Interview objective: Establish rights for the proposed operating model before technical integration begins.
Put to: Daniel Geey, club counsel and the supplier’s authorised contracting representative.
Why it matters to buyers: Hudl’s public Organisation Terms, updated on 8 April 2026, include provisions concerning use of generative-AI prompts for product improvement and rights in outputs. The terms also incorporate orders and other contractual documents. These are diligence triggers—not proof that identical wording governs every club agreement. (hudl.com)
A strong answer should walk through the actual contract pack:
| Intended workflow | Clarification to obtain |
|---|---|
| API ingestion and local storage | Permitted datasets, copies, environments and retention |
| Internal modelling | Permitted transformations and treatment of derived outputs |
| External AI processing | Approved processors, purposes, confidentiality and reuse |
| Retrieval, inference and model training | Separate permissions rather than one undefined AI approval |
| Multi-club use | Named entities, users, contractors and sharing boundaries |
| Video clips and reports | Permitted internal and external recipients |
| Termination | What may be retained, exported, deleted or reused |
Sharp follow-up: Show us the wording that permits this exact workflow. If permission depends on an amendment, who can bind the supplier and which document takes precedence?
Request this artefact: A Recruitment Data Licence Stress Test linking every intended use to the governing document, clause, ambiguity and resolution owner. Ask counsel to resolve conflicts between documents; do not treat a sales email or a functioning export button as a complete contractual answer.
Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.
Sources cited on this page
- hudl.comwww.hudl.com