With the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games now concluded, attention is turning from competition results to the systems that support high-performance athletes behind the scenes. One of the most significant developments in elite sport is the growing use of wearable technology to monitor athlete performance, health and recovery.
Throughout major sporting campaigns, athletes are routinely monitored using GPS trackers, heart rate monitors, sleep trackers and other wearable devices. These technologies generate vast amounts of health, biometric and performance information that may be accessed by coaches, medical teams, sporting organisations and specialist analytics providers. For athletes, this data can also be highly sensitive and personal, relating to fatigue, injury risk and recovery, and their general health.
While wearable technology offers clear performance benefits, it also raises important legal and governance questions. Who owns the data? When is athlete consent required? How can information be shared across teams, healthcare providers and technology platforms while complying with New Zealand privacy laws?
As athletes continue to compete and sporting organisations evaluate lessons from Glasgow to begin planning for future international competitions, these questions are increasingly becoming a governance priority.
Collecting wearable data in high-performance sport
Major sports tournaments like the Commonwealth Games are highlighting the extent to which data-driven decision-making has become embedded in elite sport. Athlete monitoring technologies are now used throughout training cycles, during competition preparation and, increasingly, as part of post-event performance analysis.
However, organisations cannot just collect athlete data in this way because the technology enables it. They must identify a legitimate purpose connected with their functions or activities and collect only the information necessary for that purpose.
For elite sporting programmes, those purposes commonly include:
- performance monitoring;
- injury prevention and rehabilitation;
- athlete wellbeing;
- workload management; and
- return-to-play decision-making.
The limits of consent in elite sport
The period leading into a major sporting event can create significant pressure on athletes. Selection decisions, performance expectations, funding arrangements and career progression may all influence an athlete’s willingness to agree to monitoring programmes – and whether it is genuinely voluntary.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has recognised that power imbalances can affect whether consent is genuinely voluntary. For that reason, sporting organisations should not automatically assume that consent provides the strongest legal basis for collecting and using athlete information.
Where consent is relied upon, it should be informed, transparent and genuinely optional.
Security, retention and overseas transfers
The modern high-performance sporting environment often involves collaboration between coaches, medical professionals, sporting bodies, technology providers and data analysts located both in New Zealand and overseas.
International events mean that athlete information frequently moves across multiple systems and jurisdictions. Wearable data may be stored in cloud platforms, analysed by specialist providers or shared with support teams based overseas.
Because this information can reveal detailed insights into an athlete’s health, fitness and performance, organisations must ensure appropriate security safeguards are in place and comply with the overseas disclosure requirements in IPP 12 of the Privacy Act.
Data ownership and intellectual property
The increasing reliance on wearable technology in elite sport has also intensified debate around data ownership, forcing sports organisations to confront these questions head on.
Following major events, athlete performance data may be used for post-competition reviews, talent identification, coaching strategies and future programme development. At the same time, technology providers may seek to use aggregated data to improve products, develop analytics tools or train AI models.
As a result, sporting organisations should carefully consider who owns the raw data, who can access derived insights and what rights third parties, like AI large language models (LLMs), have to use information generated through wearable devices.
Athletes may consent to the collection of their data by the sporting organisation, but that does not necessarily imply consent to further use by third-party organisations or platforms.
Key takeaways
The Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games demonstrated that data and technology are now central to elite sporting success. As wearable devices become increasingly sophisticated, sporting organisations must ensure their use of athlete data is supported by robust consent, privacy, governance and contractual frameworks.
Organisations should:
- identify clear purposes for collecting athlete data;
- collect only information that is reasonably necessary;
- provide appropriate privacy notices;
- be cautious about relying solely on verbal consent where power imbalances exist;
- implement strong security and governance controls;
- limit use and disclosure to authorised purposes;
- retain information only for as long as necessary;
- ensure appropriate protections exist for overseas data transfers; and
- clearly allocate data ownership and usage rights through contracts.
As sporting organisations review their performance programmes and prepare for future international competitions, a clear understanding of privacy obligations, consent requirements and data ownership issues will be critical to managing legal risk and maintaining athlete trust.
Wanting to collect or already collecting athlete data? Reach out to our Privacy team for expert advice on what you need to know in this rapidly evolving space.
