- Get Started
Company
Before you put your brand next to an athlete, know what is in their history. The Signing Report reads years of public posts, video and podcast appearances, and public records — and hands you what a reporter would find, before a reporter finds it. Every finding dated, sourced, graded, and read by an analyst first.
NIL moves fast and the vetting usually does not. A name in a search box and ten minutes of scrolling is a coin flip on the one thing that can cost you the partnership, the sponsor, and the news cycle at once. The post that ends a deal is almost never hidden. It is just old, and nobody looked.
A Signing Report is not a list of search hits. It is a structured document — twelve sections, every finding dated and hyperlinked to what it came from, graded before it reaches whoever signs the deal. Click any section in the contents to read it.
Illustrative
The category conflict is the actual risk here. It is current, it is commercial, and it is the kind of thing your existing sponsor’s compliance team finds in an afternoon. It is also the most fixable item in this report — a takedown and a forward-looking clause resolves it.
The old material is mostly what old material usually is. Two posts from ages fifteen and sixteen use language the athlete has not used publicly in five years. They are graded Exposure: Medium because they exist and are retrievable, not because the reviewed record suggests a pattern. Section 10 contains what our own sourcing found on the other side of that.
Athletes carry fan accounts, parody accounts, recruiting-service pages, and namesakes in the same sport. Every account in this report is confirmed on corroborating evidence — a link from a verified roster page, a cross-post from a confirmed account, school or team acknowledgment — or it is excluded, and the exclusion is written down.
This is the section most tools skip, and it is the one that decides whether the rest of the report is about your athlete or about somebody else.
The report names every source run against the athlete and reports what each returned. For a twenty-one-year-old, most record sources correctly return nothing — and the value is in being able to say that with a list attached.
A blank space in someone else’s report could mean nothing is there — or that nobody looked. This section is the difference, and it is why a clean athlete still produces a report worth having on file.
Keyword lists catch slurs. They do not catch a pattern of who someone piles onto, a joke that reads differently in a national context than a group chat, or a repost whose original is the actual problem. The archive is read rather than filtered, and the surrounding thread travels with anything flagged.
| Period | Age | Volume | What the review found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019–20 | 15–16 | 4,100 posts | Two items flagged. Language not used on any confirmed account since. Both graded and dated in Section 07. |
| 2021–22 | 17–18 | 5,300 posts | Nothing flagged. Recruiting-cycle content, team accounts, family. |
| 2023–24 | 19–20 | 3,600 posts | Nothing flagged. Growth in brand and sponsor content begins here. |
| 2025–26 | 20–21 | 1,900 posts | Eleven items flagged — all one commercial category. See Section 09. |
The distribution is itself a finding. Flagged material concentrated in one two-year window five years ago reads differently from flagged material spread evenly across the whole archive, and the report shows you the shape rather than only the hits.
Interviews, press conferences, streams, guest spots, and locker-room video are transcribed with speaker diarization, so a quote is attributed to the person who actually said it. This is the material a text-only screen never touches, and it is increasingly where the problem is.
Every flagged moment ships with its timecode, the speaker label, the surrounding exchange, and a link to the source recording, so nobody on your side is deciding based on a description of a clip they have not watched.
Deletion candidates are identified across the archived post corpus and recovered through public web archives, with the capture linked for every recovered item so you can read the original yourself rather than our summary of it.
| Outcome | Count | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Recovered with capture | 34 | Original text retrievable and dated. Thirty-one are typo fixes, duplicate posts, and deleted replies to accounts that no longer exist. |
| Recovered, flagged | 1 | Carried forward into Section 07 with its capture date and the athlete’s age at posting. |
| No capture exists | ~90 | Not retrievable. Reported as a count and nothing more — we do not characterize content nobody can produce. |
The honest version of this section is that most deletions on most accounts are housekeeping, and when that is what the evidence shows, that is what the report says. A vendor who returns a dramatic deleted-post narrative on every subject is telling you about their business model, not about your athlete.
No finding in this report rests on deleted content without an archive capture, a quality outlet quoting it verbatim, or a timestamped screenshot whose provenance we could establish.
