The use of technology in sport for performance analysis and training, for officiating and fair play, and for the spectator experience, and the positive and negative effects of technology on sport.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain how technology is used to improve and analyse performance, to support officiating and fair play, and to enhance the spectator experience, and to evaluate the positive and negative effects of technology on elite sport.

Technology for performance and training

Technology for officiating and fair play

These systems increase the accuracy and consistency of decisions and protect the integrity of results, though some argue they slow the game and undermine the authority of officials. It is worth distinguishing factual decisions, which technology handles well (did the ball cross the line, was the serve in, who finished first), from subjective decisions (was a challenge reckless, was there intent), where review systems such as VAR still rely on human judgement and so remain controversial. Technology also protects fair play and athlete welfare through sophisticated drug testing and the biological passport, and through equipment standards that prevent an unfair mechanical advantage. A balanced point AQA rewards is that the same technology that improves fairness can disrupt the spectator experience and create a two-tier system where only well-funded competitions can afford it.

Technology for the spectator

For the spectator, technology improves the experience through high-definition and slow-motion replays, multiple camera angles, on-screen statistics and graphics, virtual and augmented reality, and second-screen and social media interaction. This deepens engagement and understanding but can shift fans from attending events to watching remotely.

Positive and negative effects

The positives are greater accuracy and fairness, improved performance and safety, better training and feedback, and richer spectator engagement. The negatives are high costs that widen inequality between well-funded and poorer competitors and nations, interruptions to the flow and spontaneity of a game, reduced authority of officials, over-reliance on data, and the risk of technological doping or cheating.