Today’s guest column is by professors John Cairney and Rick Burton.
A recent New York Times story about “robot athletes” caught our collective attention in September and got us thinking about how androids will influence the future of sport business. We’re well acquainted with Battlebots and drone racing but hadn’t dedicated many stray brain cells to the August 2026 World Humanoid Robot Games that were held in Beijing.
Maybe we should, and maybe the time is now.
For starters, the highlight of the Robot Games involved an X-Humanoid creation (apparently named Lightning Bolt) breaking Usain Bolt’s 2009 100-meter world record of 9.58 seconds by smoking out a 9.39 official time before crashing into a padded wall and getting itself stretchered off the track.
We used the pronoun “itself” above, because as far as we know, robots have no need for gender, race, religion or any other identity markers. And, as we’ll attempt to point out, this becomes relevant when discussing where robot athletics may take us in the next decade.
First, let’s start with the cynical question that might dominate logical discussion: since someone (or some organizational body) will likely, with robots in tow, generate rules, crown winners/champions, keep statistics, sell tickets to spectators, generate merch, engage sponsors and welcome heavy betting on outcomes.
Secondly, while the ’bots may not feature flesh and bone, humans, at least in the short term, will probably be the ones building these androids (shades of Hugh Jackman in his 2011 movie Real Steel) … at least until artificial intelligence takes over and pushes the constructors (à la F1) aside. Meaning, if humans are involved, to borrow from Bill Shakespeare, the sporting game is afoot.
Thirdly, while the robots in Beijing crashed, caught fire or, often enough, fell down, global engineers are moving toward a day when these metal, rubber and wire contraptions will, according to Alan Fern, an Oregon State robotics professor quoted in the Times story, “have the general-purpose intelligence and reliability needed to operate in messy real-world environments.”
At this point, the average dismissive reader might suggest android soccer teams or robot tennis players will never catch on because they won’t generate fan avidity. That we, as spectators, won’t have favorite robot boxers and certainly won’t care who wins (a key component in the sport ecosystem) the Android Basketball League.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that possibility. After all, Disney has spent nearly a century demonstrating that people can develop extraordinary emotional attachments to things that aren’t actually alive. Mickey Mouse, Pixar’s Lightning McQueen and the beeping R2-D2 from Star Wars have become beloved characters with enormous commercial appeal. Marketers have long understood the power of anthropomorphism, our tendency to attribute human qualities and emotions to nonhuman things. If we can cheer for a talking race car, why not a robot sprinter?
The AI company Anthropic seems to be pushing for its algorithms to be treated as people, instigating bans on users who are mean to its Claude chatbot.
Speaking of AI, emerging research into artificial intelligence and sport spectatorship offers another reason to keep an open mind. A recent study of 272 tennis fans in China, published in 2025 in Behavioral Science, found that positive perceptions of AI-enhanced viewing experiences were associated with stronger intentions to watch and recommend sporting events. Perhaps more important, identification with players strengthened the relationship between viewing motivation and those intentions.
Granted, these were human athletes, with AI enhancing the viewing experience. Still, the findings suggest identification and emotional connection may be central to the commercial future of robot sport.
But here’s the rub. Just as governments have long used the Olympics to make a case for their political systems (thinking the winner of the most gold medals dictates “best county in the world”), we’re certain to see a race, or maybe an entire figurative track meet, to build the most advanced robots, which, in their mechanical efficiency, are capable of capturing any revenue-generating world championship.
In fact, we might see the first blood drawn (a flawed metaphor now that we think about it) in autopilot racing where the risk of driver death is eliminated. To some, this concept already exists with video game racing and its more advanced form: Sim car racing. One problem with this format is knowing there are humans at the controls, and the devices (mobile phones, laptops or simulators) don’t go anywhere. There is no real vehicle speed.
That means driverless cars going really fast, and occasionally crashing, could look spectacular (shades of the cult film Death Race 2000) on various streaming platforms. So too, the possibility of Rollerball-style carnage carnivals where robots compete in vicious cage matches until only one android is still moving.
This is where Battlebots come in, those miniature mechanical smashing machines that evade each other (as well as giant killsaws, pulverizers and screws) while humans try directing them via joystick boxes. What if we didn’t need humans controlling how robots reacted? What if the robot thought for itself and was programmed to win … at any cost?
All good dystopian novels and movies set aside, the concept of robot competition cannot be very far away. This was noted in the Times story when Queensland University of Technology professor and director of this Australian robotics center Michael Milford said, robots are “capable in very specific and somewhat contrived events.”
Some would suggest that the contrivance of sport, the creation of codified games such as rugby, cricket, lacrosse and volleyball, is precisely what sport has always done so efficiently: Invent new ways to satisfy our seemingly endless desire to be entertained.
For those readers familiar with our columns, you may be waiting for the inevitable lesson for practitioners. We wouldn’t want to disappoint, so here it is: The next great innovation in sport may have less to do with what technology makes possible and more to do with what human imagination/creativity can make meaningful.
Building a robot capable of beating Usain Bolt is an extraordinary engineering achievement. Turning that robot into a sporting hero, complete with fans, rivals and commercial appeal is an entirely different challenge.
And that, we suspect, is where the real opportunity lies for sport industry leaders.
John Cairney is the dean of the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan. Rick Burton is Syracuse University’s David Falk Emeritus Professor of Sport Management, co-hosts the NIL Clubhouse podcast on Apple and Spotify and co-authored The Rise of Major League Soccer (Lyons Press) and Business the NHL Way (Aevo/UTP).
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.