Footballers demand compensation over 'data misuse'

[chinapig]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58873132

I found this interesting. I can see the players' point. Imagine all the data about your performance in your job being harvested, analysed and published online with your name attached to it but without your permission or any compensation. Nor do you have any way to challenge its accuracy.

It will be interesting to see how this action goes. @Davefevsyou might be interested too.

[Silvio Dante]

16 minutes ago, chinapig said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58873132

I found this interesting. I can see the players' point. Imagine all the data about your performance in your job being harvested, analysed and published online with your name attached to it but without your permission or any compensation. Nor do you have any way to challenge its accuracy.

It will be interesting to see how this action goes. @Davefevsyou might be interested too.

My initial thought on this is that they’re stretching.

The key thing here for me is that all the information is already “public domain”, and has been obtained by records which they freely partook in (ie games).

It isn’t really parallelable to performance data from a job as a warehouseman, accountant etc as they aren’t pd info.

If you apply GDPR and the “right to be forgotten” to the data, by logic you can’t just delete the data for the one player, you have to delete it for the game (to use an extreme example here, if Weimann objected to his data under GDPR, records of the Cardiff game would show we lost 1-0..)

If it was training data or sensitive medical data (ie not that they’d missed a game with an advised hamstring pull, but the full history) I’d agree. But this references goals per game, and I’d guess it goes down to distance covered, key passes, xG etc. And those appear to be public domain, so are to me just a natural extension of Rothmans..!

[Davefevs]

Yes, read about this a while back.

I guess much depends on how the data companies (betting in particular) get their data.

Clubs run their own GPS type data either through the tracking device in their vest, or in City’s case they are using cameras / software to track (I believe).  I’m guessing they aren’t flogging to the betting companies???

@Hamdon Mart you got a view on this?  Do the likes of Opta, collect data then sell it to the betting companies.  What sort of data do you collect yourself, are there a small army of you at each match?

 

[Abraham Romanovich]

I think players should be made aware of what data is collected about them, and like a credit report, if the data is wrong, it could have a negative effect on the individual.

 

 

[chinapig]

14 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

I think players should be made aware of what data is collected about them, and like a credit report, if the data is wrong, it could have a negative effect on the individual.

 

 

I tend to accept what @Silvio Dantehas to stay but yours is the point that remains for me.

As a player my minimum expectation might be that the data published about me has been independently validated.

If it hasn't though, how do I know if it's accurate short of commissioning my own analysis, perhaps via my club?

And if I find it to be wrong what redress do I have?

I think this legal action will fail but I can understand the concern. Data has, or should have, an ethical basis too.

[Silvio Dante]

29 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I tend to accept what @Silvio Dantehas to stay but yours is the point that remains for me.

As a player my minimum expectation might be that the data published about me has been independently validated.

If it hasn't though, how do I know if it's accurate short of commissioning my own analysis, perhaps via my club?

And if I find it to be wrong what redress do I have?

I think this legal action will fail but I can understand the concern. Data has, or should have, an ethical basis too.

I think you can relate this quite nicely to a “Credit Score” using the accuracy argument and see how something, if “wrong” has a different impact there.

Contrary to popular belief, we don’t all have a “credit score”. Each company (Experian, Equifax etc) consider factors in our credit file, and use their own grading to come up with their own score. The people who provide the data to the bureau (the lenders) certify it as correct and have controls to ensure accuracy.

Lenders then get the score/bureau credit info but don’t use that in isolation and overlay it with qualitative factors to decide whether to lend.

Applying this to players, let’s say the score is out of 100 on an “accepting club” dataset - where they’ve taken the proveable MI (goals per game, distance covered etc) and then overlaid the factors that they consider important (DNA for example!). A small mistake/different interpretation in the quantitative data is unlikely to change the overall decision - a major mistake is however likely to do so. But it’s also far more difficult on this data to make a large scale mistake because it’s based on a number of games and not a “one and done”

(Parallel: If a lender states you’ve missed your latest mortgage payment in error, that will harm your likely credit acceptance currently. If a dataset for a player says they ran 10m and not 10km on a most recent game that will just dilute the data that’s correct and not cause major damage).
 

