A legal dispute between the sports data companies Genius Sports and Sportradar is highlighting the value to broadcasters and gamblers of detailed instantaneous data on sporting events, and the uncertain legal position of how it can be lawfully collected from live events.

In February of last year Sportradar filed a case with the Competition Appeal Tribunal claiming the ‘exclusive’ arrangement between Genius and the FA Premier League for Genius’ provision of live sporting data from football matches was anti-competitive. Genius has now filed a case against Sportradar, as well as number of its ‘data scouts’, for breach of confidence and unlawful means conspiracy, accusing Sportradar of deploying those scouts to the football matches and having them record and transmit the valuable ‘in-play’ data themselves.

By taking advantage of the broadcast delay on sporting events, which may be as little as seconds, or gathering data otherwise instantaneously unavailable, scouts reporting live from events make it possible to offer more accurate and up to date odds. Members of the public have also used it to try to make gains in the betting market.

This practice, sometimes colloquially known as ‘courtsiding’ after its early popularity among some live ‘in-play’ tennis gamblers, has a long history and is a long standing point of contention between sporting events and those who take part in the practice. Many events argue that it is a breach of their ticketing terms and conditions to attend matches to collect data in this way without permission. Indeed in 2014 it was reported that a British man working for a sports data company was arrested at an Australian Tennis match, but did not face trial, over his activity.

The recent claim by Genius has a parallel in the Court of Appeal’s decision last year in Racing Partnership v Sports Information Services Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1300. Although the facts are different, one of the central themes of that case was whether the data ‘generated’ by a sporting event behind closed doors could properly be called confidential, and whether parties who were not ‘official partners’ of the event could lawfully make use of it. Although the Court of Appeal was divided on many issues in the Racing Partnership case, it was largely in agreement that sporting event data could be confidential, and that its misuse by other parties could form part of an ‘unlawful means conspiracy’.

It will therefore be interesting to see how this dispute develops.

Further reporting can be found here, here and here.