The Human Coach in an AI Olympic Games

Artificial intelligence can measure movement, identify patterns and deliver information instantly. It cannot replace the person who teaches an athlete what the information means.

By: Brian Taylor | Senior Sports and Athlete Development Correspondent

Editor: Michelle Anne Paris

By the time the Olympic Games open in Los Angeles in 2028, artificial intelligence will be deeply embedded in elite sport.

Athletes and coaches will have access to tools that can analyze movement, identify performance patterns, organize video and turn data into recommendations faster than any staff could do manually.

That is genuine progress.

It is also a reason to become clearer about what only a human coach can provide.

The International Olympic Committee’s Olympic AI Agenda describes opportunities involving athlete development, competition, event operations and audience engagement. The IOC has also emphasized that Olympic AI should remain human-centered and trustworthy.

That qualification matters.

A system can tell a player that a shooting motion changed by several degrees. It can identify when an athlete’s performance drops late in competition. It can compare thousands of repetitions and find something a coach might not immediately see.

It cannot fully understand why a teenager has lost confidence.

It cannot know, without human context, whether an athlete is exhausted, frightened, distracted by family circumstances or attempting to play through pain to avoid disappointing a team.

It cannot decide what kind of person sport should help that athlete become.

From my own years around elite basketball, I learned that preparation is never only physical. A player needs fundamentals, repetition and conditioning. The player also needs honesty, patience, education and someone willing to say what the data cannot.

That leads to several principles for the AI era.

Data should inform the coach, not become the coach.

Performance information can improve decisions, but responsibility must remain with qualified people who understand the athlete and the situation.

Athletes must retain ownership of their judgment.

A young player who accepts every automated recommendation without questioning it may improve one measurement while weakening the ability to think independently. Athletes should be taught to ask where a recommendation came from, what it measured and what it may have missed.

Education remains part of athletic development.

The most valuable sports programs connect the court, field or pool to the classroom. AI literacy should become part of that connection. Young athletes need to understand privacy, data accuracy, synthetic content and the difference between assistance and dependence.

Access must be considered alongside innovation.

The best tools often reach wealthy programs first. If AI becomes essential to development while remaining unavailable to most children, technology could deepen the very opportunity gaps sport has the power to close.

Los Angeles should approach LA28 with a broader definition of legacy. A successful Games should not leave only memories and venues. It should leave better coaching, wider access to responsible technology and young athletes who understand how to use new tools without surrendering their judgment.

The Olympic Games represent the highest visible level of sport. But the lessons begin much earlier, in local gyms, school programs and neighborhood leagues where a child first learns to listen, practice, fail and return the next day.

AI can help us understand performance.

The human coach must still help the athlete understand himself or herself.

That responsibility cannot be automated.

Disclosure

Family First Foundation publishes Family First News Desk, operates youth sports and education programs and founded the Artificial Intelligence Institute as an education initiative. Brian Taylor is Family First Foundation’s Director of Sports and Education. This article is editorial analysis and is not sponsored by LA28, the IOC, USOPC or an Olympic commercial partner.