Player approach and agent-contact clearance tracker
Problem
A regional scout who wants to make contact with a player's family or agent about a possible move today picks up the phone to the chief scout, or drops a line in the recruitment group chat, and waits for a nod. Nothing is written down: who asked, who approved, on what date, what the scout was and was not permitted to say. Two scouts sometimes approach the same agent independently because neither knew the other had already opened contact. When an approach happens before a formal decision was made, or a governing body asks the club to show when contact began, the only record is somebody's memory of a phone call. The spreadsheet tab meant to track this fills in sporadically, usually after the fact.
Product idea
A request-and-clearance workflow built around a single form. A scout logs who they want to contact (player, guardian, agent or intermediary), why, and when. The request routes to the chief scout or head of recruitment, who approves, declines or asks for more detail before any contact happens. Every decision is timestamped and kept against the player's record, along with any conditions attached to the approval, such as a fixed contact window. A status board shows what is open, approved, declined or expired, so a second scout can see at a glance that contact is already under way before picking up the phone. It does not manage the relationship itself, negotiate terms, or store agent contracts. It is a log of who was allowed to speak to whom, and when, nothing more.
Who it is for
Regional and chief scouts submitting and approving contact requests, with the head of recruitment sponsoring the tool and a recruitment analyst checking the log when a question about an approach is raised.
Possible first version
A web form for submitting an approach request against a named player, with contact type, rationale and requested window. Requests route to a fixed list of approvers, who can approve, decline or ask for more information, each action timestamped. A status board lists every request by state, and an automatic reminder chases an approver who has not acted within a set number of days. Out of scope for version one: no integration with the scouting database or player records, no automated eligibility or travel-distance checking, and no agent contact database. Approvers and the player list are entered manually to start.
- Build classification
- Workflow application
- Rough effort
- 3-5 week first release
- Roles involved
- Regional scout, Chief scout, Head of recruitment, Recruitment analyst
- Relevant to
- Professional club, Academy & youth, Collegiate athletics, Women's league
- Systems in play
- Spreadsheets and shared documents, Messaging apps, Scouting and recruitment databases
- Product framing
- Automate a workflow
Questions we get asked
Our scouts already just call before reaching out. Why write it down?
A phone call works until someone needs to reconstruct what was agreed after the fact, and it offers no way for a second scout to see that contact is already open. Writing the decision down does not slow the call down, since the form takes under a minute to submit. What it buys is a record that exists the day a question is asked, rather than a set of memories that no longer agree with each other.
What do we need in place on day one to start using this?
A list of who is allowed to approve a request, which is usually just the chief scout and the head of recruitment, and the current player shortlist so requests can be logged against a named player rather than free text. Nothing needs to be migrated from the existing spreadsheet at launch. Past approaches stay where they are; the tool starts tracking new requests from the day it goes live.
What happens if a scout needs a decision on a Saturday, mid-matchday, and the approver is unreachable?
The request sits as pending until someone acts on it. The tool does not grant automatic approval after a timeout, because an unapproved contact should stay unapproved rather than default to yes. What it can do is chase the approver by whatever channel they actually check, and flag the request as overdue on the board so it is visible on Monday morning rather than forgotten.
Who owns this once it exists, and what does it cost them?
The head of recruitment typically owns the approver list and reviews the log periodically. The ongoing cost is small: approving or declining a request takes a minute, and the log needs almost no maintenance beyond keeping the approver list current as staff change. If requests pile up unanswered, the tool will show that clearly, and it becomes a question for recruitment leadership rather than a hidden backlog.
Is this your workflow?
Tell us one sports workflow that still runs on paper, spreadsheets, WhatsApp or an outdated system. We will map it and show you what a simpler product looks like.
Tell us about itMore in Scouting & recruitment
- Pitchside prospect lookup chat for scoutsA chat line scouts text from the ground to check whether a prospect has already been assessed, get the verdict on file, and flag that they are now watching too.
- Scout report intake and duplicate-assessment routerA workflow that matches new scout reports against existing prospect records, routes them for triage and chases overdue watch list assignments so no player gets assessed twice or forgotten.
- Voice capture for trial day player evaluationsA voice tool that lets evaluators dictate structured ratings on each trial player station by station, removing the paper card and the evening typing-up that loses detail.