It's free, and you can start filling it in today.
Get the Template
The template lives inside my free Analysis and Scouting Toolkit, along with player and team templates to build your first report. Pop your email in and it's yours - no payment, no upsell, no catch.
Get the free scouting report template in the toolkit here.
Take a copy, make it yours, and start filling it in today. You can use it within seconds and adapt it to your own work without asking anyone's permission.
Most good templates in this space sit behind a paid membership or a paid download. I'd rather hand you a professional-grade one for nothing and explain the judgement behind it. That's the part that actually helps you.
What a Scouting Report Is Actually For
A scouting report is a decision tool, not an essay.
It exists to help someone act - sign a player, add them to a monitoring list, or pass. Everything in it should serve that decision. If a line doesn't move the reader closer to a yes or a no, it's decoration.
The people reading it are busy. A head of recruitment goes through dozens a week. A manager wants the shape of the player in thirty seconds. A sporting director is thinking about the squad two years out. None of them are reading for pleasure, and none will hunt through three pages to find out what you think.
That's why structure matters more than length. A good report gives the point in the first half page, then backs it up for anyone who wants the detail. Get the verdict up top and the rest earns its place underneath it.
If you want the full process behind all of this - how to watch a player, how many games, how to think through each judgement - that lives in the how to write a football scouting report companion. This piece is about the template and how to fill it in well.
The Template, Section by Section
Here's each section, what it's for, and what good looks like.
Header and player details
What it's for: context before opinion. Name, age, date of birth, nationality, position and secondary positions, current club, contract expiry, rough market value, and the matches you watched.
What good looks like: factual and complete, no opinion yet. A 21-year-old out of contract in six months is a completely different proposition to a 29-year-old with three years left, and that shapes how the reader reads everything below. Always log which games you watched and whether it was live or video, so the reader can weigh your evidence.
Summary verdict (up top)
What it's for: this is the single most important box. Three or four lines that give the player type, their standout quality, and your recommendation.
What good looks like: someone reads only this and knows what you think. "Left-footed ball-playing centre-back, best-in-class at progressive passing for this level, recommend we sign before his contract runs down." The common mistake is burying the recommendation at the bottom. Put it first. Decision-makers should never have to read to the end to find your verdict.
Strengths and weaknesses, evidenced
What it's for: the case for and against, with proof attached to every claim.
What good looks like: each point says what the player does, how he does it, where on the pitch, and why it matters, with numbers as backup rather than the whole claim. Not "good in the air," and not just "won 71% of aerial duels," but "attacks the near post from set pieces and wins those headers because he times his run late and holds the first defender off - 71% aerial success backs it up." For weaknesses, be specific and constructive: "steps out of the back line too early against a runner, so we get played in behind" tells the reader what, where and why, where "bad defensively" tells them nothing. A report with no weaknesses reads like you didn't watch enough.
Role and system fit
What it's for: can he play the way we play. This is where you connect the player to the reader's team, not just describe him in the abstract.
What good looks like: you name the systems and roles he suits and the ones he doesn't. "Fits a back four that defends a high line and builds short. Would struggle in a low block defending his own box for ninety minutes." A player can be excellent and still be wrong for the club, and saying so is what makes the report trustworthy.
Data snapshot (not a dump)
What it's for: a few metrics that support what your eyes saw, with context.
What good looks like: four to six numbers, each with a comparison, never a wall of stats. "5.4 progressive passes per 90, 91st percentile among centre-backs in this division" means something. The raw number alone doesn't. Data should confirm or challenge the picture you've already painted, not replace it. If you're short on sources, where to find football data covers the free and paid options.
Physical and athletic notes
What it's for: how he holds up physically, which video alone can flatter or hide.
What good looks like: honest notes on pace, recovery speed, strength in duels, and how he looks in the last fifteen minutes. "Comfortable in a foot race, but gets bullied by a physical target man and fades late in games." This section often decides whether a player survives a jump in level.
Risk factors
What it's for: the things that could sink the signing even if the football is right - injury history, temperament, contract and price, and how well he'd adapt to a new country or level.
