[Football] Russell Slade and football data.

[Insel affe]

I see another legend is in the news, fighting for justice ?
Not sure myself.

Footballers threaten legal action over 'data misuse'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58873132

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

 

[Gazwag]

Christ what will they want to be paid for next, every time their name is mentioned on radio, TV or newspaper.

 

[Mackenzie]

[SUP][/SUP]This looks like it might impact on Tony Blooms gambling business.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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.

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

yes, i was just thinking each player in the dressing room having to fill in a multi page consent form before each game, giving all the different permissions for certain data and processing rights. but they dont really mean for this to be about consent, someones sniffed money and they're angling for some fee.

 

[amexer]

More money grabbing crap. Clubs and players need to realise less interest in potential transfers if data not available to interested clubs

 

[BBassic]

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.

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.

 

[Baldseagull]

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

I think it’s only right that players know what’s collected and how it will be used, both now and in the future. A simple consent form will be adequate for this purpose. If they want to monetize this, that’s a different discussion.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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.

And if not implied then presumably the clubs will simply insert a clause in the contract. There won’t be a choice so the whole thing was pointless. Just like clicking ok every time you open a website these days.

 

[Braggfan]

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.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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.

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]

 

[Binney on acid]

Shame. I had nothing but respect for Russell Slade.

 

[Braggfan]

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]

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.

 

[Barham's tash]

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.

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.

 

[Braggfan]

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.

I think you're right about numeration has never been at the heart of GDPR and players would probably have to prove their was some kind of a loss of earnings or they had been financially impacted by it, which I think would be hard to prove.

But I think implied consent would only count to the clubs that employ them. Collection of data from an external business would still require explicit consent and individuals could still request that they stop collecting it. In the which case those business might not have to pay compensation but they might have to stop collecting the data.

 

[Braggfan]

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.

You might also find those companies get fined for breach of GDPR, but as you say the players wouldn't see any of that.

 

[Swansman]

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.

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]

Yeah.. thats not how it works...