Mind the gap.
Football has been wrestling with how best to transition players from the academy into the regular first team football for a long time. I recall speaking to the academy director of an English Premier League club in 2008 who lamented the challenge of supporting players between the age of 16, when they signed a professional contract, and 21 when they were, statistically speaking, most likely to make their debut.
The issue is still alive and well, exacerbated by the increase in academies and funding clubs attribute to them. The Scottish Football Association (SFA) last week published a report on the ‘Transition Phase’. An investigation into the reasons why, in Scotland at least, so few players progress from the academy to a career in the top flight. It was compiled after extensive stakeholder engagement including coaches, players and administrators. A link to the report can be found here https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-publishes-extensive-report-on-transition-from-academy-to-first-team-football/?rid=13929.
These reports are not easy to write, nor research. Everyone has an opinion and recommendations must be balanced between what is optimal and what can, conceivably, be achieved. For taking on the challenge, the authors and SFA more broadly are to be commended. That said, there were too many anecdotes and ill formed ideas that provided little or no direction for how clubs might use the report to implement change. Lets start with a paucity of objective data.
Data
The report published by the SFA suggested coaches associate poor performance at first team level with the selection of young, academy graduates. That wins on the board is compromised if too many young players are selected. To counter this notion, FC Nordsjaelland was offered up as an example. FC Nordsjaelland, a Danish team, achieved notable success with a relatively young and home grown team. Readers in Australia may recall the success of the Central Coast Mariners who fielded a young side on their way to winning the A-League.
These examples were used to suggest that a fear of poor performances should not prevent the graduation of academy players into first team football. Unfortunately this message was contradicted later in the report by a table showing the number of minutes played by domestic U21 players per team in the 23/24 season. Three of the six teams at the top of the table (i.e., who had the highest minutes played by domestic U21 players) finished the season in the lower half of the league. Celtic, the eventual winners of the Scottish Premier League, fielded the least number of U21 domestic players, trumped only by Livingtson FC. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Further, a team who fields a side full of young academy graduates and doesn’t refresh its squad will, over time, be viewed as less inclined to promote youth. Equally, just because a player is U21 and domestic does not man they were developed by the club who fielded them at the first team level. These represent known unknowns which, with a more rigorous approach to data collection and analysis, could have been answered in more detail. One could, with the right resources, perform longitudinal (multiple seasons) and cross sectional (multiple leagues) analyses to assess the relationship between success, final league standing and number of playing minutes by academy graduates under a specific age.
A major flaw in the report by the SFA, therefore, was a lack of longitudinal data from its own leagues and clubs. In fact, the data presented did not cover a whole season and was provided by an external source.
This, if anything, should be the lesson for the SFA and national governing bodies more broadly. Creating and maintaining a database of young players registered with the clubs you oversee is crucial to understanding what the normal development journey looks like, if indeed there is one. It should include:
Age at which the athlete entered the academy system and at which club
Training load data, something similar to that proposed by FIFPro in their player workload model
Number of transfers between academy systems and at what ages
Number of loan periods, duration, and club
Age at first team debut and club for whom this was made
I recall debates as early as 2006 in Scotland where questions were raised regarding why there was such a dearth in quality young players being produced by clubs. There was even a live, televised debate on such issue. In that time it appears no data has since been collected to understand the problem in an organised and systematic way.
If this sounds like your club, league or organisation then take heed.
Strategy
The SFA report highlights a key issue in the promotion of young players from an academy system, likely to be true in most clubs. Promoting young talent must be part of an overarching club strategy imposed by the board. Irrespective of the quality and preparedness of academy players, if first team coaches are disinclined to use them, the transition phase will be ineffective.
This may sound counterintuitive. Why would coaches not play individuals who have the potential to make their team better? There are, in fact, lots of reasons. The first is geography. Many clubs have a seperate training base to accommodate first team and academy squads. This physical barrier prevents first team coaches from being able to regularly watch academy players whilst limiting the contact academy coaches have with the manager. For clubs whose teams all train in the same location, different scheduled training times can become barriers to effective communication. Staff are, like ships that pass in the night.
