Fault or Future? AI’s Role in Wimbledon 2025

SW19. Centre Court. Round of 16. Sonay Kartal versus Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. 4-4, Advantage Pavlyuchenkova. Kartal plays a long backhand return. Pavlyuchenkova knew it had landed out but the Electronic Line-Calling (ELC) system remained silent. The resulting confusion led the on-field umpire to declare that the point to be replayed. Kartal breaks Pavlyuchenkova and controversially wins the set 7-6.

As Wimbledon 2025 drew to a close, the thrills of competition have sometimes been overshadowed by the turbulence of technology. This year marks the first year in the competition’s 148-year history in which line judges are not to be present on court. Instead, decision making rests with a Gen-AI line calling system named Hawk-Eye Live, aimed at increasing efficiency and speed in decision making. Media reports have focused often on player frustrations with controversial line calls and system malfunctions. These stories have fueled public discourse around the role of automation in high-stakes sport.

This article discusses the adoption of wholly Gen-AI systems in sport

Wimbledon 2025: AI Under the Microscope

Wimbledon’s adoption of AI has been particularly visible this year due to the full replacement of human line judges with Electronic Line Calling — a first for the tournament. While ELC has been used in other tournaments since 2018, its implementation at this year’s Championships has sparked debate. Several matches have seen players visibly frustrated by disputed calls. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and Taylor Fritz were among those affected. In one instance, the system was mistakenly turned off during a crucial point; in another, it issued a “fault” mid-rally, forcing both points to be replayed. 

Whilst immediate reactions attacked apparent inefficiencies of the technology, the fault looks to rest with the human operator. In its public apology, the All England Tennis Club identified the issue to have been caused by the ELC being ‘deactivated’ – a human error and not a failure of the system. In fact, Hawk-Eye’s ELC is reported to have an accuracy margin of just 2.2 mm, significantly outperforming human line judges, who are statistically more prone to error. This raises a broader question: are we more forgiving of human mistakes because they are visible and relatable, while technological errors, even if rarer, feel more alien and unacceptable?

(Not so) Hawk Eye?

Despite its promise, AI is not infallible. As AI becomes embedded in the fabric of elite sport, it raises complex and pressing questions — not only about performance and efficiency, but also about ethics, governance, and the human element in competition. These include:

• Human oversight: What role should human judgment play in validating or overruling AI outputs? When can players challenge an AI system, and when can a human – such as an umpire – overrule the AI system? 
• Accountability: Who is responsible when AI systems make or enable incorrect decisions, or even where the AI system has malfunction or deactivated.
• Transparency and bias: Can AI-generated decisions be trusted to be fair, explainable, and free from discrimination? In sporting instances, decisions are often subjective in nature (the handball rule in football, for instance) to be determined by a human referee.

This dilemma is not unique to tennis where reliance has shifted to the outputs of an AI system over human decision-making. In 2020, a Premier League match between Aston Villa and Sheffield United saw Hawk-Eye’s goal-line technology fail to register a clear goal after the system was inadvertently obstructed and “deactivated.” The referee received no alert, and the goal was not awarded despite protests from players. The result had a cascading effect: Aston Villa avoided relegation and went on to secure Champions League football only 4 years later, while Sheffield United  have been battling consistent relegation to the Championship. 

The future?

These incidents highlight the importance of understanding the accuracy of an AI system— the process of ensuring that AI systems are not only accurate but also accountable. In sport officiating, three models are emerging:

1. Human-only officiating, which carries a higher error rate (compared to the options below) but is often more accepted due to its history, transparency and relatability.
2. Full AI automation, which offers greater accuracy but can feel impersonal and provoke stronger backlash when errors occur.
3. Hybrid validation systems, such as the previous Wimbledon model where Hawk-Eye was used to challenge human decisions — combining human judgement with technological oversight.

Concerns have been raised about the diminishing role of human judgement. Yet, not all commentary has been critical. For some, human error in decision making is a core tenet in what makes sport great and has led to seminal moments in history. The sanitisation of officiating through AI may reduce controversy, but it also risks eroding the drama and unpredictability that define elite competition. Had AI been present, would we have witnessed John McEnroe’s infamous “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” meltdown on Centre Court or Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” in the 1986 World Cup quarter final showdown between Argentina and England?  

Conclusion: A Game in Transition

Wimbledon 2025 has demonstrated both the promise and the peril of AI in sport. While technology can enhance fairness, engagement, and accessibility, it also raises important questions about trust, transparency, and the essence of competition. For some, the AI revolution threatens the excitement and turbulence on what makes sport so captivating, providing for a more sanitised (yet efficient) experience.

Wimbledon must balance tradition with progress, ensuring that technology supports, rather than supplants, the human spirit of the game.

Wimbledon must balance tradition with progress, ensuring that technology supports, rather than supplants, the human spirit of the game.