I agree on the actual human performance aspect. The technical details are fun to watch for in terms of team play and skill, where the minute differences matter in a sport. But I also get where OP is coming from. It’s kinda sad how long it took from a production standpoint to put tracking chips inside the footballs. I understand NFL as an institution wanting to keep the game a little sloppy but stats are interesting and data driven graphics really keep people engaged in today’s world. Look at some of the tech in broadcast golf, it’s incredible and makes for much more interesting watching these days, even if the sport or sports in general aren’t the most engaging *from a bystander point of view.

IMO that adds to the appeal if there is disparity in the tech. I don’t think the tech would really make a difference other than adding a few layers of interesting broadcasting information that might make the game slightly less dull for someone like myself, although not anywhere near enough to watch a 1 hour game tailored around over 1 hour of obscene ads I find grossly offensive. Americans love their underdog team stories. The idea that limiting funds has anything to do with it is bogus as teams are renowned for buying wins through various means. Such tech would normalize military service and likely have a trickle down effect to lower levels. Standardization would likely reduce cost and could likely get a DARPA like subsidized program as it is directly connected to battle tech. It would also potentially showcase military tech in a strategically advantageous way through both showing a hand at the poker table of geopolitics while not necessarily revealing the true capabilities or extent of actual battle hardware tech.