Split-Second Decisions Under Global Scrutiny: Soeren Friemel on the Psychology of High-Stakes Sports Officiating

The clock shows 5:41 PM on September 6, 2020. In the Arthur Ashe Stadium, the world’s number-one tennis player strikes a ball in frustration. The ball travels barely ten feet before hitting line judge Laura Clark in the throat. She collapses. Millions watching globally freeze. In the tournament referee’s office, Soeren Friemel receives the call over his walkie-talkie: “Come to Center Court immediately.”

What happened in the next fifteen minutes would test every principle developed over three decades of sports officiating. As US Open Referee, Friemel faced a decision that would eliminate the tournament’s biggest star, disappoint millions of fans, and be scrutinized by every major media outlet worldwide. His blood pressure was “in a slightly elevated state,” he later admitted, yet the decision was made correctly, calmly, and according to the established rules.

This moment crystallizes a question relevant far beyond tennis: How do professionals maintain clear judgment when the stakes couldn’t be higher? Soeren Friemel’s career coordinating officials at Grand Slams, Olympics, and Davis Cup finals reveals the mental frameworks that enable performance under extreme pressure—lessons applicable to corporate leaders, event managers, and anyone making consequential decisions while the world watches.

The Mental Architecture of High-Stakes Decision-Making

The challenge wasn’t just making the right call about Novak Djokovic—it was making it without the information everyone else had. “The whole world had seen the situation 20 times on TV and screens around the venue,” Friemel reflected, “and the person who must make the decision had no detailed idea what it was about.” While broadcasters played slow-motion replays from multiple angles, he relied on facts reported by on-court officials: the ball struck the line judge, she was injured, the action was reckless though unintentional.

This information asymmetry is more common than most people realize. Corporate executives make acquisition decisions with incomplete due diligence. Surgeons operate with partial diagnostic information. Emergency responders act on fragmentary reports. The difference between competent and exceptional decision-makers often lies not in having perfect information, but in systematic approaches to working with imperfect information.

The framework developed through decades of officiating emphasizes rapid information gathering from multiple reliable sources. At the US Open, this meant consulting the chair umpire, the on-court supervisor, and the injured official herself—each providing independent observations. The historic 2020 decision wasn’t rushed but methodical: gather facts, consult relevant rules, coordinate with key stakeholders, communicate the outcome clearly.

The principle extends beyond sports. When Boeing’s engineers faced decisions about the 737 MAX’s flight control system, information came from multiple sources—pilots, regulators, internal testing—but the systematic integration of that information proved inadequate. The difference between sound and flawed decision-making often lies in the rigor of information synthesis, not information quantity.

Equally critical is recognizing what you don’t know. After leaving the court in New York, Friemel experienced a moment of uncertainty: “I hope I got this right.” This internal dialogue isn’t weakness—it’s calibration. Overconfidence in high-stakes decisions often leads to catastrophic outcomes. Appropriate uncertainty, balanced with decisiveness when action is required, characterizes mature judgment.

Emotional Regulation Under Maximum Pressure

The 2016 Rio Olympics presented different but equally intense psychological challenges. Coordinating 110 officials from over 700 applications, managing their international travel, and integrating three separate organizational bodies—the IOC, ITF, and local organizers—each with competing priorities. When Friemel arrived for the December 2015 site inspection, he found sobering reality: “Everything was in need of improvement.” Construction delays, changing contractors, unclear timelines.

The natural human response to such chaos is either panic or avoidance. The effective response is neither—it’s systematic problem-solving under sustained pressure. “Don’t become discouraged by obstacles,” the experience taught, “become more deeply involved in solving them.” This principle applies whether you’re coordinating an Olympic venue or managing a product launch behind schedule with unclear requirements.

The Davis Cup finals, particularly the 2018 France-Croatia final with 23,000 passionate fans in Lille’s rugby stadium, presented another psychological dimension. “You have the 3,000 Argentine fans behind you,” Friemel recalled from an earlier tie. “When you make a decision against them, they boo and scream. When you make a decision for them, they show you hearts.” Managing this emotional volatility while maintaining objectivity requires what psychologists call “affect regulation”—the ability to maintain performance despite emotional turbulence.

Corporate leaders face analogous pressures. Announcing layoffs while employees protest outside headquarters. Defending a product recall to angry shareholders. Negotiating acquisitions with investment bankers pressuring for closure. The skill isn’t eliminating emotional response—that’s neither possible nor desirable—but maintaining judgment quality despite emotional intensity.

One practical technique developed through high-stakes sports officiating: accessibility without over-availability. During the Olympics, Friemel maintained availability at 1:30 AM or 7:00 AM when officials from different time zones needed guidance, but this wasn’t about working excessive hours. It was about strategic presence during critical moments. Corporate leaders can apply similar thinking: be genuinely accessible during crises, but build systems that don’t require constant personal intervention during normal operations.

Building Systems That Sustain Judgment

Perhaps the most valuable lesson from decades of high-pressure decision-making is this: individual resilience matters, but systematic resilience matters more. After the Djokovic incident, the US Open implemented a tablet system allowing referees to review controversial situations before making final determinations. This wasn’t admission of error in 2020—it was recognition that even correct decisions can be improved through better systems.

As ITF Head of Officiating from 2014 to 2022, Friemel oversaw a global system requiring consistent standards whether tournaments occurred in Melbourne, Paris, London, or Tokyo. Officials from different countries, languages, and training backgrounds had to apply rules uniformly. This required developing standardized training protocols, clear certification processes, and ongoing performance evaluation—the infrastructure that makes consistent judgment possible at scale.

The principle applies broadly. Amazon’s leadership principles aren’t just corporate values—they’re decision-making frameworks that enable consistent judgment across thousands of managers. McKinsey’s problem-solving approach isn’t methodology for its own sake—it’s infrastructure ensuring quality analysis regardless of which team handles a client. The best organizations don’t depend on heroic individuals making brilliant decisions under pressure. They build systems where good decisions emerge reliably.

The balance between accessibility and boundaries offers another systematic insight. Friemel maintained “complete neutrality” with players—approachable for legitimate questions but avoiding relationships that compromise objectivity. This isn’t coldness; it’s professional structure. Corporate leaders navigating similar tensions—friendly with direct reports without becoming friends, accessible to stakeholders without becoming captured by any single interest—benefit from clear principles about appropriate boundaries.

Today, applying sports officiating experience to business leadership in a senior role at a leading global sports company, the fundamental principles remain constant: gather information systematically, maintain judgment under pressure, build systems that enable consistent quality. His transition from court to corporate demonstrates how the venue changes—from tennis courts to corporate boardrooms—but the underlying psychology of high-stakes decision-making transfers remarkably well.

The question for leaders in any field isn’t whether you’ll face moments requiring clear judgment under extreme pressure. You will. The question is whether you’ve developed the mental frameworks, emotional regulation skills, and systematic approaches that enable sound decisions when it matters most. Because when millions of people are watching—literally or figuratively—having principles isn’t enough. You need the psychology to apply them.