re leaning into particular sports tastes, where football fans may be less inclined to enjoy the jurisdiction of AI than tennis supporters. Either way, bringing computers into the mix has changed the nature – and outcome – or sporting events. Just ask any soccer fan about the number of goals they gave back because, after careful review, a fingernail was offside, and you’ll understand that while the game is in fact more accurate, it’s also, well, different.
I won’t pontificate on what’s going to happen next in Major League Baseball, or how long until basketball automatically calls fouls based on body sensors. And to be honest, a league like the NBA is built on ignoring its own rules, like, say traveling. So in some cases, the precision of automated officiating is in stark contrast with the sociological interpretations of the rule book.
But what is interesting is the way in which sport will be an example for how technology and AI may impact us all moving ahead. One of, or perhaps the most critical societal challenge right now is figuring out what AI might replace and what it doesn’t. In tennis, at least right now, it’s replacing line judges, the least instrumental and creative jobs on the court. It hasn’t replaced the head official, who provides human council to the players and fans. It hasn’t replaced the ball kids, who provide cheap physical labor. And it certainly hasn’t touched the players themselves, who, at least for now, are the human commodity that not only can’t be replaced by machines, but command bigger salaries than ever.
Perhaps that is the how it will be for everyone. There’s some institutions that are going away quickly, and some human roles that are even more valuable. Which means maybe AI can’t replace us all – especially at Wimbledon.
Keith Strudler is the Dean of the School of Communication and Media at Montclair State University. You can follow him at @KeithStrudler
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.