Obtain an itemised quote for the club’s actual scope. This research did not establish a defensible public price benchmark for comparable MLS or NWSL packages. Hudl’s professional pricing page offers customised packages rather than a comparable professional-club tariff; 360 Scouting likewise says its service cost depends on the assignment. (hudl.com)
Do not turn the supplied desk’s unvalidated spending estimates into market prices. Consumer subscriptions, academy packages and isolated anecdotes do not establish the cost of the proposed professional workflow.
How much might the evaluation itself cost?
The following is a worked budget example using invented planning inputs, not a supplier quote or a claim about typical fees:
| Input | Illustrative assumption | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Internal project capacity | 140 hours × US$75 loaded internal rate | US$10,500 |
| Pilot access allowance | Assumed negotiated charge | US$1,500 |
| External legal-review allowance | Assumed fixed allowance | US$2,000 |
| Temporary approved storage/testing | Assumed allowance | US$100 |
| Incremental external cash | Pilot + legal + storage | US$3,600 |
| Cash plus internal capacity value | External cash + staff allocation | US$14,100 |
Replace every input with approved club figures. If legal work is entirely internal, move it into staff hours rather than counting it twice. This example excludes annual production subscriptions, extensive integration, travel and a full custom build.
The internal US$10,500 is a capacity allocation—not automatically additional cash expenditure or a cash saving if the project becomes faster.
What belongs in a scouting software total cost of ownership calculator?
Compare each viable configuration over the same period, with the same users, competitions and intended rights.
Year-one cash = subscription + required rights/modules + implementation + migration + external training + temporary dual running + external review + applicable taxes/FX charges − contractually confirmed credits
Annual operating capacity = ingestion + reconciliation + verification + administration + training refresh + supplier management
Three-year comparison = year-one costs + year-two costs + year-three costs + estimated exit costs
Use confirmed prices where available. Label assumptions for renewals, exchange rates, user growth and maintenance; show low/base/high cases rather than presenting an uncertain total as a quote. Keep cash spending and staff capacity in separate columns.
For a replacement, calculate avoidable future spend, not the historic invoice value. Include any change to remaining bundle prices, non-cancellable commitments, transition overlap and the cost of rebuilding dependencies.
Do not monetise future transfer success. If a tool releases analyst time, specify the measured hours and proposed redeployment; only claim a cash saving where an actual expenditure can be removed.
What if building internally appears cheaper?
Cost the full build: licensed inputs, data engineering, reviewed identity mappings, storage, monitoring, documentation, security, user interface, maintenance and an accountable owner. Reuse the same acceptance tests as for an external supplier.
Approve an internal build only when the club has an owner for ongoing operation—not just someone able to produce a prototype. Compare it against a narrower supplier package or specialist commission as well as a full-platform purchase.
How should the supplier evaluation scorecard work?
Apply the hard gates first. Then use a pre-agreed scorecard such as this illustrative weighting, with scores from 0 to 5:
| Criterion | Weight | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|
| Incremental decision usefulness | 35% | Supported questions answered beyond the baseline |
| Required coverage and timeliness | 20% | Scoped inventory and inspected sample |
| Accuracy and reproducibility | 15% | Claim checks and repeated calculations |
| Workflow and adoption | 10% | Observed task performance and user feedback |
| Integration and maintenance | 10% | Working import, correction and operating tests |
| Fully loaded cost | 10% | Comparable quote and capacity model |
Weighted score out of 100 = sum(weight × score / 5)
Attach an evidence status to every score. Do not silently convert “not tested” into a pass or redistribute its weight to flattering categories. If a material criterion is untested, the purchasing decision remains conditional.
Run sensitivity checks: does the preferred option change when realistic cost, coverage or staffing assumptions change? If so, describe the decision as fragile and identify what further evidence would resolve it.
What should the final decision memo say?
Keep the main memo short, with the workbook as its appendix:
- Decision requested: retain/add/replace/consolidate/build/buy nothing.
- Scope: users, entities, tasks, competitions and seasons.
- What was proved: evidence references and sample boundaries.
- What was not proved: unresolved coverage, model or operating questions.
- Alternatives: including improved use of the incumbent.
- Costs: cash, capacity, transition and exit.
- Conditions before signature: rights, corrections, acceptance and documentation.
- Accountability: approvers, implementation owner and next review date.
Negotiate around demonstrated needs: missing scope, support, implementation, portability and remedies for material coverage loss. Do not assume a supplier will accept a requested term or service commitment until it is incorporated into the agreement.
Sources cited on this page
- hudl.comwww.hudl.com