This is how other factual data copyrights tend to work (such as maps and phone books).
It's not a copyright violation to collect and share the same information. It _is_ a copyright violation to simply copy and republish the data from a given source.
Sports data would be pretty easy to watermark - a fictional athlete here, a score for a game never played there, etc. none of it would ever be fully guaranteed to not cause someone a problem some day - “no dude, I swear the 1968 lakers played a pre-season game against the pistons and lost 123-98” - but there’s enough data that you could watermark it.
Well there's also watermarking for images too right? The idea is that you embed a subtle pattern to the data which only becomes apparent when you apply a particular filter. This apparently operates in such a way as not to compromise the visible image so presumably sports data could be jimmied similarly.
It's not a copyright violation to collect and share the same information. It _is_ a copyright violation to simply copy and republish the data from a given source.
So how can a map-maker tell that someone copied them instead of collecting their own information? They insert watermarks in the form of inaccurate data (such as inserting a small city that doesn't actually exist). See: https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/the-fake-places-tha... and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry.
I wonder what kind of fictious entry you could inject into sports data that wouldn't compromise the quality of the data too severely?