The second is that academies are, by and large, set up to provide a consistent and stable stimulus. They often adopt a playing style that permeates every team in the academy system, dictated by an academy director rather than the head coach of the first team. This, on face value is a sensible approach. It makes sense not to have a strategy for the long term development of young players that is dictated by a role that, statistically speaking, is likely to have a very short tenure. Better to have this overseen by someone with more longevity. The downside is that the type of player and style of play adopted by the academy may be at odds with what the first team coach is looking for.
It would be interesting to know if first team coaches who have been in post for longer and with more perceived job security, give more debuts to younger players. A well defined and rigorous data collection tool within national governing bodies would answer this question.
Finally, risk aversion likely prevents many players from making their debut. Research has shown that we are more risk averse when presented with the chance of losing something we already have compared to the chance of gaining something new. You can’t miss what you never had. The same applies in football. Unless managers are faced with an injury crisis, it is unlikely they will, from choice, displace a seasoned first team player for an academy graduate, irrespective of how much potential they have.
Addressing the root cause
Th SFA, in its report, calls for the entire youth development pathway to be reviewed. A more strategic approach may have considered a review, not of the symptom, but the root cause of why young players are not being given the chance to play first team football.
Sports such as Rugby League, American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Netball and Australian Rules Football, some of which command much higher revenue from TV rights (NFL and NBA), have opted for a franchise system. These leagues has seen no issues giving opportunities to young and talented athletes. They have even developed a system that promotes the signing of young players through the rookie draft. Many will find the mere suggestion of this in Football anathema, however it already happens in Australian and America in the A League and MLS.
One of the great strengths of the American franchise system is that it has created a level of competition at the college level that feeds the professional leagues. The colleges act as academies, allowing athletes to combine an education with competing at a level deemed of a sufficient standard to inform professional clubs of their ability to drafted.
Rugby League in Australia has a similar model that ensures local clubs can field some of the best young talent as they prepare for a career in the National Rugby League. Netball in the UK has taken a similar stance by reducing the number of teams in the professional league, the concurrent reduction in players signed to that league will, it is hoped, strengthen the competitions below it.
If the sanitised world of academy football is not best placed for players once they pass 16 years of age, they need access to a level of competition that befits their talent. The competition needs to allow them to continue their development by being challenged by worthy opponents. The higher the standard, the more confidence coaches in the upper echelons of the game will have that the players can step up.
There is a pressure on clubs also. The environment, coaching and support in feeder leagues needs to befit individuals who represent a significant asset value. The quality of training facilities, medical support and coaching should reflect the standard of players within the competition.
The game needs to work harder to create a pyramid system that is able create competitive tension at every level.
The finances
It was cited in the SFA report that the development of young players who are sold to other clubs is a significant revenue source. Clubs invest in young players in the hope that, if not suitable for their first team, another club will opt to sign them with the transfer fee covering the cost, and then some, of their development.
This, in some cases may be true. The revenue Hearts FC received when Craig Gordon was sold to Sunderland was significant, and well in excess of what it would have cost to train him during his formative years. The same was true of Everton following the sale of Wayne Rooney.
What the report was not clear on, however, was the unit cost of developing players in the academy system; this includes training equipment, kit, transport, coaches, fields, support staff and insurance. Many clubs, especially in Scotland, rely on part time coaches and support staff, which whilst reducing costs, is a false economy. Few businesses would procure an asset with a long term yield only to allow well meaning amateurs to look after it in the intervening years. It would be akin to a venture capital company procuring a technology company and installing an untested and inexperienced board to govern its growth.
The American system is better. Staff in the college system are remunerated to a level where working at that level is a career choice in itself. You don’t need to work in the professional league to earn a reasonable salary and work with talented athletes. The facilities too are of a level that attracts and retains the best coaches and support staff. Whist this represents a bigger expense, it also results in more players graduating to the big leagues and therefore revenue to the colleges and universities. This cannot be said for teams where many Football players are developed. Programmes are often of a lower standard overall than might be experienced at a private school or community club.
The financial imperative for developing players, if one exists, is likely only to be realised by teams in the upper echelons of the game. Players signed by less successful clubs with the potential to play at the top level will move on quickly. This may yield a development fee in return, however, that is unlikely to represent a tangible revenue stream. For academy graduates at teams who play in the lower leagues, the chance of them generating a transfer fee is limited.
