Write a one-page decision charter before contacting another supplier. A usable question is narrow enough that the club can recognise a satisfactory answer.
Weak brief: “Find the best scouting platform for NWSL recruitment.”
Better brief: “Determine whether an additional supplier can provide the footage, player histories and role-specific evidence needed to assess our priority midfield targets in three named competition-seasons, within our approved workflow and budget.”
What belongs in the charter?
Record:
- The decision: renewal, addition, replacement, consolidation, internal build or specialist assignment.
- The current stack and which parts must remain operational.
- Three recurring recruitment tasks, described as questions rather than features.
- Required competitions, seasons, player populations and evidence types.
- Recruitment deadline, notice deadline, budget ceiling and approval route.
- The proposed users, contracting entity and any other clubs expecting access.
- The person accepting football usefulness, technical compatibility, commercial terms and legal risk.
- The consequence of a failed trial: retain the incumbent, narrow scope, extend evaluation or stop.
Who should own each part?
Use the following as a responsibility template—not an assertion that every club has these job titles.
| Responsibility | Assign to | What they must approve |
|---|---|---|
| Football usefulness | Head of scouting or recruitment lead | Questions, evidence standards and practical outputs |
| Technical evaluation | Analytics lead or designated engineer | Identity mapping, definitions, reproducibility and maintenance |
| Financial decision | Sporting director/GM with finance | Affordability and comparison against doing nothing |
| Rights and privacy | Counsel with procurement/privacy support | Contract permissions, data handling and unresolved restrictions |
| Adoption and administration | Named operational owner | Training, account access, support and ongoing monitoring |
A current Nashville SC analyst vacancy illustrates why the project should not be treated as a software demonstration alone: the advertised work spans event, tracking-derived and physical data, reproducible Python workflows, and collaboration across scouting, analysis and other sporting functions. That is evidence about one role—not a staffing benchmark for MLS. (teamworkonline.com)
Which failures should stop a purchase?
Agree hard gates before scoring preferences. Suggested gates are:
- Mandatory evidence is available for the priority task.
- Intended exports, processing and sharing are contractually permitted.
- Critical player-identity discrepancies have been resolved.
- Decision-critical claims can be traced to evidence.
- The club can operate the service within its approved budget and staffing allocation.
- A workable exit and continuity plan exists.
Mark unresolved gates pending, not passed. A supplier may correct a problem and undergo a documented retest; a high usability score must not compensate for a prohibited workflow.
Where do MLS and NWSL transaction rules fit?
Keep football evaluation separate from transaction feasibility. Ask football operations to maintain a dated feasibility field and use the league’s current rules rather than a supplier’s unsourced eligibility label. MLS publishes its roster and acquisition rules; the NWSL rules hub links its 2026 regulations, including the June 24 update. (mlssoccer.com)
For NCAA women’s targets, do not build the project around an assumed NWSL college draft. The NWSL and NWSLPA announced elimination of the draft in their August 22, 2024 CBA announcement. College-player evaluation remains relevant, but the acquisition workflow must reflect the applicable current arrangements. (nwslsoccer.com)
Sources cited on this page
- teamworkonline.comwww.teamworkonline.com
- mlssoccer.comwww.mlssoccer.com
- nwslsoccer.comwww.nwslsoccer.com