/ How to Protect Innovation in Sports: Speed, Clay, and Goals

There is no single formula for protecting innovation; it depends on where value is created and how it is captured. Patents are suited to scalable, easily replicable products, mixed protection works when technology has multiple layers, and trade secrets are key when the competitive advantage lies in keeping the solution undisclosed.

Matías Saavedra
Patent Associate

In the past, the difference in sports was explained almost exclusively by talent, training, and tactics. However, with the sustained intensification of competition, that reality began to change, shifting part of the spotlight to very different settings, such as laboratories, data centers, and offices, where research and development, design, creativity, and science converge to push the limits of performance and elevate the level of the spectacle.

In this context, innovation has become a fundamental pillar. But that innovation does not develop in a vacuum: it is part of an ecosystem involving companies, industries, and business models that enable its development, application, and scaling. In this environment, innovation alone is not enough. For it to translate into a true competitive advantage—and not be quickly imitated—it must be protected. Only then is it possible to capture its value and, based on that, sustain a virtuous cycle of investment, development, and continuous improvement in sports. That protection, however, is not a mere legal act, but a strategic and multidimensional process, closely linked to the business model, the nature of the product, and the characteristics of the market.

Broadly speaking, there are two main ways to protect innovation: patents and trade secrets, each with its own advantages and costs.

Patents grant a legal monopoly for up to 20 years, preventing third parties from manufacturing, using, or marketing an invention without authorization. In exchange, they require the solution to be publicly disclosed in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.

Trade secrets, on the other hand, allow valuable information to be kept out of the reach of third parties indefinitely, provided reasonable measures are taken to safeguard it. Their weakness is evident: if the information is leaked or independently discovered, the protection disappears. The choice between one or the other—or a combination of both—is not trivial.

In soccer, cleats are a prime example. Major brands have invested for years in innovations related to stud configuration, plate stiffness, the use of composite materials such as carbon fiber, and advanced textile structures designed to optimize traction, stability, and energy transfer. These are tangible, visible, and, above all, replicable solutions. In this context, the protection strategy relies heavily on patents, which prevent direct copying and capture value in a highly competitive global market. Here, the logic is clear: when the product is physical, marketed on a large scale, and can be imitated with relative ease, the patent becomes an essential tool.

In tennis, the Hawk-Eye system revolutionized the way matches are officiated and even impacted the dynamics of the game. This technology, which allows for determining with great precision whether a ball has landed inside or outside the court, combines multiple cameras and sophisticated processing models to reconstruct trajectories in real time. Its protection strategy does not rely exclusively on patents, although these play a significant role in safeguarding the system’s general principles. The true value, however, lies in algorithms, calibrations, and correction models that are kept as trade secrets. Added to this is its integration into sports venues and its validation by tennis authorities, creating additional barriers to entry. It is, in short, a mixed strategy, where enough is revealed to protect the technological foundation, but the essentials are safeguarded to maintain the competitive advantage.

The most counterintuitive case is found in Formula 1. There, teams develop highly sophisticated solutions in areas such as aerodynamics, suspensions, materials, and mechanical systems. Many of these innovations would be perfectly patentable. However, the prevailing practice is not to patent them. The reason is strategic. Patenting involves disclosing essential technical information that could be used by competitors to guide their own developments. In an environment where advantages are marginal, highly dynamic, and short-lived, such disclosure may prove more costly than beneficial. Unlike in previous cases, the goal here is not to commercialize or license the technology, but to compete directly with it. In this context, trade secrets—reinforced by strict contractual and organizational mechanisms—become the primary tool for protection.

There is no single formula for protecting innovation: it all depends on where value is created—and how it is captured. Patents for replicable, scalable products; a mixed approach when the technology has multiple layers; and trade secrets when the advantage lies precisely in not revealing the solution.

In modern sports, part of the difference lies in who innovates better and, above all, in who defines most clearly what to protect, how to do it, and for what purpose.