Sports Journalism Intern

Match reporting is written while the event is still happening and filed within minutes of the finish, which makes preparation and note taking as important as writing.

This task recreates those conditions at home using any broadcast or streamed match.

Choose one full match in any sport, live or recorded, provided you watch it from start to finish without knowing the result in advance.

Prepare before it starts.

Research both teams or competitors, their recent form, the stakes of this particular fixture, and any relevant history between them.

Write a short background note, since this is the material you will need instantly when something unexpected happens.

During the match, keep a running log with timestamps recording every score, substitution, significant decision, injury, and momentum shift.

Note two or three vivid specific details you observe, because these are what separate a report from a scoreline.

At the final whistle, start a timer and write a 500 word report within thirty minutes.

Lead with the result and the single moment that decided it.

Carry the narrative in rough chronological order, but keep the structure weighted so the most important passage gets the most space.

Include at least two quotes from post match interviews if available in the broadcast.

Then, after filing, write a second version without time pressure and compare them.

Write the running copy that a live report actually requires.

At the halfway point, pause the recording and write 150 words as though filing an interim update with the outcome still unknown.

This is genuinely difficult, because it must be complete yet cannot anticipate the result, and it exposes any tendency to write towards a conclusion you have already decided.

Also prepare two alternative openings before the finish, one for each possible result.

Match reporters do this routinely so that the final version needs only minutes rather than a fresh start.

Then compare your two full versions carefully.

Identify what the unpressured version gained in analysis and what the deadline version captured in immediacy that the later one lost, since both qualities matter and they often trade against each other.

Submit the preparation note, the running log, the interim update, both prepared openings, the deadline report with its timestamp, the unpressured version, and a comparison note.

Sport generates enormous quantities of public data, and the most interesting sports journalism often finds the story the scoreline hides.

This task is entirely desk based using freely available statistics.

Choose one team or individual competitor and collect their performance data across at least ten recent fixtures.

Official league sites, sports statistics portals, and published match records all provide this freely.

Build a spreadsheet of the metrics that matter in that particular sport.

Record results alongside underlying performance measures, since results alone frequently mislead over short periods.

Now analyse.

Calculate averages, trends over the period, home and away splits, and performance against stronger versus weaker opposition.

Look specifically for divergence between results and underlying performance, as a team winning while performing badly or losing while performing well is where the real story usually sits.

Test whatever pattern you find.

Check whether it holds across the full period or depends on one or two extreme fixtures, and check for an obvious alternative explanation such as injuries, fixture congestion, or a change in personnel.

Write a 600 to 700 word analytical piece.

Lead with what the data reveals rather than with the numbers themselves.

Support the argument with two clear charts.

Explain the metrics in plain language for readers who do not follow analytics.

State the limitations of your sample honestly.

Be careful about sample size, which is where sports analytics most often misleads.

Ten fixtures is a small sample in most sports, and apparent patterns within it frequently turn out to be ordinary variation.

State plainly in your piece how large a sample you used and what that permits you to claim.

Then seek the counter argument.

Find published analysis or commentary that reaches a different conclusion about your subject, and address it directly rather than ignoring it.

A piece that engages with the opposing reading is far more convincing than one that pretends it does not exist.

Also write one paragraph that a reader who dislikes statistics would still find worth reading, connecting the numbers to something they can see on the field.

Submit the spreadsheet, the charts, the finished piece, the counter argument section, and a note on your verification checks with all data sources linked.

Access to athletes is scarce, so sports writers routinely build profiles from published interviews, records, and archive material.

Doing this well requires research discipline and honesty about what you have not independently verified.

The whole task is done online.

Choose an athlete with a substantial public record: a career worth examining, several published interviews, and documented results.

An established competitor past the early stage of their career works best.

Research comprehensively.

Gather their full competitive record from official sources.

Collect at least six published interviews across different points in their career, since what someone says at twenty and at thirty about the same subject is often itself the story.

Find coverage of their significant setbacks as well as their achievements.

Build a research file with every source, its date, and the specific material you intend to use.

Now identify your angle.

A profile needs a central idea rather than a chronological recital, such as a turning point, a persistent contradiction, or a change in how they approach their sport.

Write a profile of 900 to 1000 words.

Open with a specific moment rather than a summary.

Use quotes from published interviews with clear attribution including where and when they were said.

Support claims about performance with records.

Avoid inventing inner thoughts or motives you cannot source.

Handle archive quotes honestly.

A quote given five years ago in a particular context must be presented as such, not as though the person said it today.

Date every quote in the copy itself where the timing matters, and never splice remarks from separate occasions into what reads as one answer.

Then look for the contradiction.

The most interesting profiles usually turn on a tension between what someone says and what the record shows, or between what they said at different points.

Examine your material for such a tension and build the piece around it if one exists.

Also avoid the trap of writing only what admirers would enjoy.

Include the setbacks, the criticism, and the periods of poor form, since a profile without difficulty reads as publicity rather than journalism.

Submit the research file, the finished profile, and a note identifying the three things you could not verify and would need to ask directly.

A column is not a report with opinions added.

It takes a position, argues it with evidence, and treats the opposing case seriously enough to answer it.

This task is entirely research and writing.

Choose a current debate in sport with genuine disagreement on both sides.

Selection decisions, format or rule changes, scheduling and player workload, governance and administration, or the role of money in a sport are all suitable.

Research the factual position first, before deciding what you think.

Gather the relevant records, rule provisions, precedents, and data.

Read at least four published pieces on the debate, including at least two arguing against the position you expect to take.

Now build the argument.

Write your position in a single sentence.

List your three strongest supporting points, each resting on evidence rather than assertion.

Then write out the strongest counter argument in its most persuasive form, as a weak version of the opposing case makes for a weak column.

Write the column in 700 to 800 words.

Open by establishing the stakes.

State your position clearly and early.

Support each point with specific evidence.

Devote a substantial passage to the counter argument and answer it directly rather than dismissing it.

Close with the consequence of being right.

Finally, write a short note identifying the single piece of evidence that would change your mind.

Separate your opinion from the facts supporting it, clearly enough that a reader who disagrees with your conclusion can still trust your reporting.

Columns lose credibility when the factual passages are shaped to fit the argument, and a reader detects that quickly.

Then write the opposing column in 200 words.

Arguing the other side properly is the best available test of whether your own case holds, and it frequently changes the final piece.

Keep this version in your submission.

Also check your evidence for selection.

Confirm that you have not quietly omitted a fact that weakens your position, and where such a fact exists, include it in the column and explain why it does not change your conclusion.

Submit the research notes, the finished column with sources, the opposing version, the evidence check, and the note on what would change your mind.