What do tonight’s NBA Finals game, technology and collective bargaining negotiations have in common? Maybe more than you would suspect.
When the NBA and NBPA released the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) set to become effective in July, it marked the first time the league clarified its stance on the use of wearable technology. Article XXII, Section 13 of the CBA discusses the extent to which wearable devices may be used and creates a structure for ushering the technology into professional basketball. Using a wearable is voluntary, can’t be done during a game, and data from wearables can’t be used in contract negotiations. That’s what is clear from the language. What’s less clear is how this structure will evolve as player-tracking technologies advance and as pressure builds to effectively use the masses of data being collected.
The language itself says this is all voluntary: “a player may decline to use…a [w]earable at any time”. Whether a player will feel empowered to actually exercise that right as an employee, is a different question. The stars may feel bold enough to say “no.” A player fighting to stay on the roster may not.
Setting aside whatever inherent pressure an employer may exert over an employee, the teams can ask a player to do this during practice only, right? Wrong. Teams cannot ask players to use wearables during a game, but other than during a game, teams can ask that the player wear and share at home, during the off-season, out to dinner with friends, on vacation in Fiji — anytime and anywhere “otherwise not in a game.” With the increasing amount of athlete tracking devices, this could entail anything from smart sleeping masks to recording a person’s breathing patterns to devices that monitor how much energy a player exerts during his spare time.
Teams can’t use the data in contract negotiations, right? Right. The language makes that explicit. But will teams abide? If coaches and management can rightfully analyze a roster based on factors such as velocity or heart rate variability during practice, what is to stop them from using this same knowledge when assigning salaries or drafting incentive guarantees? Section 13(h) mandates a $250,000 fine for teams that violate this limited use, but in reality, is that enough to deter a GM looking to clear millions worth of cap space or sign a player over a multi-year deal?
The language provides a solid framework for integrating wearables and the data they uncover into managing a franchise, but the difficulty of preserving the protection of players’ rights may have been created by design. One possibility is that by leaving room for teams to experiment with wearables, the NBA has acknowledged that fully embracing these devices is inevitable.
Get The Latest NBA Tech News In Your Inbox!
To be sure, wearable devices can lead to real on-court advantages that make hashing these issues out worthwhile. The Golden State Warriors’ record this postseason serves as proof of the value that exists in data uncovered from wearable devices. As an organization, the Warriors and their owner, venture capitalist Joe Lacob, have dived head-first into the world of wearable technology. In recent years, the team has gained a reputation for experimenting with everything from Catapult Sports’ player-tracking GPS devices used for tracking micro-movements to OmegaWave, a system of electrodes that assesses a player’s functional readiness. Coincidentally or not, the franchise has become one of the best teams in the league with an equally dynamic playing style.
Of course, the natural abilities of homegrown draft picks Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green have played a major role in transforming the team from perennial bottom-dwellers to arguably the most dominant team in the league’s history. Adding former MVP Kevin Durant did not hurt, either.
Tonight, the Warriors may make history with a flawless playoff run. If they do, wearable devices will have played a role in the victory just as they did two years earlier. Over time, this technology may continue to be entwined into the business and legal facets of the game, which could change the NBA as we know it.