What if tennis lost its soul? The case of robotized officiating, between tradition and a dehumanized modernity
In a constantly evolving society, technology has inevitably come to occupy an important place in our daily lives. Every field has been impacted, and sports have not escaped this. Over the last 40 years, revolutionary innovations with millimeter precision have followed one after another.
The world of tennis, rich in centuries of history, is facing the emergence of technologies that are redefining the rules of the game. While yesterday’s champions relied on instinct and experience, today’s players benefit from tools such as video assistance or hawk-eye.
These tools allow for more accurate justice but also raise fundamental questions about the very essence of sport. This feature explores the issues surrounding this transition to technological officiating, highlighting the divide between preserving traditions and the rise of a modernity sometimes perceived as dehumanized.
HAWK-EYE, ELC, VIDEO: THE NEW FEATURES SHAKING UP TENNIS
By making it possible to check the validity of serves, Cyclops (which we’ll come back to below) paved the way for an era in which precision has become essential on court. This revolution not only marked a significant change in the tennis ecosystem, but was also at the origin of major decisions that followed. Notably, the introduction of the hawk-eye system and, more recently, Electronic Line Calling (ELC) as well as video assistance.
The Cyclops computer system, implemented by the ATP and WTA in the 1980s, was a first revolution. At the time, it made it possible to determine whether players’ serves were bouncing in the correct area or not.
It was used for the first time at Wimbledon in 1980, before being tested at the US Open the following year and at the Australian Open. This limited version was then replaced by hawk-eye, a technological tool that has become an essential element of tennis.
It allows players to challenge line judges’ calls if they believe a ball called out actually landed within the court boundaries or vice versa. It is a more reliable and more durable system. Twenty years after the first use of technology, the option of using challenges appeared.
A decisive Williams–Capriati clash for the arrival of hawk-eye
The idea of integrating hawk-eye into professional tournaments became obvious in 2004. During the US Open, hawk-eye was made available for the TV broadcast while the umpires on court did not have access to it. During the quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati, viewers were able to witness the mistakes that ended up costing the match to the player who would go on to win 23 Grand Slam titles.
“The reason hawk-eye became important is because they were calling all my balls out, even if they weren’t close to the lines. They were systematically called out. It became impossible to play,” said Williams in August 2022.
And Christopher Clarey, American sports journalist and tennis author, confirmed this to CNBC. “The Williams–Capriati match was pivotal. During that contest, the US Open started to try a hawk-eye system that was visible on television. The general public thus had more information than the players themselves. There was a big difference between what people were seeing and what was actually happening on court.”
The numerous calls that went against Serena Williams in that match were understandably concerning. Thanks to that encounter, it seemed essential to make hawk-eye available in stadiums for the players to use.
At the Miami tournament in 2006, American Jamea Jackson was the first to request the possibility of reviewing the spot on the court where a ball had bounced. In the following months, the US Open (2006), the Australian Open and Wimbledon (2007) began using hawk-eye.
ELC, a tool with millimeter accuracy
Another innovation in tennis over the last few years is ELC (which stands for Electronic Line Calling). It makes it possible to know in a fraction of a second whether a ball landing very close to the lines is in or out. ELC also automatically detects possible foot faults on serve.
This process was used for the first time at the 2017 Next Gen ATP Finals. With the automatic calls on the balls, line judges were no longer necessary and gradually disappeared from professional courts.
Ben Figueiredo, director of innovations for hawk-eye in tennis, describes how ELC works: “We have cameras installed all around the court, calibrated to capture the position of the player and the ball throughout the entire match.
In fact, we use eight cameras out of the twelve, but if one of them is damaged or has less power, that allows us not to lose precision. Setting up everything takes three days.
At the US Open, we have a total of twelve cameras on each court, plus six more to detect foot faults. In total, we have 204. The system’s accuracy is visible down to the millimeter, and the ITF (International Tennis Federation) has approved this system.”
COVID, a tipping point for technology in tennis
Hawk-eye thus ended up being fully integrated into the professional circuit for about fifteen years. However, tennis experienced a second major turning point during the COVID-19 pandemic. While a large number of events were canceled due to the health situation, the governing bodies accelerated the process of “robotizing” the sport.
Thus, as early as the summer of 2020, the US Open announced that ELC would replace line judges on the two largest courts at the New York complex. Arthur Ashe and Louis Armstrong Stadiums were then equipped 100% with the electronic system. The Australian Open then followed the example of the American Slam and became, a few months later, the first Major to use this technology 100%, without line judges.
