Effective date: May 21, 2026 · Last reviewed: May 21, 2026
SportsHighLight publishes sports analysis, not certainty theater. This document explains the editorial standards every piece on the site is supposed to meet, the process a piece passes through before publication, and the commitments we make to readers about how we handle sources, mistakes, advertising, and AI. If you spot a gap between this document and any article on the site, write us at [email protected] — that’s a correction, and we take it seriously.
1. Mission and editorial independence
SportsHighLight exists to write about sports analytics in a way that respects both the numbers and the reader. The goal is to explain what a statistic can tell us, what it cannot tell us, and why the game still has room to be strange. We treat analytics as a way to argue better — not as a way to win an argument by appearing technical.
SportsHighLight is independently operated. We are not owned by, partnered with, or editorially controlled by any team, league, agency, sportsbook, data vendor, or sports-media conglomerate. Where the site displays advertising, those advertising relationships are handled by third-party networks (see our Privacy Policy) and never influence editorial decisions about what to cover, how to cover it, or how to frame it.
2. Sources and verification
2.1 Primary sourcing
Articles use public data sources, official league pages, official team communications, historical statistical references, reputable sports reporting, or clearly labeled direct observation. When a claim depends on a specific number, season, player, team, or match, the article makes the context visible enough that a skeptical reader can verify the argument.
2.2 Rumor vs. report
We distinguish explicitly between verified reporting and circulating rumor. A claim that originates with an unverified social-media account, an anonymous forum post, or aggregated speculation is labeled as such; it does not graduate into a stated fact without independent confirmation from a named, on-the-record source or a primary document. We do not publish “according to reports” without saying whose reports.
2.3 Anonymous sources
Anonymous sourcing is used sparingly and only when the public-interest value of the information outweighs the cost of withheld attribution. When anonymity is granted, the article tells the reader why anonymity was necessary (job at risk, ongoing negotiations, etc.) and what kind of source is being protected (a club official, a former player, a data vendor) without identifying them. Anonymous claims are corroborated wherever possible before publication.
2.4 Citation and linking
External sources are linked the first time they appear in a piece. Statistical sources are named, even when not linked. Quotes are presented in their original context; we do not truncate a quote in a way that misrepresents the speaker’s meaning. When we cite our own prior work, we link to it so a reader can audit the chain.
3. Fact-checking and editorial process
Before publication, every piece passes through the following checks:
- Source check. The editor verifies that every load-bearing claim is traceable to a primary source — an official stat page, a named report, a quoted document, or a direct observation that the writer can stand by.
- Number check. Any statistic in the piece is checked against the cited source. Where a statistic is derived (calculated by the writer rather than pulled directly), the calculation is documented and the method is summarized in-text or in a footnote.
- Context check. The editor asks: what would a hostile reader find missing here? If the answer is “an obvious caveat,” the caveat goes in.
- Headline check. The headline must accurately describe the argument the piece actually makes. Headlines that exceed the article’s own evidence are rewritten before publication.
- Methods sign-off. Any piece that uses an advanced metric (EPA, xG, CPOE, on/off, etc.) is read by the Methods desk lead before publication, regardless of which beat it sits in.
Pieces that fail any of these checks do not publish. They go back to the writer with the gap named.
4. Corrections policy
If a published article contains a material factual error, we correct it promptly, publicly, and dated.
4.1 How to request a correction
Send correction requests to [email protected] with:
- the article URL;
- the sentence or claim in question;
- what the correct version should say;
- a source link if available.
4.2 What gets a public correction
Material errors of fact — a wrong stat, a misattributed quote, a misidentified player, a season confused with another, a misstated result, a number off by a factor — get a public correction. The article itself is updated, and a dated correction note is appended to the bottom of the piece briefly describing what changed and why.
4.3 What gets fixed silently
Typos, link rot, image-load issues, formatting errors, and other non-substantive bugs are fixed silently without a published note. The line we draw: if the fix changes what a reader would understand the piece to be claiming, it gets a public correction. If it only fixes a typo or a broken anchor, it does not.
4.4 Retractions
In rare cases — a piece whose central argument turns out to rest on a falsified source, a fabricated claim, or a fundamental analytical error that survives publication — we retract. A retraction means the article is replaced with an editor’s note that explains why the piece is no longer standing, dated, and signed by the editor. We do not silently delete pieces.
5. Transparency and conflict of interest
5.1 Personal interests
Writers disclose, in the article or in a standing author note, any personal interest that a reasonable reader would want to know about: financial holdings in a team or league asset, family ties to a covered subject, prior employment with a covered organization, or active gambling positions on a subject being analyzed.