What good looks like: named risks with a read on how serious each is. "Two hamstring issues in eighteen months, worth a medical flag. First move abroad, so factor in an adaptation period." Clubs sign players, not just performances, and the reader needs to know what they're taking on.
Final recommendation and confidence
What it's for: the decision, restated and rated for how sure you are.
What good looks like: sign, monitor, or pass, plus a confidence level and why. "Sign, high confidence, based on five full matches and consistent data." Or "Monitor, medium confidence, want to see him against a top-six side before I commit." Adding confidence is what separates an honest report from one that pretends to certainty it doesn't have.
A Completed Example
Here's the template filled in on a sample player, an anonymised left-back I'll call J. Moreno, so you can see it used rather than empty.
Header: J. Moreno, 22, left-back / left wing-back, current League One club, contract expires June 2027, est. value £600k. Watched five full matches (four video, one live).
Summary verdict: Attacking left-back who profiles best as a wing-back in a back five. Everything good about him is in the final third - how he gets up the left and delivers - and everything that needs covering is defensive. Recommend we sign as a development-with-upside option, high confidence.
Strengths:
- In build-up he consistently pushes high and holds the width on the left touchline, staying on the last line rather than dropping in to receive. That pins the opposition's winger and frees his own left-sided midfielder to step inside. When play is switched to him he takes it on the half-turn already facing forward, then attacks the outside of the full-back rather than checking back inside, and it's that first drive past his man in the left channel that manufactures almost everything he offers.
- His standout quality is the delivery once he's got there. He doesn't send the same ball in every time - he shapes early to whip it to the near post, but reads when the centre-backs have dropped off and instead cuts it back to the penalty spot for a runner arriving from midfield. He picks the moment, and that decision-making in wide areas is what turns his crossing into real chances rather than balls into the keeper's hands. It held up against better sides too, not just weak ones - away at the league leaders he was still carving out openings from open play in a game his team lost.
Weaknesses:
- When his team loses the ball with him committed high up the left, he's slow to recognise the danger and get back to his line. The space in behind him is exactly where sharper opponents look to attack, and against a quick, direct winger he'll get exposed on the counter. It reads as a recognition-and-recovery issue rather than a lack of pace - he has the legs to get back, he just reads the transition a beat late.
- One-v-one in his own box he over-commits and gets turned on the outside, and because he's so heavily left-footed a clever winger can show him inside onto his weaker side and go past him. It's body shape and positioning more than effort, and it's the clearest reason he needs a system with cover behind him.
Role and system fit: Ideal as a left wing-back in a 3-4-3, where a back three covers the space he vacates and his job simplifies to getting forward and delivering. A liability as an orthodox full-back in a flat back four defending a deep block, where the space behind him would get exposed week to week.
Data snapshot: The numbers agree with the eye rather than leading it - his crossing and ball-carrying output sit near the top of the division for full-backs, while his duel success sits near the bottom, the one figure that echoes the defensive concern. Nothing in the profile contradicts what the five games showed.
Physical: Good top speed and clearly comfortable running up and down the flank for ninety minutes, which the wing-back role demands. He's slight, though, and bigger wingers who back into him tend to win the physical contests. Holds his running late in games rather than fading.
Risk factors: No notable injury history. He's young and cheap, so there's little financial downside. The real risk is system - drop him into a back four and the defensive weaknesses will cost you, so this only makes sense if we commit to a back three that protects him.
Recommendation: Sign, high confidence, as a wing-back with clear development upside. Monitor only if we can't play a back three.
Notice how every point describes what he does, how he does it, where on the pitch, and why it matters - the picture comes from watching him play, and the data only confirms it. The verdict is up top, the defensive concern is stated plainly rather than buried, and the fit is tied to a specific system. That's what makes it usable.
Adapting the Template
The template is a starting point, not a straitjacket.
By position: a striker report leads on finishing, movement, and chance quality. A centre-back report leads on duels, positioning, and buildup. Reweight the strengths and data sections to the position - the headings stay, the emphasis shifts.
