In Melbourne, the first twist has nothing to do with a backhand. It is an object under a sweatband. In 2026 several top players were forced to remove a wrist-worn fitness tracker (WHOOP) before stepping on court and in some cases after intervention during the match. Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka said it plainly: she cannot see the point.
Sabalenka said: “It’s just for tracking my health. I don’t understand why Grand Slams are not allowing us to wear it.”
Sinner said:“It’s fine. There are other things we could use (like) the vest but it’s a bit uncomfortable for me. You feel like you have something on the shoulders. But rules are rules. I understand. I won’t use it again.”
were pulled into the same lane. The organisers, Tennis Australia, confirmed that “wearables have not been “cleared” at the Grand Slams and that discussions are ongoing.”
On the surface it looks like sports bureaucracy. It is power. The issue is not the strap, it is the data: who generates it, who keeps it, who uses it and who sells it.
A technical point that holds up, but is not enough
The organisers do have one defensible argument: “coaching” is not an invented scarecrow. The International Tennis Federation approved WHOOP as Player Analysis Technology with a hard condition: the device has haptic feedback capability and use is only allowed if the player can demonstrate that the vibrations are disabled. If you cannot demonstrate it, use can be prohibited.
Haptics is not coaching. A vibration can be pure self-feedback, no different in principle from a power meter or a heart-rate monitor showing a number. “Coaching by wearable” only exists if someone external can trigger a cue on demand during play. The ITF’s own PAT approval report describes WHOOP as a screenless sensor with no user interface; data are stored locally and synced periodically via Bluetooth to the mobile app, and all visualisation and interaction sit on an auxiliary device. So stop policing a strap and police the only thing that matters: access to the auxiliary device and any communication channel during competition. That is how serious sports write the rule. World Athletics allows heart-rate and distance sensors provided they cannot be used to communicate with anyone else, and the UCI draws its lines around who can view data in competition and even excludes metabolic values such as glucose or lactate. Tennis should do the same: regulate communications, not measurement. So the ITF and the Slams should stop the nonsense.That explains why a tournament might choose the easiest route: ban everything, avoid policing menus, modes, settings and exceptions. Easy is not the same as right, especially when the object you are banning is collecting biometric data.
Public match data and biometrics are not the same thing
Tennis already generates observable data: average serve speed, distance covered, time between shots. If a player runs a hundred metres in eleven seconds, that is visible. You do not need to enter physiology, you just watch and time it.
Heart rate is different. HRV is different. Sleep quality is different. Recovery is different. That is body data, not court data. It is also strategic: fatigue signals, thresholds, workload management and possible weak points. Treating it as just “match stats” shifts the border between sport and biological life.
And that brings us to the first contradiction that makes the ban, on its own, inadequate.
The contract says one thing, the on-court rule says another
In the event Entry Conditions, “Match Data” is not only what the tournament captures on its own systems. It is also “any data… however produced including via your own wearable technology or analysis systems”. In plain terms, it includes data produced by the player’s own wearable or analysis setup.
At the same time, in its data and privacy materials, Tennis Australia lists potential recipients that can include staff, coaches and even “other players”. That is where the story stops being “a banned object” and becomes a story about information flow.
So the questions are concrete: what data actually falls into that bucket? What is explicitly excluded? Who draws the line between performance and biometrics and who gets access, under what limits?
Privacy, competitive edge, asymmetry
“Own data” is not a moral pose. It is competitive asymmetry.
One type of information every opponent can infer from the match because it is on screen and in plain sight. Another type reveals physiology under load. If a rival team could see biometric signals, even indirectly, it could calibrate pressure, tempo, variation, breaks and key moments. In elite sport, information is value.
That is why framing this as a “technology rule” is too small. This is about who holds exclusive rights over body data in a sport built to monetise information.
If there is no solid technical reason to force athletes to give up wearables, the obvious question is: what is the real reason?
The betting parallel: centralise what pays
This is not a detour. It is the same story: data as an asset once it is wired into cashflows. This is not a stretch. It is a pattern.
When something produces economic value, it gets pulled into an authorised, centralised, contractual perimeter. In the case of the Australian Open, Infront Bettor announced a partnership with Tennis Australia around data and live video streaming, aimed at licensed sportsbooks.
On top of that chain, a product built for live betting has been launched: BetVision for Tennis, covering the Australian Open via Genius Sports in partnership with Infront.
This is not (only) a moral judgement on gambling. It is a fact: if you centralise the data that moves money in real time, the biometric question becomes unavoidable.
The Australian context: offshore is not theory
There is another layer: illegal offshore pressure.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority publishes quarterly enforcement reports on illegal online gambling. In January to March 2025 it referred 61 websites to ISPs for blocking, in April to June 2025 it reported 73 URLs to filter providers and in July to September 2025 it reported 71.
And during the Australian Open 2026, investigations documented offshore operators using the tournament’s visibility to promote illegal services through branding and campaigns.
In that environment, data is fuel. Match data, tracking data, micro-markets. Pulling biometrics into the “tradeable” category raises the stakes.
A way out exists, but it requires transparency
If the goal is to prevent signalling, there is a cleaner regulatory route than a blanket ban.
The ITF document already gives the key variable: haptic feedback off, demonstrably so. Build a protocol from there: wearable allowed only in passive mode, no access to apps or auxiliary devices during the match, pre-match checks and clear sanctions for anyone who cannot prove settings.
But that comes with a cost: you have to write rules, publish them and accept the real debate, not “wristband yes or no”, but “which data belongs to the tournament and which belongs to the player”.
Until that is answered, the ban looks like an organisational shortcut that hits the most delicate layer: biometrics.
Six questions Tennis Australia should answer
- Do you confirm that “Match Data” includes data generated via personal wearables, as stated in the Entry Conditions?
- Which categories are included and which are explicitly excluded, especially regarding biometrics?
- In what form, under what limits and with what safeguards can Match Data be shared, including with categories that include other players and staff?
- If the risk is indirect coaching, why not adopt an ITF-based protocol (haptic off, demonstrable) instead of a blanket ban?
- What is the timeline for the “ongoing discussion”, who decides and what consultation exists with players?
- Given the event sits inside a commercial chain of data and streaming for bookmakers, what specific policy prevents the data economy from pushing biometrics into grey areas?
The point
The point is not to defend a brand or a gadget. The point is to prevent the body becoming a contractual asset with no boundaries.
If tennis wants credibility while it monetises data and fights the illegal market, it has to draw a clean line: what the court makes public is not what physiology gives away. Otherwise the “banned wristband” stays a detail and details, stacked up, always reveal who is really in charge.
Further Reading: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Shoshana Zuboff)
“A strong foundation for thinking about ownership and control of personal data. Zuboff shows how human experience is turned into data, then into predictions, and finally into economic and behavioural leverage, a useful lens for biometrics and wearables in sport as well.”
Follow Us