Vision-language models (VLMs) can describe a scene, but can they act well within one? We study whether VLMs can make sound strategic decisions, using soccer as an objective testbed with quantifiably-valued actions. We introduce SportD, a dataset and evaluation consisting of 1421 decision scenarios across professional men's and women's soccer games, where a VLM must decide what action to take next. Models on average select the optimal action around 27% of the time, less often than the professional players, and capture markedly less of the value at stake. Furthermore, they exhibit a clear preference for safer actions, favoring lower-variance, lower-value choices that also make less physical progress toward goal. Frontier VLMs are better at estimating whether an action will succeed, placing the highest-success-probability action among their top choices in 72-85% of cases. Yet VLMs systematically conflate likelihood with value, assigning higher value to actions that are more likely to succeed ($ρ=+0.30$ to $+0.52$), despite no such relationship in the ground truth ($ρ=-0.08$). Modifying the deliberation instructions to encourage risk-taking brings the frontier models closer to the players' skill levels. SportD opens a new direction for rigorously evaluating physical strategic decision-making in VLMs, showing that careful decomposition of their choices can reveal the mechanisms underlying systematic biases such as risk aversion.

翻译：暂无翻译