5.2 Sponsored, affiliate, and partnership content
SportsHighLight does not accept payment in exchange for editorial coverage. Any post produced as part of a paid partnership — if and when we ever publish one — is labeled clearly at the top of the page with the word “Sponsored,” “Partner content,” or “Affiliated,” and is visually distinguished from editorial. Affiliate links, if used, are disclosed in-page and never determine which products or services are recommended.
5.3 Gifts and access
Writers may accept routine press access (credentials, transcripts, league briefings) on the same terms offered to other outlets. Gifts of value, paid trips, comped subscriptions to commercial data products, and similar offers are declined or disclosed.
6. Use of AI and automated tools
SportsHighLight does not publish generative-AI text as a human byline. Every article on the site is written by a named human editor and edited by a second.
Where AI tools are used in editorial production, they are used in narrow, disclosed roles only:
- spell-checking and grammar suggestions;
- copy-editing assistance (a tool may suggest a tightening; a human decides);
- data wrangling and table formatting from public statistical sources;
- structured summarization of long source documents for the writer’s reading, never for direct publication.
Generative AI is not used to draft articles, write analytical prose, invent quotes, or produce images of real people. If we ever publish a piece in which AI plays a more substantive role — for example, an explicit experiment in AI-assisted writing — it will be labeled at the top of the article. The default assumption a reader can make about anything on SportsHighLight is: a human wrote it, a human edited it, and a human is responsible for it.
7. Plagiarism
Plagiarism — passing off another writer’s words, framing, or analysis as one’s own — is a firing offense. Quotes are quoted. Paraphrases are attributed. When another outlet broke a story we’re following up on, we link to and name them. When another writer’s analytical framing is the reason a piece is even possible, we say so.
If you believe an article on the site plagiarizes other work, email [email protected] with the article URL and a link to the source you believe was lifted. We investigate every such report.
8. Bylines, pseudonyms, and accountability
SportsHighLight uses named editorial bylines for recurring coverage lanes. These bylines represent site editorial lanes maintained through the SportsHighLight editorial process; they are not presented as independent outside credentials unless a profile explicitly says so. The goal is to give every reader a single name to hold accountable for a beat — a person to write to with a tip, a correction, or a counter-argument — while keeping the editorial emphasis on the quality of the work itself rather than on inflated personal claims.
Where a piece is written or reviewed by an externally credentialed contributor (an academic, a former practitioner, a credentialed journalist), that is stated directly on the article and in the contributor’s profile. Bios live on the Meet the Writers page.
9. Opinion, analysis, and projections
Sports analysis is inherently interpretive. Projections, opinions, and tactical readings are clearly distinguishable from confirmed facts in our pieces — via wording, structure, or section headers. If the evidence is thin, the article says so. We do not present a projection as if it were a measured fact, and we do not hedge a clear fact into uncertainty just to seem balanced.
Opinion pieces represent the views of the named byline at the time of writing. They are still edited against the same standards of sourcing and accuracy as analytical pieces; the difference is that the writer’s framing is the point of the piece, not background context.
10. Social media conduct
SportsHighLight writers are public-facing in their bylines. We ask them to be respectful, free of personal harassment, and clear about when they are speaking for the site and when they are speaking for themselves. Critical analysis of public figures’ work product is fair game; ad-hominem attacks, irrelevant private information, and harassment campaigns are not.
If a SportsHighLight writer publishes a public take that turns out to be wrong, we expect them to correct it on the same platform — quietly deleting a bad take is not the standard.
11. Political and controversial topics
Sports intersects with politics, labor, public health, gender, race, and the economy, and we do not pretend otherwise. When a story has a political dimension — collective bargaining, public funding of stadiums, anti-trust litigation, athlete activism, league policy on health and safety — we report and analyze it on its merits, using the same sourcing standards we apply to anything else. We do not import partisan framing for its own sake, and we do not pretend a politically loaded story is neutral when it isn’t.
12. Privacy and the people we write about
Public figures (players, coaches, executives, owners) are reported on with regard to their professional conduct and public statements. Their personal lives, families, and medical history are off-limits unless directly relevant to a story that meets a clear public-interest test. We do not publish private information about non-public figures (relatives, minors, off-duty staff) and we do not link to leaked or hacked content without an independent public-interest justification.
13. Reader complaints and accountability
Every editorial complaint — correction request, accuracy challenge, accusation of bias, content takedown — is read by an editor. Verified factual issues are corrected per Section 4. Disputed interpretive issues are addressed in writing to the complainant, and where appropriate, in a follow-up article. We do not delete or hide reader complaints to avoid responding to them.
Contact channels by category — tips, corrections, pitches, partnerships, press, privacy — are documented on our Contact page.
14. Changes to this policy
This Editorial Policy is reviewed at least annually and updated whenever the editorial process changes in a way that affects readers. When we make material changes, the “Last reviewed” date at the top of this page is updated and the change is noted on our Newsroom page.