ATP definitively approved the arrival of ELC in 2023
To minimize the risk of errors as much as possible, the ATP adopted ELC in 2023. At the same time, this sealed the end of line judges at tournaments starting with the 2025 season.
“This is a historic moment for our sport. Tradition is at the heart of tennis and line judges have played an important role over the years,” said ATP President Andrea Gaudenzi after the announcement of the introduction of ELC in 2023.
“That said, we have a responsibility to embrace innovation and new technologies. Our sport deserves the most accurate officiating system possible and we are delighted to be able to implement it across our entire circuit from 2025,” the Italian executive justified at the time.
Moreover, three of the four Grand Slams have also introduced this method: only Roland Garros, which is played on clay, continues to use line judges during its fortnight. The debate over the arrival of hawk-eye and video at the Porte d’Auteuil continues to rage in the world of the little yellow ball.
Video available at major ATP tournaments starting in 2025
To complete the toolkit, video assistance also appeared after being inaugurated at the 2018 Next Gen ATP Finals. Very popular in team sports such as soccer and rugby for several years, it allows bad decisions made by officials on certain phases of play to be corrected.
In tennis, it can be used to determine whether a ball bounced twice on the other side of the net. The ATP announced in February 2025 that all of the Masters 1000 events would now benefit from video, which is a major step forward.
“Chair umpires will be able to review decisions, notably ‘not up’ calls (double bounces), faults, ‘touch’ calls (if an opponent grazes the ball), ‘hindrance’ (interference during a point), scoring errors and potential disqualification situations. This will make officiating more accurate.
This follows a groundbreaking year for the sport. For the very first time, all professional tournaments, on all surfaces, are using the live electronic fault-detection system, as part of ongoing efforts to provide the most accurate standards possible for players and fans,” the ATP stated at the start of 2025.
TRADITION STILL ALIVE
While almost the entire professional circuit is adopting electronic officiating, Roland Garros remains faithful to its line judges. It’s a deliberate choice, between respect for tradition and the defense of a certain romanticism of French-style tennis.
Roland Garros still reluctant to embrace technology
As the only Grand Slam played on clay, Roland Garros is the last of the four Majors to resist the arrival of ELC on the professional circuit. With a surface on which balls leave visible marks that the chair umpire can use, the organizers believe it is not necessary to implement this system.
Roland Garros has also confirmed in a press release that line judges will still be present at least until 2026 in order to perpetuate the tournament’s tradition: “At the 2025 edition, 404 officiating officials were present. Among them, there were 284 French representatives from all the leagues in France.
These umpires and line judges are rigorously selected from around 30,000 officials in France, who officiate throughout the year within the leagues, departmental committees and clubs affiliated with the FFT. This decision contributes to the uniqueness of Roland Garros, which is the last Grand Slam tournament to rely on line judges.”
Line judges, a disappearing ‘human touch’
Yet most players are pushing for the automated system to be implemented in the French capital as well. Figueiredo understands the situation: “It’s up to the tournaments to decide whether they want to use it or not. I know Roland Garros likes having line judges and seeing the umpires come down from their chairs to check the mark.”
“The French are genuinely asking themselves whether they really need it. All over the world, the public’s relationship with tradition differs. The simple fact of seeing the umpires come down and show the mark to the players helps keep this custom alive. If Roland Garros decides to install hawk-eye, where all decisions are made in real time, the tournament will lose that human element,” Clarey added.
Hawk-eye comes with a significant cost
Ben Figueiredo, who knows the technology used on the courts of the US Open very well, is nonetheless aware that installing the cameras comes at a price: “On each court, the equipment costs around $100,000. We own all the material, and we’ve also had a partnership with the USTA (United States Tennis Association) for over fifteen years. They are the ones who take care of paying for everything here,” he said.
Christopher Clarey confirmed: “It’s very expensive to implement ELC if you’re on a limited budget, and it’s not easy to set up. That’s a barrier for many smaller tournaments.”
AN OMNIPRESENT BUT FLAWED TECHNOLOGY
While technology continues to revolutionize the world of tennis, it is not without limits or controversy. Recent incidents have exposed the shortcomings and grey areas that remain, sparking debate among players and umpires on the professional circuit.
From the inability to correct judgment errors at crucial moments to the rigid rules surrounding the use of video, these examples show that technology cannot always guarantee fairness on court.
