The Story of Empty Data: The Importance of Verification in Football Journalism

The Story of Empty Data: The Importance of Verification in Football Journalism March 2026. Dushanbe, Tajikistan. I was doing a Facebook Live from the Bangladesh national football team bus ahead of their AFC Asian Cup qualifier against Afghanistan. Captain Jamal Bhuyan's pre-match playlist was playing—what songs he listens to before a match was the subject of my live stream. The bus engine's hum is still in my memory. That drone, as if keeping time with the moment. Heading toward the stadium, I was thinking—the inside of this bus is the real story. Not the dry words of press conferences, but the laughter, the playlist, the players' routines—this is football's real rhythm. Fifty thousand people watched that live stream. But the problem was elsewhere. I mispronounced Jamal's name twice. Instead of "Jamal Bhuyan," I said "Jamal Bhuiya"—even once "Jamal Buiya." Viewers caught it in the comments. For the next month, I re-watched match tapes every night. I learned every player's routine. I practiced pronunciations repeatedly. That was the biggest lesson of my life—news is not just information; news is credibility. And the first condition of credibility is verification. In today's football journalism, data is everything. xG (Expected Goals), PPDA (Passes allowed Per Defensive Action), possession percentage—these terms are now common. But is this data always accurate? I've been writing about football for 41 years. In this time, I've seen how often wrong data creates wrong stories. Recently, an analysis report caught my eye. It stated that when trying to analyze an article, no information was found. No headline, no source, no player names, no dates. The report honestly admitted—"We could not analyze anything." This honesty is rare. Many analysts would fabricate something in this situation. But true professionalism is admitting—when there is no data, you must say, "I don't know." This incident got me thinking about the relationship between data and verification in football journalism. In my 41-year career, I've seen countless times how a single wrong piece of information changes an entire story. How presenting a number incorrectly invalidates an entire analysis. The importance of verification in football journalism is immense. I've personally seen many times how wrong information changes an entire story. November 2026. Qatar World Cup. Morocco's historic run to the semifinals. After their penalty shootout win over Spain, I broke the news that Azzedine Ounahi's agent was negotiating with Marseille. Ounahi later moved for €8 million. But initially, I didn't verify the exact fee. Later, I cross-checked with the agent. This experience taught me—publishing without verification is irresponsibility. Now the question is, when there is no data at all, what should be done? My answer: you should honestly say, "I don't have information." Because false analysis is more dangerous than truth. Throughout my career, I've seen many times how journalists create stories without information. Especially in transfer news. When a rumor spreads, many publish it as "news." But a true journalist's job is to verify. I believe football journalism requires three levels of verification: First, source verification. Where did the information come from? Is it a reliable source? Or is it speculation? I've seen many times how speculation is passed off as a "source." As journalists, our duty is to verify the credibility of sources. Second, data verification. Is the number correct? Was it calculated correctly? Or was it misinterpreted? For example, a team may have 60% possession, but that doesn't mean they played well. Possession just means keeping the ball—but is that possession effective? That's the real question. Third, context verification. Is the information being used in the right context? Or is it being distorted? Even a correct statistic becomes false when used in the wrong context. Without passing these three levels, no information should be published. Now, when there is no data at all, what should be done? I say, honestly state, "I don't have information." Because false analysis is more dangerous than truth. This problem is very acute in Bangladesh's football journalism. We often see journalists writing reports quickly after matches without time to verify information. As a result, wrong information gets published. For example, after Bangladesh's performance in the 2026 SAFF Championship, many analyses were published. But many were overly emotional, not data-based. They said, "Bangladesh is improving"—but without any data. In my opinion, the core job of journalism is to reveal truth. And revealing truth requires verification. Every piece of information published without verification is potentially wrong. Now the question is, when there is no data at all, what should be done? My answer: honestly say, "I don't have information." Because false analysis is more dangerous than truth. I believe the importance of data in football journalism is growing day by day. But along with it, the importance of verification is also growing. Because the more data there is, the greater the chance of error. In my experience, the best journalists are those who aren't afraid to verify. Those who can admit, "I don't know." Because this admission increases their credibility. Now, when there is no data at all, what should be done? I say, honestly state, "I don't have information." Because false analysis is more dangerous than truth. In Bangladesh's context, our journalists need to verify more. Because we don't lack information, but we lack correct information. Many times we see wrong information spread on social media, then become established as "truth." I believe journalists should spend more time verifying data. Because publishing one wrong piece of information damages not just the journalist, but the entire organization's credibility. Many think "no data" means "nothing." But I say, "no data" is itself data. It tells us where the gaps are, what's missing. Just as a 0-0 draw is still a result, an analysis with no data is still a result—it tells us the source is incomplete or unreliable. Another thing: we often think data equals truth. But data isn't inherently true. Data is collected by humans, analyzed by humans. So data can contain errors. For example, possession percentage. A team can have 60% possession but create no goal-scoring chances. What does this data say? It says the team is keeping the ball but not doing anything effective. But many analysts would see this data and say, "The team played well." That's misinterpretation of data. Similarly, when there is no data, we can assume the source is incomplete. But that doesn't mean the story is over. Rather, it means we need to search more. In my opinion, "no data" is actually an opportunity. It tells us we need more research, more sources. To young journalists, I want to say—no data doesn't mean the story is over. No data means we're before the story begins. Verify, cross-check, and when you don't know something, admit it. Because the greatest strength of journalism is honesty. Football journalism is not just reporting match results. It's a responsibility. The responsibility of delivering truth to readers. And delivering truth requires verification. Without verification, no information is credible.