Fan Retention: How Football Clubs Keep Their Fans
Reading time:
12 min
Professional clubs do not always need another platform. Often, the bigger opportunity is to fix the handoffs between the systems and workflows they already have.
In this conversation, Bostjan Korosak explains where club data gets stuck, why duplicate entry and disconnected systems create more damage than they seem to, and how a small digital budget should be spent. His approach is refreshingly practical: understand the workflow first, simplify it, then automate or integrate only where it creates clear value.
I usually see two types of silos.
The first is between systems. Ticketing, memberships, the online shop, website, app and CRM may all contain useful supporter data, but they often do not communicate properly. The same supporter can effectively appear as several different people because each system has its own ID, email or history.
The second is more basic, but still very common: paper, Excel and duplicate data entry. Information may start on a paper form, get entered into a spreadsheet, then copied into another system and sometimes printed again. Every handoff costs time and creates another opportunity for mistakes or different versions of the same information.
I don't think there is one universal "cheapest connection". I would first observe the workflow: where is the same information entered twice, where are people waiting for somebody else, and which handoff happens most often?
Then I would simplify that process and fix the smallest high-value part first. Sometimes that means connecting ticketing to a CRM, sometimes replacing a paper form with a digital one, and for a smaller club even a well-structured Excel workflow with clear ownership can be a genuine improvement.
The important thing is to create a cleaner foundation first. Once the workflows and data are understood, it becomes much easier to decide whether the next step should be a CRM, an integration or something custom.
The workflow we have replaced most often is duplicate data handling — information already exists somewhere, but somebody still has to move it manually to the next place.
That can be technical, for example connecting a website, online shop or sports-data provider through APIs so information is processed once and then flows automatically to the right platform or communication channel.
But some of the biggest improvements are much simpler. In youth football, for example, registration details and monthly payment status can still be managed through paper forms, Excel files and phone calls. A parent provides the information, somebody enters it manually, another person checks payments, and a coach may still need to call the office just to find out whether a player is registered or paid up.
A simple digital form connected to one central record can remove much of that work. More importantly, everyone with the right access can see the current information immediately.
We have not always measured the saving as a formal revenue number, and I would rather not invent one. But when a five- or ten-minute task is repeated every week and involves several people, it can easily become tens of hours over a season.
For me, that still understates the value. Automation also means information is less likely to arrive late, get lost on paper or depend on somebody remembering to pass it on. So the benefit is a combination of time saved, fewer errors and making sure the right information is available to the right person when they need it.
With a small budget and one season, I would spend the first part understanding the club before buying anything.
We would look at where staff lose time, where information is duplicated, what is still managed on paper or through phone calls, which systems do not communicate, and where supporters or visitors experience unnecessary friction.
I would then rank the opportunities by more than working hours alone. I would look at how often the problem happens, how many people it affects, the risk of mistakes, the value for supporters and visitors, and whether fixing it can also create commercial or longer-term data value.
I would probably choose a small number of improvements rather than trying to transform everything in one season: at least one that removes a real internal bottleneck, and one that supporters can actually feel. For example, improving the connection between ticketing and supporter communication can make internal work easier while also giving fans more relevant information before and after a match.
I would also simplify processes before automating them. If a workflow contains several unnecessary handoffs, I would first remove the steps that do not need to exist. There is little value in using technology to make an inefficient process run faster.
Where I would deliberately not spend money is on technology simply because it looks modern. I would not start with a new app, a full website rebuild, an expensive CRM or AI features unless the initial review showed a clear problem they would solve.
I also would not replace a system that already works just because it does not connect well with another one. In many cases, improving the integration is cheaper and less disruptive than replacing the whole platform.
By the end of the season, I would want the club to have cleaner workflows, better-connected information, at least one visible improvement for supporters, and clear evidence of what should be tackled next.
What I liked about Bostjan’s answers is that he refuses to start with technology.
That may sound trivial, but it is surprisingly rare.
When clubs talk about digital transformation, the conversation quickly jumps to a new CRM, a new app, a website rebuild, AI, a data platform, or some other piece of software that promises to solve everything.
Bostjan starts somewhere else:
How does the work actually happen today?
Where is information entered twice?
Where does somebody have to wait for another person?
Where does data move from paper to Excel, from Excel into another system, and then perhaps back into an email or phone call?
That is a much better starting point.
Because many of the digital problems inside professional sports clubs are not really software problems. They are workflow problems that happen to involve software.
His distinction between two kinds of data silos is useful here.
The first is the one we usually talk about: ticketing, membership, ecommerce, website, app, CRM and other systems each holding their own version of the supporter.
That creates the familiar fan data problem where one person can effectively exist several times across the club’s technology stack. Different IDs, different histories, incomplete information and no reliable shared view of the supporter.
For anyone working on sports CRM, fan data integration, supporter identity, marketing automation or digital fan engagement, this is a familiar challenge.
But the second type of silo is probably just as important.
Paper.
Excel.
Phone calls.
Manual re-entry.
The spreadsheet somebody created three years ago that has quietly become a business-critical system.
These workflows tend to receive less attention because they do not look like a technology architecture problem. Yet they can create exactly the same issues: duplicate information, inconsistent records, delays, errors and dependencies on specific people knowing where the latest version lives.
Bostjan’s example from youth football is a good illustration.
A parent provides registration information. Somebody enters it manually. Another person checks whether payments have arrived. A coach may still need to call the office to find out whether the player is properly registered or paid up.
There is no spectacular AI use case hiding in there.
A digital form connected to one central record can already make the operation materially better.
