How We Cover Football

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro, Editor

This page describes how an article is researched, drafted, edited, fact-checked, and published on Football Insider. The five-stage workflow below applies to substantive editorial content; lighter formats (news roundups, brief match-result wires, statistical-update posts) follow a streamlined version of the same process. The workflow is documented openly because Trust Project transparency requires it, because Google News evaluates editorial methodology, and because readers should be able to judge how seriously we take the practice.

Stage 1: Story selection and source identification

Stories enter the editorial pipeline from four channels:

• Live news cycle. Match results, transfer announcements, press-conference statements, club press releases, league and federation announcements. The cycle is continuous through the football week, with peaks around match days and during transfer windows.
• Established journalism we are tracking. Reporting from Fabrizio Romano, Gianluca Di Marzio, Sky Italia / Sky Sports, BBC Sport, The Athletic, Marca, AS, L’Equipe, Bild, Kicker, Gazzetta dello Sport, Corriere dello Sport, Tuttosport, ESPN, and equivalent established outlets. We aggregate, analyze, and contextualize their reporting; we do not republish wholesale (see Copyright Notice).
• Reader questions and tips. Sent to editor [at] footballinsider [punto] store; we evaluate based on news interest and verifiability.
• Editorial planning — recurring formats (weekend previews, post-match analysis, transfer-window summaries, season-end retrospectives) and longer-form features.

For each story, the writer establishes: what the story is, what sources support what claims in it, what level of confidence each claim deserves (using the confidence-framing scale described on Our Approach), what statistical or contextual material supports the article, and what jurisdictional / competition framing applies.

Stage 2: Drafting (and our AI-assisted workflow)

Drafting at Football Insider operates in two modes:

Standard human drafting

For analysis pieces, longer features, opinion content, and news reports requiring substantive original framing, the writer drafts the article directly. AI tooling may be used in supporting roles (spell-check, source-research assistance, translation of foreign-language source material), but the substantive writing is human.

AI-assisted draft expansion (the FI Quality Booster workflow)

For news reporting that begins life as a brief agency wire or short club statement, we use a documented workflow that uses generative AI as a draft-expansion tool. Specifically:

• The starting input is a short factual report (e.g., a 100-200-word agency wire about a transfer announcement, a press-conference quote, a match result). The factual content of this input is taken as ground truth and not modified.
• An AI model (currently Groq-hosted models with Gemini fallback, depending on availability) is used to expand the brief input into a longer article that adds context, background, and narrative cohesion. The AI draws only on the factual input plus the AI’s general knowledge of football context.
• The expanded draft is reviewed by a human editor for: factual accuracy against the original wire and other reporting; appropriateness of the contextual material the AI has added; voice and tone consistency with the editorial standards; absence of “hallucinated” claims (AI tools sometimes generate plausible-sounding but unsupported claims); confidence-framing language consistent with the source-quality of the original wire.
• The article is published only after human editorial review and any required revision. AI-drafted text that has not been substantively reviewed is not published.
• Where AI assistance has materially shaped the article, an editorial note discloses the workflow.

The full position is documented on AI Usage Policy. The reasoning: agency-wire-driven news reporting is high-volume and low-margin work where AI draft expansion increases coverage breadth and depth without sacrificing accuracy, provided the human review pass is rigorous. We treat the human review pass as a non-negotiable part of the workflow, not a checkbox.

Stage 3: Editorial review

Editorial review is the editor’s pass on the draft. The review covers:

• Editorial-standards compliance per Editorial Standards: source quality matches the claims; confidence framing is consistent; no specific tipster-style claims; no betting-promotion framing.
• Source-tier verification. The article uses sources appropriate to the claims being made; primary sources are linked where available.
• Fairness. Where individuals (players, managers, officials) are subjects of news or analysis, the framing is proportionate and avoids defamatory or character-assassination treatment.
• Hate-speech check. Discussion of racism, homophobia, antisemitism, and similar issues in football is appropriate; promotion or platforming of these positions is not (see Diversity).
• Affiliate/commercial-relationship review. Where the article references commercial partners, disclosures are clear and inline.
• AI-assistance disclosure where applicable.

The editor’s review can result in: publication as-is (rare for substantive articles), revision request to the writer, or rework. Major rewrites are tracked; the original draft is preserved for audit purposes.

Stage 4: Fact-checking

The fact-check is performed against primary sources. Specifically:

• Names of players, clubs, managers, and officials match official sources.
• Numerical claims (goals, assists, minutes played, expected-goals values, transfer fees, contract durations) match the source from which they are claimed.
• Dates and competitions are accurate.
• Quotations match the original source; partial quotes are not used in misleading ways.
• Direct quotations from press conferences are checked against the recording or transcript where available.
• Foreign-language quotations are checked against the original-language source where translation accuracy could change the meaning.
• Statistical claims are anchored to the source (FBref, Opta, club official stats, etc.) with attribution.
• Regulatory references (UEFA FFP, league sustainability rules, FIFA agent regulations) are checked against the current regulatory text.
• For AI-assisted articles, the fact-check is particularly rigorous given the documented “hallucination” failure modes of generative AI in factual-content production.

Errors caught at fact-check are corrected before publication. Errors caught after publication are corrected per Corrections.

Stage 5: Publication and post-publication

Publication includes:

• Author byline and publication date.
• “Last reviewed” date for evergreen articles.
• NewsArticle or BlogPosting JSON-LD schema as appropriate (NewsArticle for tempestive news reporting, BlogPosting for evergreen analysis), with NewsMediaOrganization publisher schema referencing the Trust Project policy URLs.
• Confidence-framing language consistent with source quality.
• AI-assistance editorial note where applicable.
• Affiliate-disclosure notice where the article references products with affiliate relationships.
• Submission to the Google News sitemap (separate from the standard sitemap; articles are removed from the news sitemap after 48 hours per Google’s specification).

Post-publication:

• Reader feedback reaching editor [at] footballinsider [punto] store is reviewed and may trigger corrections, clarifications, or follow-up coverage.
• Story-development tracking. Transfer stories develop; what was a “reported” story can become “confirmed” or “fell through”. Where the development materially changes the picture, a new article or update is published.
• Periodic content audits for evergreen analysis pieces, to identify stale references that need updating.

What this workflow does not guarantee

• It does not guarantee zero errors. Fact-check errors get through; editorial misjudgments occur; AI-assisted articles can include subtle factual errors that survive review. Where errors are identified, corrections follow per Corrections.
• It does not guarantee certainty about transfer reporting or other speculation-prone categories. Confidence framing is the discipline we apply; certainty is not what we are selling.
• It does not eliminate selection bias. The team’s interests and the editorial calendar shape what gets covered.

Related pages: Editorial Standards · Sources Policy · Fact-Checking · AI Usage Policy · Corrections