By club and level: an EFL club may want a tight one-pager built mostly on video. A data-heavy top club will expect a deeper statistical snapshot and comparison profiles. Read who you're writing for and match their appetite for numbers.
Live versus video: live reports catch what the camera misses - off-ball movement, body language, the warm-up, communication. Video lets you rewind and be precise on numbers and moments. Note which one you did, because the reader weighs them differently, and combine both where you can.
The Mistakes That Get Reports Ignored
Four mistakes get reports skimmed and filed forever.
No verdict, or a buried one. If the reader finishes and still doesn't know what you think, you've missed the point. Lead with the recommendation.
Describing instead of judging. Anyone can describe a player. "He's comfortable on the ball" is a description. "His first pass beats the press and starts our attack" is a judgement. Clubs pay for judgement.
Data dumps with no meaning. A grid of twenty numbers with no comparison is noise. Pick the few that matter and contextualise every one.
Too long. Nobody reads three pages. One to two is the target. If it's longer, you're including things that don't help the decision. For more on how clubs weigh what you put in front of them, what football clubs look for when hiring is worth a read.
Where to Go From Here
A good report isn't about length or jargon. It helps someone make a confident decision, fast, and trust your judgement enough to act on it.
Take the template, fill it in on a player you've actually watched, and you'll learn more from one completed report than from ten more articles about report writing. If you're building these to get noticed by clubs, how to build a football analyst portfolio covers how to put them in public where they count.
If you want more of this, I write a free weekly newsletter on breaking into football, what I'm learning in the job, and what I'm seeing across clubs. Sign up for the Football Progression Path newsletter if that's useful.
And if you want your reports actually reviewed - templates, feedback on your work, live sessions, and a group making the same move - that's what the Recruitment Room is for. Either way, stop staring at the blank grid. Fill one in today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a free football scouting report template?
Yes. The template is free - it lives in my Analysis and Scouting Toolkit along with player and team templates, and you just drop your email in to get it. Take a copy and adapt it to your own work. There's no payment and no upsell. The useful part isn't the blank structure anyway, it's understanding what each section is for, which is why the walkthrough and the worked example sit alongside it.
What should a football scouting report include?
A complete report includes a header with player and match details, a summary verdict at the top with your recommendation, evidenced strengths and weaknesses, role and system fit, a short data snapshot with context, physical notes, risk factors, and a final recommendation with a confidence level. The key is that every section serves the decision. If a line doesn't help the reader decide to sign, monitor, or pass, it doesn't belong in the report.
How do I structure a scouting report?
Put the verdict first, then support it. Start with factual player details, then a three-to-four-line summary with your recommendation, then the evidence underneath - strengths, weaknesses, fit, data, physical notes, and risks - and close with a clear recommendation and confidence level. A busy reader should get the point in the first half page and only read the detail if they want it. Structure matters more than length.
What does a completed scouting report look like?
A good completed report leads with the verdict, then for each point explains what the player does, how he does it, where on the pitch and why it matters, with a percentile or match moment as support rather than raw stats on their own. It flags the one or two numbers that matter rather than dumping them, and ties the player to a specific system rather than describing him in the abstract. The worked example on this page shows an anonymised left-back reported this way: recommendation up top, each strength explaining the how and where behind the number, the weak defensive metric flagged honestly, and the fit pinned to a back three.
How long should a scouting report be?
One to two pages. Decision-makers are busy and read dozens of these a week, so a report that runs to three pages usually gets skimmed or ignored. If you can't make your case in two pages, the problem is normally structure rather than length - you're describing instead of judging, or including detail that doesn't help the reader decide. Lead with the recommendation and keep only what supports it.
How do I adapt the template for different positions?
Keep the headings and shift the emphasis. A striker report leads on finishing, movement, and chance quality; a centre-back report leads on duels, positioning, and buildup; a full-back report weighs both attacking output and defensive recovery. Reweight the strengths and data sections to the demands of the position, and pick the metrics that actually tell that position's story. The structure stays constant so any reader knows where to look, but the content follows the role.