There is no doubt that sports fans want to feel safe at games, but they’re increasingly wary about how venues achieve that security. According to a new survey from the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4), 60% of spectators agreed/strongly agreed that artificial intelligence enhances safety at sporting events — yet 55% agreed/strongly agreed these same technologies invade their privacy.
This tension reveals a fundamental challenge facing venue operators as they deploy facial-recognition, weapon-detection and crowd-monitoring systems: How do you protect patrons while respecting their concerns about surveillance and data collection?
The NCS4 survey, which gathered responses from 728 participants across 48 states who attended professional or collegiate sporting events within the past year, provides the first comprehensive look at spectator attitudes toward AI security in sports venues. The findings suggest that transparency, education and gradual implementation may be key to winning public trust.
The communication gap
Brandon Allen, director of research at NCS4, believes much of the public’s discomfort stems from a lack of knowledge rather than outright opposition to the technology itself.
“I think they just want more information,” Allen says. “Fans feel like it’s invasive to their privacy, but there’s no clear communication of what the AI technology is actually doing, what it’s capturing or how it’s being used.”
The survey found that 75% of respondents prefer a clearly communicated opt-in option before AI security systems collect their data, suggesting spectators want some control over their participation. Allen compares the current situation to security measures implemented after 9/11.
“It’s the same thing with airports,” he explains. “Taking my shoes off is part of it. I’m not happy about it, but I’m going to do it because you tell me to do it. I think a lot of that balancing act is, ‘Yeah, I get it, but I don’t like it,’ and, ‘I really wish I had more information,’ and lastly, ‘At least let me have a say in it.’ ”
Part of the confusion relates to terminology. Allen notes that many people conflate facial authentication or validation — which simply verifies that you are who you claim to be — with facial recognition, which stores data and compares it against databases of known bad actors. The former is increasingly being used for credentialing and ticket validation at professional sports venues, while the latter raises more significant privacy concerns.
“I think there just needs to be clear messaging and terminology used to talk about what venues are actually using,” Allen says, suggesting that venues could improve communication through signage that explains the systems’ AI capabilities in plain language. While venues may be reluctant to broadcast all their security measures, Allen believes transparency about visible security technologies is both responsible and necessary for building trust.
Many venues may follow the model currently being piloted at major airports and Olympic venues, which have begun with opt-in programs and gradually expanded implementation as the public becomes more comfortable with the technology.
“They’re piloting these opt-in options with the facial recognition or validation for ticketing,” Allen notes. “As venues start that opt-in process and get two or three years under their belt, with success, then they’ll start to roll it out where everyone’s required. It’s getting everyone comfortable with it before they do a full-scale rollout.”
Like almost everything in sports venue operation, a trickle-down effect has emerged in which professional teams (the Philadelphia Phillies, for example) adopted the technology first, followed by major collegiate programs (the University of Florida, Arizona State), with the expectation that smaller venues will eventually follow, as costs of the technology decrease and public acceptance grows.
There’s clearly work to do on the education front, starting with simply informing the public that AI is being used in security solutions. The NCS4 survey found that only 50% of respondents are currently aware that AI technologies are being used for security purposes at sports venues, with 23% unsure. This awareness gap presents both a challenge and an opportunity for venues to shape the narrative around these technologies.
Oversight and acceptance
Survey participants strongly emphasized the need for independent oversight of AI security systems. The data showed that respondents want strict regulations to prevent misuse, clear communication about how systems work and external verification that venues are protecting individual rights.
Allen notes that venues shouldn’t be left to police themselves when it comes to data protection and privacy. “You don’t want the venue to just give a blanket statement: ‘Yeah, we’re protecting your data,’ ” he says. “How do I know that you’re protecting my data? What kind of agency are you using to do that?”
He compares this level of wariness to that encountered in the insurance adjustment process. Just as homeowners want an independent assessment of damage rather than relying solely on their insurance company’s evaluator, spectators want third-party verification that their data is being handled responsibly. When asked whether there should be independent oversight of the AI-based security systems in sports venues, 88% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed.
Among the various AI applications, walk-through weapon-detection systems that identify weapons in backpacks or pockets appear to be the most common and widely accepted, mostly due to the convenience they afford for screeners and fans alike. “Fans are comfortable with that,” Allen says. “There’s nothing to hide, and it reduces wait times and allows more efficient entry to the venue.”
Meanwhile, crowd management software, which helps venue directors monitor crowd density and movement patterns, operates largely behind the scenes, and most spectators may not be aware of these solutions.
Putting a price on security
As safety continues to be a concern for fans, evidence suggests that they may even be willing to pay a little extra for it, possibly helping to fund some of the pricier AI solutions available today. The NCS4 survey revealed surprisingly strong support for ticket surcharges to fund security improvements, with 80% of respondents willing to pay between $0.50 and $5.00 extra per ticket. Approximately 68% would pay $1 or more in addition to the ticket’s face value.
Allen sees this as a potential solution to chronic underfunding of venue security programs. “Security is not funded to the level it should be,” he argues. “One way to assist with deploying these technologies or strengthening their security profile is to see if spectators would actually designate a certain amount of their ticket fees to that fund.”
These funds could support AI deployment or address other security vulnerabilities identified through risk assessments, allowing venues to prioritize their most pressing needs.
It appears fans are willing to accept AI-based solutions moving forward, but only if they understand what’s being deployed, how it protects them at the venue and what safeguards are in place to protect their data.
Allen says spectators are okay with AI as long as the enhanced security ends justify those types of advanced means. “If it’s going to protect me better than any other measures, then yes, I’m okay with it. But if it’s not, then why are we doing it?”
The key for venue operators is to move beyond simply deploying AI security systems and instead focus on communicating their value, providing opt-in opportunities where possible and ensuring independent oversight.
In an era where technology often outpaces public understanding, transparency may be the most important security measure of all.