The category that most often creates a real problem is not an old post — it is an existing commercial relationship nobody mapped. Every brand, product, cause, and account the athlete has promoted or repeatedly amplified is listed with dates, then run against the conflict list you provide.
| Relationship | Type | Window | Against your list |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore sportsbook | Paid promotion & affiliate | Ongoing | Direct category conflict |
| Regional QSR chain | Paid partnership | 2024–25 | Expired; no exclusivity carryover found |
| Energy-drink brand | Gifted product, undisclosed | 2025 | Adjacent to your category — worth asking about |
| Local youth foundation | Unpaid, recurring | 2022–present | No conflict. Positive, and usable. |
Before delivery we re-read the sources this report cites and ask the opposite question: what in here helps the athlete? Every item below is a verbatim passage from material this report already uses.
…the account was run by his older brother for most of that season…
From a local-news feature this report cites elsewhere. One of the two 2019 items sits inside that window. It was downgraded from a graded finding to Manual Review before delivery — not after the athlete’s agent raised it in a meeting.
…spoke at three district middle schools about what he called “stuff I posted that I’d take back”…
He has addressed the old material publicly and on the record, unprompted, at age nineteen. If a version of this comes up later, that is the answer — and it is better that you have it now than that you find it in a comment thread.
…the promotion ran through the collective’s group agreement, not an individual deal…
Which changes who you are actually negotiating the sportsbook conflict with. Argue it, do not assume it — the report marks the difference in the sentence itself.
Where a cited source has no full text captured for machine review, the report says “not machine-checked” rather than implying that it was.
| Section | What was searched | What came back | Why a human should look |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post archive | A 2019 item on a confirmed account | Sourcing indicates a family member operated the account in that window | Do not attribute to the athlete. Ask, or leave it out — a wrong attribution here is the kind that ends up in a statement. |
| Circulating screenshot | An image attributed to the athlete on two fan forums | No source post, no archive capture, no provenance | You should know it is circulating. It is not evidence of anything and it is not graded. |
| Records | A minor citation record in one county | Identity not established; common surname, no corroborating attribute | Do not attribute without confirmation, and consider whether it would change anything even if confirmed. |
This is the section that keeps a report honest. Null results, identity-uncertain matches, and anything resting on an unverifiable source route here — never into a graded finding, and never into the bottom line.
Direct captures and primary records first, then named reporting, then aggregators and forum material flagged for exactly what they are. A finding supported only by the third tier is graded accordingly, and the grade sits next to the finding rather than in the bibliography.
Every URL is machine-checked before delivery. A dead link, an archive homepage standing in for a specific capture, or display text that does not match its destination is a blocker rather than a nit.
The report ships as Word and PDF with a standalone bibliography and a one-page summary you can hand to a decision-maker without translating it first. For a roster, the summary is a single comparison page showing which names are clear, which need a conversation, and which need a closer look before you commit.
The vetting most deals get is a search box and ten minutes. This is what the ten minutes misses.
Name, school, sport, and any handles you already have. If all you have is a roster, send the roster. Send your existing sponsor categories too — that is what the conflict map runs against.
Before anything is attributed, every account is tied to the athlete through a roster page, a school release, or a cross-post from an already-confirmed account. Fan accounts, parody accounts, and namesakes are excluded and the exclusions are documented.
The full public post history back to the first post, video and podcast appearances, news and local coverage, web-archive captures, and public records where they exist — gathered into one searchable place instead of twelve open tabs.
The model surfaces candidate moments across years of material. An analyst confirms the account, the date, the age, and the context before anything is written down — and cuts the false positives instead of shipping them to you as volume.
Findings, sources, dates, ages, grades, and a plain recommendation. It goes to you — not to the athlete, not to the school. Refreshed before the announcement if the timeline slips.
A keyword screen is graded on how much it returns. A Signing Report is graded on how much survives — because a list of two hundred hits you have to check yourself is not diligence, it is homework.
Years of posts, hours of video and audio, news and local coverage, and public records run against the athlete.
The item has to come from an account tied to the athlete by independent evidence — a roster page, a school release, a cross-post from a confirmed account. Fan and parody accounts are excluded here, not argued about later.