I think the point for me overall there is data does have to be ethical, but the potential for a mistake to be made and that mistake to cause harm to the player is minimal. It’s also the case that people may define things like “dribbles” differently - it’s not an absolute proveable.

So, if it has low potential to do harm (unless wholesale inaccurate - in which case it should be picked up - eg if Rob Atkinson won 1 header all season you’d see that as an outlier), is a part of (but not all) of any decision and could be interpretative 

On that basis, I’m not sure how it could be argued there is a negative impact. I also think it’s not really in the spirit of what GDPR was intended for.

Interesting subject though!

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Silvio Dante

[Lrrr]

They don’t give a shit how their data is used, it’s this line that’s the key part 

‘They also want an annual fee from the companies for any future use.’

Slade has highlighted 150 companies, 150 x whatever they would be owed every year 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Lrrr

[Davefevs]

46 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think you can relate this quite nicely to a “Credit Score” using the accuracy argument and see how something, if “wrong” has a different impact there.

Contrary to popular belief, we don’t all have a “credit score”. Each company (Experian, Equifax etc) consider factors in our credit file, and use their own grading to come up with their own score. The people who provide the data to the bureau (the lenders) certify it as correct and have controls to ensure accuracy.

Lenders then get the score/bureau credit info but don’t use that in isolation and overlay it with qualitative factors to decide whether to lend.

Applying this to players, let’s say the score is out of 100 on an “accepting club” dataset - where they’ve taken the proveable MI (goals per game, distance covered etc) and then overlaid the factors that they consider important (DNA for example!). A small mistake/different interpretation in the quantitative data is unlikely to change the overall decision - a major mistake is however likely to do so. But it’s also far more difficult on this data to make a large scale mistake because it’s based on a number of games and not a “one and done”

(Parallel: If a lender states you’ve missed your latest mortgage payment in error, that will harm your likely credit acceptance currently. If a dataset for a player says they ran 10m and not 10km on a most recent game that will just dilute the data that’s correct and not cause major damage).
 

I think the point for me overall there is data does have to be ethical, but the potential for a mistake to be made and that mistake to cause harm to the player is minimal. It’s also the case that people may define things like “dribbles” differently - it’s not an absolute proveable.

So, if it has low potential to do harm (unless wholesale inaccurate - in which case it should be picked up - eg if Rob Atkinson won 1 header all season you’d see that as an outlier), is a part of (but not all) of any decision and could be interpretative 

On that basis, I’m not sure how it could be argued there is a negative impact. I also think it’s not really in the spirit of what GDPR was intended for.

Interesting subject though!

 

….and importantly these companies don’t pay us individuals for our data do they?  Precedent set imho.

[BTRFTG]

Yet another reason why I'm really, really, really begining to dislike modern day footballers.

As paying punters don't we have a right to know what it is were buying, how competent (or otherwise) we might expect players to be?

If players don't like being in the spotlight, then FRO. 

[Kingswood Robin]

Could this mean we can all charge the Credit Reference Agencies a fee for holding our data?

I'd quite enjoy sending them an email every 3 days informing them, that for just £14.95 a month, they can look after my data!   

[BTRFTG]

31 minutes ago, Kingswood Robin said:

Could this mean we can all charge the Credit Reference Agencies a fee for holding our data?

I'd quite enjoy sending them an email every 3 days informing them, that for just £14.95 a month, they can look after my data!   

The credit/football is quite apposite. Like footballers agents when looking for transfer targets or improved contracts for clients, punters moan about companies holding data on them until, that is, it's of use to them. 

As a student I once did temping on the Electoral Registration non-returns in pre-gentrification Lambeth, dodgy areas (think Hartcliffe minus the charm.) Standard welcome when knocking on a door was to be told where to go, quickly, if I knew what was good for me. "They don't need to know F'all about us, now F'off...."

"Absolutely, no problem............but don't say I failed to warn you when you get turned down for 'Tick' or 'The Never Never' because you're not on the list...."

Never got more than back turned and three steps before the cry came: " 'Ere, get back 'ere. Our names is ....."

