The Australian Open expected its biggest storylines to come from Carlos Alcaraz’s forehand and Aryna Sabalenka’s title defence, not a slim black band on their wrists. Yet the Whoop fitness tracker has become the tournament’s most divisive accessory, forcing officials, players and tech companies into a fast‑moving argument about fairness, data and the future of elite sport. What looks like a simple wellness gadget is now testing how far tennis is willing to let wearable technology into the heat of competition.
At stake is more than one brand’s visibility on centre court. The Whoop dispute is exposing gaps in tennis rulebooks, raising questions about whether live biometric data could become a new coaching tool, and highlighting how quickly consumer tech, from high‑end product trackers to smart rings, is colliding with long‑standing ideas of what “pure” competition should look like.
How a cult fitness band ended up at the centre of the Australian Open
Whoop is not a traditional smartwatch, it is a strap that quietly logs heart rate, strain, sleep and recovery, then feeds that data into an app that many athletes treat as a performance bible. Reporting on the Australian Open describes American fitness tracker company Whoop as a “cult” device, popular in locker rooms precisely because it promises to quantify the invisible parts of training, from overnight recovery to in‑match cardiovascular load. For players like Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner, wearing the band in competition is a natural extension of how they train, letting them compare match stress to practice sessions and adjust their schedules around objective numbers rather than gut feel.
That logic collided with tournament rules when leading names arrived in Melbourne with the bands on their wrists. Coverage from MELBOURNE, Australia explains that wearable fitness devices drew unusual attention at this year’s Australian Open once officials realised that World No. 1 Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka were using them during live play. The bands had been visible in earlier rounds, but as scrutiny grew, the question shifted from “what is that on their wrist?” to whether the technology was compatible with the sport’s own regulations.
The moment the bands had to come off
The turning point came when umpires instructed top seeds to remove their trackers mid‑tournament, turning a niche tech story into a full‑blown rules controversy. Detailed accounts of the Australian Open controversy note that Sabalenka, Alcaraz and Sinner were all told to take off their Whoop fitness trackers, even though the devices are widely used by professional athletes in other sports. Another report on Professional tennis players confirms that competitors at the Australian Open 2026 were formally instructed to remove fitness trackers during matches, crystallising what had been an informal grey area into a clear ban.
Behind the scenes, officials were leaning on existing wearable rules that limit what kind of electronic equipment can be used on court. A detailed explanation of the policy notes that the Explaining the Australian wearable rule centres on whether devices can transmit or display information that might be used for coaching, which remains tightly controlled in tennis. In practice, that meant World No. Carlos Alcaraz could wear his Whoop in practice and in the gym, but not while serving for a spot in the semi‑finals in front of a global audience.
Why officials are nervous about Whoop’s data
From the tournament’s perspective, the Whoop band is not just a heart‑rate monitor, it is a potential backdoor for real‑time tactical information. Reporting on What Whoop is at the Australian Open notes that officials have raised concerns that the device could be used to send hidden messages to players, even if that is not how the company markets it. Another analysis of how a wearable caused an Australian Open debate points out that part of the reason the bands are controversial is the fear that live biometric data could be shared with coaches or analysts in a way that blurs the line between allowed support and banned Other assistance.
There is also a safety and integrity angle. A summary of the debate from BBC Sport highlights that some in tennis oppose the devices because they believe the technology could provide a competitive advantage to elite players who can afford the most advanced tools, widening the gap with lower‑ranked competitors. At the same time, the same report notes that critics worry about overtraining, medical misinterpretation or distraction if athletes or coaches misread the data in the middle of a match. In other words, the chaos is not just about one brand, it is about whether tennis is ready to manage the risks that come with turning every heartbeat into a data point.
Players and Whoop push back
Top players have not taken the mid‑tournament clampdown quietly. Women’s World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka has publicly urged Australian Open chiefs to reconsider the ban, arguing that the device helps her understand how her body responds to long matches and travel. One report notes that World No Aryna Sabalenka is not the only player to have embraced the technology, which had already been used in tennis in 2024. Another piece on her reaction stresses that Tennis Australia has indicated changes may be coming, acknowledging that Players like to track their data because it helps them know what they need to do for the rest of their careers.
The company behind the band has been equally vocal. Whoop founder Will Ahmed has defended Carlos Alcaraz amid the device controversy at the Australian Open, arguing that the World No. Carlos Alcaraz was simply using the same Whoop tools that many other professional athletes rely on. A separate statement from WHOOP CEO Will Ahmed stresses that the company believes its technology can reduce overtraining and help prevent medical misinterpretation or distraction by giving athletes clearer insight into their bodies. For Whoop, the Australian Open is not just a marketing opportunity, it is a test case for whether governing bodies will treat wearables as partners in athlete welfare or as threats to competitive balance.
What this showdown means for tennis and sports tech
The Whoop saga is forcing tennis to confront a reality that other sports have already embraced. A detailed analysis of how a wearable caused an Australian Open debate notes that Other major sports leagues have already built evidence‑based frameworks for wearable technology, allowing teams to use devices in games under strict privacy and integrity rules. Tennis, by contrast, is still catching up, with the Australian Open’s sudden enforcement illustrating how ad hoc decisions can create confusion for players and fans. The fact that multiple Authors in one report describe how Multiple Authors had to explain the same rule to different stars underlines how unsettled the landscape remains.
There are signs that the backlash is already nudging policy. Coverage of the broader Wearable debate in MELBOURNE, Australia notes that officials are now under pressure to align tennis with the rest of elite sport, rather than treating every new device as a one‑off problem. Another detailed account of why Sinner and Alcaraz were banned from wearing fitness trackers at the Australian Open stresses that Your support for clear, transparent rules will be crucial as tournaments decide whether to allow such devices in future. As the sport weighs those choices, the Whoop band has already done something remarkable: it has turned a niche piece of performance tech into a catalyst for rewriting how tennis thinks about data, fairness and the limits of innovation.
More from Morning Overview