Most applications we get fall into one of two buckets. About a quarter we’d commission from tomorrow. The rest are friendly but don’t quite fit the editorial bar we work to. Here’s what we’re actually looking for, in order of weight.
1. Real specialist knowledge
The biggest UK sports publishers have generalists by the dozen. Where we win is having writers who know one sport deeply enough to spot what generalists miss.
A boxing writer with contacts at gyms, judges and managers will out-earn a generalist writing across five codes by 3-5x for the same volume, because the work is better and the briefs are stickier.
“Specialism” doesn’t have to mean a press card. It means you genuinely follow a sport at the level a serious fan would, and you can write about it with specific, accurate detail.
2. Consistent capacity
If you tell us you can produce four pieces a month, we plan around that. Contributors who routinely deliver what they committed to get more briefs over time. Contributors who flake on the third one don’t get a fourth.
Better to set capacity low and deliver every time than promise high and miss.
3. A distinct voice
The network sites compete with the biggest UK sports publishers. To win readers there, the writing has to be good, not just adequate. Tight, specific, with a point of view.
You can be funny, dry, analytical, contrarian, romantic. You can’t be generic.
What we don’t weight much
- Years at a major outlet. Useful, not required.
- Twitter follower count. Doesn’t translate to traffic on our sites.
- Multiple sports covered “well enough”. We’d rather you do one sport brilliantly.
- A personal blog last updated in 2019.
If you’ve been writing about a sport you actually care about, even just on Substack or a fanzine, that’s almost always more interesting to us than a CV.