# 4. How should NCAA and international discovery connect to a realistic MLS or NWSL acquisition route?


**Interview objective:** Keep performance assessment distinct from current availability and transaction feasibility.

**Put to:** Edward Gallagher and Tyler Heaps, with the relevant club football-operations specialist.

**Why it matters to buyers:** The NWSL’s 2024–2030 agreement eliminated its draft and trades without player consent. MLS’s published 2026 rules still describe a SuperDraft and other acquisition mechanisms. A shared recruitment database should not impose one league’s acquisition assumptions on the other. ([nwslplayers.com](https://www.nwslplayers.com/cba))

American Soccer Analysis’s 2026 college prospect dashboard uses Wyscout statistics and role groupings. It provides a concrete discovery example, but its methodology page is not a complete supplier coverage audit or proof of a player’s availability. ([americansocceranalysis.com](https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2026/1/7/the-2026-nwsl-college-prospect-dashboard))

**A strong answer should cover:**

- Separate fields for sporting suitability, contract status, acquisition route and verification date.
- The distinction between supplier-reported availability and confirmation by authorised club personnel.
- College-player histories, uneven competition samples and role changes when moving into professional football.
- Who checks applicable roster, registration and transaction requirements.
- How the system marks an unresolved status without converting it into “available” or excluding the player automatically.

**Sharp follow-up:** Can you show a strong sporting candidate whose acquisition route remains unknown, without the software implying that the uncertainty has been resolved?

**Request this artefact:** A feasibility checklist with named owners and dated sources. Do not ask the scouting supplier to provide a blanket eligibility determination.

Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.