Retrieved directly, or preserved in a dated archive capture. A screenshot with no provenance is something you should know is circulating — it is not a finding, and it is not graded as one.
A post is not a risk unless it bears on the partnership — the brand, the category, the audience, or the announcement. Padding a report with everything mildly embarrassing a twenty-year-old ever wrote is how vendors hide having found nothing.
Every survivor carries the athlete’s age at the time, the surrounding thread, and anything on the record since that bears on it. A finding stripped of its context is not a finding, it is a screenshot.
What is left carries a confidence badge, an exposure rating, the age at the time, and a recommended use.
Nothing that fails a gate is deleted. It routes to Manual Review Required, labeled with the reason it did not qualify — so your team sees the whole picture and makes the call itself.
Speed is the easy part. These are the mechanisms that make a report safe to base a signing on.
Fan accounts, parody accounts, recruiting pages, and a high-schooler two states over with the same name are excluded before anything is attributed — and the exclusions ship in the report, so you can see what we ruled out.
A finding without an age is a screenshot. Every item carries how old the athlete was when it happened, so proportion is on the page rather than left to whoever reads it last.
Interviews, press conferences, streams, and podcast spots are transcribed and speaker-labeled, so a quote goes to the person who said it and a flagged moment ships with its timecode and the exchange around it.
“We found no record” is a research outcome, not a finding. It routes to Manual Review with a note on what a human should check — instead of quietly becoming something it is not.
Before delivery we re-read our own sources hunting for what helps the athlete, and we print it — including the passages that force us to downgrade or pull a finding we had already written.
This is media and reputation diligence built from public material — not an FCRA background check, and not a substitute for one. We put that in the report itself, not only in a footer.
Everything an engagement hands your team, and how fast each piece moves.
Bottom line, confirmed accounts, coverage and scope, the post archive, video and podcast moments, graded findings, the brand-conflict map, counter-context, and manual-review notes — in Word and PDF.
Days, not weeks
The finding set compressed to a page written for whoever signs off, with the grades and ages intact so nothing reads more alarming than it is. For a roster, one comparison page across every name.
Ships with the report
Archive captures for recovered posts, timecoded links for every flagged video moment, and a standalone bibliography — so your team reads the material rather than our description of it.
Retained and re-queryable
Deals slip and athletes keep posting. The report is refreshed against the current archive rather than rewritten, and it carries a research cutoff so you always know how current it is.
Anytime, all season
Same sources, same gates — a different report depending on who the subject is and what you are about to commit to.
The standard engagement. Run once the deal is real but before the announcement, so anything worth discussing gets discussed in a room with the athlete rather than in a quote-tweet with forty thousand views.
The more common request. Rosters run in parallel rather than one athlete at a time, and you get a single comparison page showing which names are clear, which need a conversation, and which need a closer look before you commit.
The same sources and the same gates run on a signed athlete, ahead of a renewal, a national moment, or a campaign shoot — so you find out what a reporter will find while you still have time to have an answer.
NIL collectives evaluating a signing · brands and agencies before an endorsement · athletic departments and compliance offices · agents who would rather find it first · sponsors reviewing an existing roster · anyone renewing a deal that is already live.
These reports are about people, most of them young, and we write them that way. We report what is public. We date every finding and state the athlete’s age at the time. We say plainly when we are not certain something belongs to the right person, rather than shipping a maybe as a fact.
We do not access private accounts, we do not present rumor or anonymous claims as findings, and we flag when something is old enough or minor enough that it probably should not change your decision — including when that means arguing against a finding we already wrote. A report you could not defend in a room with the athlete in it is not useful to you anyway.
A Signing Report is media and reputation due diligence. It is not a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and it may not be used on its own to make an employment, credit, housing, or insurance decision — those require a licensed consumer reporting agency. Many clients run both, and we will tell you when you need to.
“The post that ends a deal is almost never hidden. It is just old, and nobody looked.”
Send us one name to see the format, or a full roster to see the scale. We will walk you through a real report first — including the sections most screening products do not have — so you know exactly what you are buying.