The limits of technology in tennis
Video has had a few hiccups. In the third round of the 2024 US Open between Anna Kalinskaya and Beatriz Haddad Maia, a controversial point went around the world. As she was sprinting forward, the Brazilian scooped the ball up off a drop shot from her opponent. Caught off guard, the Russian missed her next shot. After a video review, spectators were able to see that Kalinskaya’s ball had bounced twice before Haddad Maia managed to send it back.
The point won by the latter was therefore not valid, but even after consulting video assistance, the chair umpire was unable to overturn the initial decision. The point was thus awarded to Haddad Maia. The incident turned the match, and the South American then rolled to victory (6–3, 6–1).
A similar example occurred at the 2025 Australian Open between Iga Swiatek and Emma Navarro. The Pole was leading 6–1, 2–2, advantage on her serve, when a short ball from the American forced her to go to the net. After a well-executed counter-drop shot, she ended up winning the point. But Navarro, who seemed to have seen that her previous ball had bounced twice, asked the chair umpire to use video.
However, the rules are very precise in such a situation. A player can only request video if they stop playing immediately, even if the point continues. It’s a risky method, as Navarro herself explained.
“I didn’t stop the point. I played the next shot, and that’s why I couldn’t use video. I think it would be better to have the possibility of a replay even if we continue to play, because everything happens very quickly. I asked the umpire if I could see the point again, and she told me I couldn’t because I hadn’t stopped,” the American explained in her press conference after the match.
‘It’s up to the umpire to make a decision’
“You hit your shot, she sends the ball back to you, and you think the point is still going. You know, in my mind, I thought that despite everything, maybe I would win it by playing it out.
It’s a little depressing to have to stop in the middle of a rally. And then, if you stop and ask for video, it’s possible that the ball didn’t bounce twice. In the end, it’s up to the chair umpire to make a decision.
It’s hard to blame any one person in particular, it’s a tough call. The rules should be different because we should be able to look at the footage to make a definitive decision,” Navarro lamented.
The Fritz–Nakashima incident in Cincinnati in 2024
There are many examples of flaws in the hawk-eye system and especially in ELC. During the 2024 Cincinnati Masters 1000 match between Taylor Fritz and Brandon Nakashima, a ball that landed long, outside the court boundaries, triggered controversy. Fritz stopped briefly, thinking ELC would confirm that the mark was indeed out. But the point continued.
It was only a few shots later that umpire Greg Allensworth stopped the rally before talking to Fritz: “Don’t tell me we have to stop playing in the middle of a rally when we have ELC,” the American told the ATP official. “I understand you, but that’s how it works,” the latter replied. In the end, the point was replayed when it logically should have been awarded to Fritz.
TECHNOLOGY: A REVOLUTIONARY BUT IMPROVABLE EVOLUTION
Since the mid-2000s, technology has taken on a very important role in tennis. Hawk-eye, automated calls, video: everything is designed to make the chair umpire’s job easier.
Equipping courts with automated officiating systems marks a significant turning point in the history of this sport. While these advances offer undeniable guarantees in terms of accuracy and fairness, they nonetheless raise questions about the future of human interactions during matches.
The preservation of the game’s traditional spirit is also under threat. The quest for a balance between innovation and respect for the sport’s founding values seems essential if the world of the little yellow ball is to retain its appeal and authenticity.
A sports technology market that keeps growing
By 2030, the sports technology market is expected to reach $25.7 billion, which would represent a 26% increase compared with 2023. As for tennis, the sport is expected to become increasingly “robotized” with the arrival of ELC and video in almost all professional tournaments.
Only Roland Garros still puts its trust in line judges. However, the many controversies over marks on clay, as well as calls from several players to introduce technology in Paris, remain very current topics of debate. The organizers of the French Grand Slam will have to think about all this very soon.
At the same time, the rise of artificial intelligence in society is transforming various sectors by automating processes, personalizing services and redefining the world of work. AI offers unprecedented opportunities to improve efficiency and accessibility, but it also raises major challenges, particularly in terms of privacy and security.
As a laboratory for tomorrow’s tennis, does the Next Gen Masters have a future? 
Tennis: the little-known truths about the offseason, between rest, stress and physical survival 
What if tennis lost its soul? The case of robotized officiating, between tradition and a dehumanized modernity 
Features - Saudi Arabia, injuries, war, and business: the fascinating underbelly of tennis revealed by TennisTemple 
And the equipment cost $100,000 per court ... how much do the line judges cost?