Which drone for filming football practice?

[PhantomFandom]

Not if it's for his personal use and just a teaching tool . no money exchanges hands no 107 needed

Money does not have to change hands in order for it to be considered commercial usage. If the video helps a commercial entity or business in any way then it is covered by Part 107. In this case it is a bit on the edge. If this football club is a non-profit and the video is being used only internally for teaching then it may just be OK without Part 107. However, if the club were to use the video on their website or show it to prospective players then you cross over to commercial since you are using the video to drive business.

Even using it as a teaching tool would fall under Part 107 if the players are paying the club to play there. In that case the video is helping the club achieve a commercial goal (the players are paying to be there so it is commercial).

 

[African wildlife]

I think that there is a place for both. The ground level cameras and tripods will get you the fine details as you mentioned. However if you want to review tactical plans and alignment/positioning on the pitch then there is nothing like an aerial view. You can position the drone off of the touch line at midfield and get a great perspective of the pitch from the proper altitude. The drone is not that loud once it gets to altitude and it won't disturb anyone. Just make sure you are not flying over any players, coaches, or spectators and you're fine.

The other benefit is that these may be leagues with limited funding. Buying these dedicated cameras for only this specific purpose may not make sense for them. A parent or coach that already has a drone can volunteer to take video with it and there is no cash to lay out. Be careful though. If the team takes in any sort of income (not even related to the aerial footage) or the parent decides to charge for the service then you must be Part 107 licensed. Also I would highly recommend having liability insurance no matter what.

Getting a drone would be the expensive option. i repeat, it would add very little of value. It's a gimmick. Getting a view from a higher elevation is usually easy, without needing a drone.

The noise from a drone would be discernible. And I'm deaf in one ear and partially deaf in the other.

I've never flown a drone for pleasure. I would be extremely surprised if a drone was used by any (or hardly any) professional sports outfit for enhancing performance. I have 33 years of professional photography experience, as well as limited film making.

To Bearcat1: I would suggest caution with regards to the enthusiasm shown by hobbyists. To repeat, as I've seen in the field of nature conservation for the past 10 years or so since the rise of widespread drone availability, people get carried away with the "possible" use of drones only to find - much to their disappointment - that it's very limited in the real world. But don't take my word for it: get someone with a video camera and someone else with a drone, putting both to the test. Try before you buy, as disappointment has a price.