AI Replaces Line Judges at Wimbledon — But Not Without Controversy
This year’s Wimbledon tournament introduced a major shift in tradition by replacing human line judges with an AI-powered Electronic Line Calling (ELC) system. The move was marketed as a way to improve accuracy and reduce human error, but many professional tennis players are now speaking out — and not in praise.
Players Say AI System Got It Wrong
Several top tennis players, including Emma Raducanu and Jack Draper, have criticized the system after experiencing what they described as unjust and incorrect calls. Raducanu expressed frustration when a ball hit by her opponent was clearly out — as confirmed on television replays — but the AI called it in. As a result, she lost a point that could’ve changed the course of the match.
Draper, currently the UK’s top male player, echoed these concerns, stating that the system “is not 100% accurate.” In a sport where one point can swing an entire match, players argue that they should be able to trust the line calls completely.
Sunlight and Signal Problems?
In another strange twist, Ben Shelton reported being told to hurry during a match because the AI might stop functioning correctly as the sun went down and lighting conditions worsened. While the ELC system is designed to work under variable lighting, players say the technology still isn’t reliable enough for high-stakes matches.
Accessibility Issues Raise Ethical Questions
The controversy goes beyond just accuracy. One hearing-impaired player reported being completely confused on the court due to the lack of a sign language interpreter or visual cues when points were won or lost. She couldn’t hear the automated announcements from speakers and was left in the dark during critical moments.
Accessibility advocates argue that if AI is going to replace human interaction, it must include inclusive features for all athletes, regardless of ability.
When Technology Fails — Again
The tipping point came during a key match between Sonay Kartal and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. When the ball went out, the system failed to make a ruling. A human judge had to step in and stop the match. The point was replayed, and officials later admitted the fault was due to a human accidentally disabling the technology mid-match.
Though Wimbledon apologized, the incident highlighted how even automated systems are vulnerable to simple human mistakes — ironically, the very issue the AI was supposed to eliminate.
Wimbledon Responds: “You Asked for This”
Debbie Jevans, chair of the All England Tennis and Croquet Club, responded to the criticism by pointing out a past contradiction: “When we had human judges, fans and players kept asking why we didn’t use AI like other tournaments. Now that we do, we’re being told to go back.”
AI Is Also Behind the Scenes
Despite the controversy on court, AI is still playing a big role at Wimbledon. IBM and the All England Club launched Match Chat, an AI assistant that answers live questions from fans. They also rolled out a Likelihood to Win feature, which uses live match data to predict victory percentages in real time.
These tools are meant to enhance viewer engagement, and so far, have received positive feedback from fans. But when it comes to officiating, players are making it clear: technology must be perfect — or not used at all.
Conclusion: AI in Sports Still Needs Human Oversight
The Wimbledon AI controversy reveals the limits of even the most advanced technologies in high-pressure sporting environments. While AI offers incredible speed and data processing, human judgment still plays an irreplaceable role, especially when fairness and athlete well-being are at stake.
As sports continue to explore automated decision-making, Wimbledon 2025 may serve as a cautionary tale: innovation must never come at the cost of trust.
