[Football] Russell Slade and football data.

beorhthelm said:

they are compensated for their data, their salary for playing.

there is nothing about expecting a fee for data under GDPR, so thats dodgy ground. if they want to play the consent angle we could end up in the situation a game report cant mention a scorer or assist, because the player doesnt consent to their data being public. or reporting an injury. or even wether they played or not.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

Wouldn’t actually happen though because the player wouldn’t get picked if he didn’t consent. Since GDPR I seem to be perpetually giving my consent for data use on websites. It’s meaningless because you aren’t going to decline if you want to look at the website.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

Odd one. They are playing in public. The data is just people writing stuff down. It wouldn’t exist were it not for the data collectors. I don’t see how that belongs to the player.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

I think players should be made aware of what data is collected about them, there are some areas where it doesn't seem right, and like a credit report, if the data is wrong, it could have a negative effect on the individual.

Click to expand...

BBassic said:

I believe a fair few players wear those packs that record heart rate etc. whilst playing so in that case the data wouldn't exist without the player. In both cases to be fair; the player has to play to produce the data that is recorded via pen and paper or tech.

But then, in both cases, the player playing must be giving implied consent.

I work in data and governance / ownership can be exceedingly prickly.

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

Is it just the clubs collecting data though? Aren't there data companies, independent of the clubs that collect data for their own business purposes? The Russell Slade article mentions a player in the lower divisions having 7000 pieces of data collected about him. If someone other than a club is collecting that, they do have a legal obligation to gain his consent.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

I would imagine the argument is that it only becomes data once collated, recorded and sold. The companies doing the collecting are recording what they see in much the same way I used to keep the score when I was a kid at the County Ground. There was no secondary market in that whereas football player data is bought by football clubs. I still don’t think other people’s observations are owned in any way by the players. I would imagine we are seeing a very small part of a raging debate, as alluded to by [MENTION=20488]BBassic[/MENTION]

Click to expand...

Braggfan said:

There is a distinction between an individual recording information for their own private use and a business recording information. Also as soon a business starts doing anything with someone’s information it becomes “processing data” and it doesn’t matter if they sell it, store it, or keep it and never use it for anything, its still classed as “processing” and they have to let the individual know they have it and that they have to have their consent.

Click to expand...

Barham's tash said:

Absolutely they have to give their consent but I expect this law suit if it gets anywhere near a court will come down to implied consent - data clubs collect as part of their job - and data collected by third parties which is then effectively monetised.

GDPR has at a base level always been about fair use, secure storage and consent to collect and never about remuneration.

Expect this to be ultimately a lost cause as otherwise it could have far reaching consequences outside of sport and indeed likely to impact the entire World Wide Web. Can you imagine sports people get paid for collection of their data but we mortals don’t got browsing habits, social media engagement etc when ultimately the scenario is the same - collection of data unique to an individual that is then manipulated or used by a third party to generate profits.

Click to expand...

Barham's tash said:

Absolutely they have to give their consent but I expect this law suit if it gets anywhere near a court will come down to implied consent - data clubs collect as part of their job - and data collected by third parties which is then effectively monetised.

GDPR has at a base level always been about fair use, secure storage and consent to collect and never about remuneration.

Expect this to be ultimately a lost cause as otherwise it could have far reaching consequences outside of sport and indeed likely to impact the entire World Wide Web. Can you imagine sports people get paid for collection of their data but we mortals don’t got browsing habits, social media engagement etc when ultimately the scenario is the same - collection of data unique to an individual that is then manipulated or used by a third party to generate profits.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

Odd one. They are playing in public. The data is just people writing stuff down. It wouldn’t exist were it not for the data collectors. I don’t see how that belongs to the player.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

I would imagine the argument is that it only becomes data once collated, recorded and sold. The companies doing the collecting are recording what they see in much the same way I used to keep the score when I was a kid at the County Ground. There was no secondary market in that whereas football player data is bought by football clubs. I still don’t think other people’s observations are owned in any way by the players. I would imagine we are seeing a very small part of a raging debate, as alluded to by [MENTION=20488]BBassic[/MENTION]

Click to expand...