Logical Shifts and Institutional Responses to the Governance of Ethical Risks in Sports Artificial Intelligence in China

The in-depth integration of artificial intelligence (AI) within sports has fueled innovative transformations while spawning an array of ethical hazards, necessitating a well-structured governance framework that safeguards core normative values and possesses dynamic adaptability. This study posits that ethics of sport-specific AI originates from the inherent frictions between sport’s value rationality and AI’s instrumental rationality. Its conceptual implication can be unpacked along two interpretive axes of “ethics of sports AI” and “ethical sports AI”. Accordingly, this study dissects the specific characteristics of the two distinct clusters of risks: 1) the risks concerning “ethics of sports AI” primarily arise from failures of external governance norms and are manifested in the erosion of fairness, the weakening of human agency, and the unclear attribution of responsibility for safety incidents; 2) the risks concerning “ethical sports AI” primarily arise from limitations in embedding ethical principles into technical systems and are manifested in technical constraints, normative ambiguity, and trade-offs between cost and efficiency. Characterized by endogeneity, complexity, invisibility and diffusivity, these risks expose the limitations of rigid regulation in updating rules, adapting governance approaches, and tracing responsibility across complex chains. Against this backdrop, resilient governance furnishes a refined analytical framework centering on bridging rigid statutory regulation and flexible norms. This paradigm balances legal baselines and adaptive institutional tuning, equipping the governance system with capabilities of absorption, adjustment, rectification and learning. Accordingly, this study outlines a resilient governance pathway for ethical risks in sports AI: 1) in terms of system construction, a hierarchical framework of macro principles−meso clauses−micro implementation shall be established, complemented by diverse normative forms such as ethical codes, industrial standards and enterprise internal procedures; 2) in terms of operational mechanisms, four core mechanisms are adopted: negotiated rulemaking, procedural embedding, compliance inspection and iterative optimization, to translate abstract ethical precepts into actionable and enduring practical standards.