Today’s guest column is from professors John Cairney and Rick Burton.
What’s the future hold for the sport vertical? Or framed another way, what impact does the knowledge that notably disruptive technology is coming to our favorite stadiums and living rooms have on sport as an economic sector?
These are important questions for sport industrialists to embrace, because Generative AI, virtual reality, holographs, glasses (instead of phones) and 6G transmission speeds are racing at us. It also requires recognizing that while shifting slow-moving corporate mindsets and strategies is demanding and time-consuming, it’s cultural change that presents the greatest challenge.
As the late management luminary Peter Drucker famously observed, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
But which sport industry mindsets need shifting?
Do leaders in the traditional pro sport, intercollegiate or Olympic mindsets need to explore which blinders are shielding them from seeing around the proverbial corner? Do conservative standard operating procedures inhibit innovative or entrepreneurial explorations capable of enhancing profitability?
Further, if traditional mindsets are deeply ingrained, especially among those who grew up watching and playing familiar sports, it could mean the queens and kings sitting on the various thrones of games need to hunt for their blind spots.
In business strategy realms, ghost scenarios are often used to identify implicit biases that shape perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about the future. As the popular phrase goes, the ghost in the room (not the elephant) refers to an unstated but influential factor.
Amid rapid technological change, one of the biggest and scariest ghosts is the strongly held belief there are “real sports” and “not-so-real sports” (i.e., esports, pickleball, TGL golf, drone racing, professional cornhole and battle bots).
But who defines what sport is? The media? Fans? Sponsors?
While there are numerous definitions, such as the creation of winners and losers, agreed-upon rules and professionalization of skills, it’s this last criterion where the rubber smudges the road. Most of us believe “real sports” generate big bucks for the players.
Why is it that physical skill is always valued, and adherents of the “real sport” paradigm prioritize energy expenditure (sweat), endurance, strength and speed as key distinguishing factors? Tradition also plays a role, and here the ghost scenario becomes relevant. Do we define “real” sport based on current popularity or historic norms?
Here’s an example. Both of us were recently involved with an event built around discussing the future of sport technology as it relates to Brisbane’s hosting of the 2032 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. During the keynote, the speaker challenged the audience not only about which sports would be played but how those Games would be consumed by “viewers.”
The audience’s reaction was mixed, often divided along generational lines. Those who grew up watching sports like football and baseball were more likely to fall into a 20th-century sport mindset—with a predilection for sweaty, old-school physical contests. But age wasn’t the sole influencing factor.
Many in the room were former athletes and found the topic deeply personal. One participant openly admitted she did not view esports as a sport and questioned its growing acceptance.
To her, the path forward was resistance, and she believed Brisbane 2032 should focus on reclaiming the prominence of “real sport” and highlighting the societal value of physical competition. Interestingly, her traditional mindset and authoritative influence could very well hinder whether Brisbane operates with 22nd-century ambition.
Is the 22nd century too far away? Well, check out the following model. It considers two elements: reluctance versus demand for technological change and levels of disruption change might bring. This creates four quadrants, each influenced by the ghost of traditional sport, and each varied in their ability to foster competitive states.
The top-left quadrant represents a non-competitive state characterized by resistance. Here, technology can help traditional sports but there is a strong reluctance to change the essence of sport itself. Examples include offering multiple media platforms for spectatorship or engagement of gambling. It’s fan consumption that is modified, not the sport.
In the top-right, there is a greater openness to altering the traditional mindset by identifying new markets where technology enhances the sporting experience. An example is providing alternative platforms that offer better and more convenient access to “new sports”—an esports app like Gametosa or Liquipedia.
This idea is not new but holds the potential to increase viewership by providing easier, cheaper, more accessible fan engagement entry points. A company rooted in the traditional sport mindset would likely overlook this space and miss out on opportunities.
The bottom two quadrants are more radical. They consider how technology transforms sport. This is where esports might drive changes in how we perceive traditional sport. In the bottom-left quadrant, the traditional mindset limits the view of technological integration into “real sport” to familiar mediums.
Numerous examples abound, such as advancements in running shoe technologies or changes in the composition of equipment (e.g., composite ice hockey sticks or full-body swimwear). Recall that swimsuit technology led to a surge in broken records followed by a ban due to concerns about compromising the integrity of the sport.
We’re not suggesting there’s no room for technological innovation in traditional sport. However, for forward-thinking entrepreneurs seeking to disrupt the entire sport ecosystem, the bottom-right quadrant poses an important question: Will immersive esports (played in virtual reality settings) disrupt traditional sport entirely?
Like it or not, digital athletes (avatars) can take risks without consequences. The gamers simply hit “play again.”
We should also recognize robotics and bionics are closing the gap between human performance limits but also generating new fan bases. Further, while parasport and Wounded Warrior games have much upside, it’s worth noting human cyborgs will soon be able to jump higher, run faster and be stronger than non-enhanced humans.
Unlike the current controversies surrounding performance enhancement (i.e., an Olympics with drugs allowed), cyborg sport will be built on the premise human capability and potential are not enough. Esports could serve as a testing ground for new cyborg sports. So could driverless auto racing.
Let’s also recognize the NBA 2K League’s popularity. Now, imagine digital games where the hoops are 10 feet higher, the playing surface is filled with physical obstacles and the dimensions far exceed those of the current game (think Rocket League). Digital sport could redefine the rules and conditions of traditional codes, leading to innovations altering how physical games are played in the future.
Moreover, digital sport will continue creating entirely new games we haven’t even dreamed of yet. The NBA recognized this trend early on and now utilizes esports to market and drive spectatorship for the on-court version of the sport. This represents a major disruption to the conventional pathways of the traditionalists. It used to be children grew up playing a physical sport and then became fans of the professional game.
Esports, on the other hand, represents an inversion, one many traditionalists find distasteful or fundamentally wrong … especially if they believe physical activity and fitness is achieved only through traditional sport.
While these possibilities may seem like science fiction, they’re not that far away. What matters is an openness to the disruptive possibilities just starting to emerge. It’s a long way of saying “don’t fear the reaper” or disruption, displacement and demolition.
By challenging implicit biases and embracing technology advancements, profit-focused leaders will build organizations that balance exploration with innovation. The future of sport undoubtedly lies in hoping that everyone reading this column lets go of outdated conventions and starts embracing what’s coming.
John Cairney is the head of the University of Queensland’s School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences. He is also the deputy executive director for the Office of 2032 Games Engagement and the Director of the Queensland Centre for Olympic & Paralympic Studies. Rick Burton is the David B. Falk Professor of Sport Management at Syracuse University and former chief marketing officer for the U.S. Olympic Committee.