That matters because digital transformation in sports is often discussed as if every improvement needs to be ambitious.
It does not.
Sometimes the most valuable sports technology project is removing a five-minute task that several people repeat every week.
A single five-minute task is negligible.
A five-minute task repeated across hundreds of supporters, every week, involving several members of staff, is an operating model.
And that is before considering the cost of errors, late information or somebody simply forgetting to pass something on.
This is why I also appreciated Bostjan’s reluctance to invent a revenue figure for automation.
Not every operational improvement needs to be forced into a questionable ROI calculation.
Time saved has value.
Fewer mistakes have value.
Getting the correct information to the correct person sooner has value.
Reducing dependency on manual handoffs has value.
Some of that can eventually be translated into financial impact, but pretending every workflow automation immediately creates a neat revenue number can make the business case less credible rather than more.
There is another point in his first answer that I think deserves attention: there is no universal “best first integration.”
It would be convenient if there were.
Connect ticketing to CRM first.
Or ecommerce to CRM.
Or app activity to a customer data platform.
But the right answer depends on where the actual friction is.
For one football club, ticketing integration might unlock better supporter communication and more relevant CRM journeys.
For another, replacing a paper process might free several hours of staff time every week.
For a smaller club, cleaning up an Excel process and assigning proper ownership may genuinely be the most sensible step.
That is a useful principle for anyone thinking about football club digital transformation:
Follow the friction before following the technology.
Observe the process, understand the handoffs, and identify the point where fixing something small would have disproportionate value.
Only then decide whether the answer is an API integration, CRM connection, workflow automation, custom software or simply a better process.
This also connects directly to Bostjan’s answer about how he would spend a small digital budget over one season.
He would spend the first part understanding the club.
Again, this sounds obvious until you compare it with how technology is often purchased.
A vendor demonstrates a compelling product.
Someone sees what another club is using.
A new platform feels modern.
The organization buys it.
Only afterwards does the team start figuring out which problem it is actually supposed to solve.
Bostjan reverses that sequence.
Look at where staff lose time.
Find duplicate data entry.
Identify processes that still depend on paper or phone calls.
Understand which systems fail to communicate.
Look at the moments where supporters experience unnecessary friction.
Then rank those opportunities by frequency, number of people affected, error risk, supporter value and longer-term commercial or data value.
I think that prioritization framework is particularly relevant for non-elite professional sports clubs.
Budgets are limited.
Internal technical capacity is limited.
The same people are often responsible for several completely different areas.
Trying to modernize the whole organization in one season is unrealistic.
Choosing two or three improvements that genuinely change the way the club operates is far more credible.
I especially like Bostjan’s suggestion that the portfolio should include both an internal improvement and something supporters can actually feel.
That creates a useful balance.
Pure back-office automation can deliver major efficiency gains but remain invisible outside the organization.
A purely fan-facing project can look impressive while doing nothing to improve the underlying operation.
The strongest projects can sometimes achieve both.
His example of better connecting ticketing and supporter communication is a good one.
The internal team has cleaner information and less manual work, while the supporter receives more relevant communication before or after a match.
That is where fan data integration stops being an IT topic and starts becoming part of the fan experience.
The principle I would probably take most strongly from the whole interview, though, is this:
Simplify before you automate.
I have seen plenty of workflows where automation is discussed as the solution even though the existing process contains unnecessary steps, unclear ownership or duplicated work.
Automating that process can simply make a bad workflow run faster.
Before connecting systems, it is worth asking whether every handoff needs to exist in the first place.
Can a step disappear?
Can information be captured once instead of twice?
Can one system remain the source of truth?
Can somebody access the information directly instead of asking another person to send it?
Those questions are often cheaper than software.
They also make any eventual integration much easier to design.
The same pragmatism appears in Bostjan’s view on replacing existing systems.
A platform does not automatically need to be replaced because it integrates poorly.
That is an important distinction.
In sports technology, rip-and-replace projects can be expensive, disruptive and risky. If the underlying ticketing system, ecommerce platform or membership solution already does its core job well, an integration layer or relatively small API connection may create far more value than migrating the entire organization to something new.
Again, the decision should follow the problem.
Not the other way around.
This is also why I think his answer on where not to spend money is strong.
No new app because apps sound modern.
No full website rebuild without a clear problem.
No expensive CRM simply because having a CRM feels like digital maturity.
No AI feature because AI currently appears in every technology roadmap.
None of those things are inherently bad investments.
They just need to earn their place.
A sports CRM should solve a CRM problem.
An app should solve a supporter or operational problem.
AI should improve a real workflow or decision.
Technology should be judged by what changes after it is implemented.
That may be staff time.
Data quality.
Supporter communication.
Commercial capability.
Fewer mistakes.
Faster access to information.
Better fan experience.
Or a stronger foundation for the next project.
For me, that is the thread connecting all three answers.
Good digital strategy for professional sports clubs is less about having the most advanced technology stack and more about building a setup that the organization can actually operate.
Clean workflows.
Reliable supporter data.
Well-connected systems.
Clear ownership.
Useful automation.
And enough discipline to avoid spending money on technology before understanding the problem.
For clubs working on sports digital transformation, football CRM, fan data management, ticketing integration, API integration, ecommerce integration, workflow automation, sports technology, digital fan experience, supporter communication and operational efficiency, that is a very solid place to start.
The end goal Bostjan describes is also refreshingly tangible.
After one season, the club should have cleaner workflows, better-connected information, at least one improvement supporters can notice, and a much clearer view of what deserves investment next.
That is probably a better definition of digital progress than simply adding another logo to the club’s technology stack.