Footballers to take note.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The credit/football is quite apposite. Like footballers agents when looking for transfer targets or improved contracts for clients, punters moan about companies holding data on them until, that is, it's of use to them. 

As a student I once did temping on the Electoral Registration non-returns in pre-gentrification Lambeth, dodgy areas (think Hartcliffe minus the charm.) Standard welcome when knocking on a door was to be told where to go, quickly, if I knew what was good for me. "They don't need to know F'all about us, now F'off...."

"Absolutely, no problem............but don't say I failed to warn you when you get turned down for 'Tick' or 'The Never Never' because you're not on the list...."

Never got more than back turned and three steps before the cry came: " 'Ere, get back 'ere. Our names is ....."

Footballers to take note.

Think I was gonna write earlier - cake and eat it.

Your post articulates it nicely.

[Midlands Robin]

I heard Russell Slade talking to Colin Murray on Radio 5 about this issue tonight.

I was left with the overwhelming feeling that the amount the players care about the use of their data is inversely proportional to the amount of money they'll receive for its use.

[Hamdon Mart]

On 12/10/2021 at 10:55, Davefevs said:

Yes, read about this a while back.

I guess much depends on how the data companies (betting in particular) get their data.

Clubs run their own GPS type data either through the tracking device in their vest, or in City’s case they are using cameras / software to track (I believe).  I’m guessing they aren’t flogging to the betting companies???

@Hamdon Mart you got a view on this?  Do the likes of Opta, collect data then sell it to the betting companies.  What sort of data do you collect yourself, are there a small army of you at each match?

 

Hi Dave, thanks for the tag! 

To be truthful, I've not really read into this enough to have a view yet. Yes, we do collect data (it's only me at City home games, I'm big but not big enough to be classed as an army!); a company called Genius Sports also collect data via an app on their phone which is different to our MO. As to what happens to the data I collect, I know it's used by the clubs and also the media but beyond that, I'm not 100% sure. 

Regarding the validation of data, there are three Opta people watching each game (2 in an office and the in-stadium analyst) and their work is checked and double checked after including queries (off/on target shots for example). While I wouldn't rule out errors, after all we are human, there are procedures in place to minimise them as much as is realistically possible. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Hamdon Mart

[TransferForum]

My favourite piece of data on these stats sights is that Joe Morrell is 6ft 1. Got to question where they get stuff from it’s that’s level of accuracy.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, TransferForum said:

My favourite piece of data on these stats sights is that Joe Morrell is 6ft 1. Got to question where they get stuff from it’s that’s level of accuracy.

Did Joe provide the data though?

How tall is his dad then!!!

[Guest]

Surely (cue Airplane quote), if they (Slade et. al.) thought they had a case, they'd run this by Information Commissioner's Office first (are they not the arbiters of all things GDPR?). If they say 'yes, good point', then they would hit the data brokers. This all seems arse about face.

Then again, I suppose it could be a few shysters at work?

[Davefevs]

Not sure Taylor Moore minds his data being used?

 

[TBW]

Probably the same data their agents use in contract negotiations. Want it both ways.

[Sleepy1968]

On 13/10/2021 at 19:57, Davefevs said:

Not sure Taylor Moore minds his data being used?

 

Sign him on!

[ScottishRed]

On 12/10/2021 at 16:22, BTRFTG said:

Yet another reason why I'm really, really, really begining to dislike modern day footballers.

As paying punters don't we have a right to know what it is were buying, how competent (or otherwise) we might expect players to be?

If players don't like being in the spotlight, then FRO. 

It is a very good point and how far does it go?

Should the media pay for the data when they give players marks out of 10 for a performance?

Should Sky or BT pay a particular player for showing his goal / pass/ save numerous times in an analysis?

Load of nonsense.

[chinapig]

13 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

It is a very good point and how far does it go?

Should the media pay for the data when they give players marks out of 10 for a performance?

Should Sky or BT pay a particular player for showing his goal / pass/ save numerous times in an analysis?

Load of nonsense.

Neither of the things you describe amounts to personal data so it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.