The development gap
Irrespective of the sport, when a young athlete is accelerated into adult competition at a relatively young age there will be a gap in their development. In Football, this is pertinent for two sets of players; those who progress to the first team and play, and those who progress and don’t play.
As teams carry increasingly large squads, the number of players with limited game time is also increasing. These players train with the first team squad, are named as substitutes for first team games but do not actually play. Their match exposure is limited to the reserves. Whilst exposure to a first team training environment is no doubt beneficial, there are drawbacks.
Firstly, overall weekly volume is lower than if they remained in the academy or were loaned to a different club. Over time, this results in de-training and stunted development. I have experienced young players advanced into the first team squad whose week looks something similar to the below:
Saturday - on bench for the first team but does not play
Sunday - day off
Monday - light and tactical training ahead of Tuesday reserve game
Tuesday - reserve game (in the evening)
Wednesday - education day (no training)
Thursday - squad training session
Friday - light and tactical training ahead of Saturday first team game
It totals three training sessions (at best) and one game. Most would agree that this falls short of the stimulus required to develop players in their teenage years. It is certainly less than similarly aged peers will encounter in the school system. Clubs can counter this but it requires investment.
Firstly, coaches can be assigned to look after these young players, to arrange additional sessions that develop their fitness and technical skills during individual and small group training. Whilst this represents a cost to the club, it should be viewed as an investment that maximises the value of their asset. Where clubs cannot afford to do this, as may be the case for some in Scotland, the national governing body can step in. Regional centres can provide additional training sessions by coaches employed to look after national age group teams. These sessions would be aimed at players whose development is being compromised because of a lack of resources, facilities or both at their parent club. Providing communication channels are maintained between club and national organisation, there is no reason why this cannot work well.
Secondly, clubs can loan young players. This was highlighted as an effective means of developing young players in the report issued by the SFA. Examples were given of some of the world’s best players and how they plied their trade on loan to teams further down the football hierarchy. Luka Modric was loaned to a Bosnian club at 17 before returning to Croatia at 18, whilst Erling Harland debuted in the 5th tier of the Norwegian league at 14 before progressing to the 2nd tier at 15. This is not, however, a panacea.
Some players may not want to pursue their career in a different country. Scotland, and the UK more broadly has many more player imports than exports. Some of this is the result of players not wanting to live and play in the various leagues across Europe that may provide the perfect environment to fast track their development. This is understandable as the academies that professional clubs operate in the UK are comfortable, close to home and present no language issues.
Further, using the trajectory of only the world’s best players could be seen as cherry picking the data. How many players who have been loaned out at a young age have failed to make an impression in the adult game. I have seen a high number of young players loaned to teams further down the football hierarchy, some with positive outcomes but many more for whom the experience was not a good one. Sport has countless examples of athletes for whom success as an adult did not follow on from success in adolescence.
This reinforces the need for a systematic commitment to player tracking; how many players are loaned each season, for how long, how many games did they play and what is the long term impact, i.e. how many first team games did they play over the next 5 years and at what level. National governing bodies should absolutely be able to answer these questions using data from at least the last 10 years.
Is there an alternative?
In short, yes. Reduce the number of academies. The proliferation of academies has diluted the environment they aspire to create. Young players, in order for each club to field a team at every age group has found themselves recruiting young players who do not display the skill nor commitment to play at the highest level. The supply is outstripping the demand.
Universities faced a similar issue and found a solution. In countries that subsidise tuition fees, the government will dictate how many places can be offered in each course. This is explicitly linked to the size of the industry, number of jobs and demand for skilled people in those roles. It was developed to ensure there was not a glut of students in areas for which there were limited employment options.
National governing bodies should enact a similar initiative by requiring clubs to apply for a license to operate an academy. A strategic approach would see academies in different parts of the country with the number of recruits limited so that only the very best players are selected. Detractors may argue that this approach will miss talent, that is unlikely. Ambitious and committed young players who miss out on selection will be motivated to try harder. Further, fact that there are fewer players in academies means that the standard of club competitions at the junior and grass root levels will improve. Coaches, support staff and officials previously at an academy will gravitate back to their local, grass roots clubs to perform similar roles.
How will academy players transition into a first team environment? A draft system would solve this. All academy players would be eligible to sign for any club under the purview of the national governing body at a pre determined age. In instances where players choose to sign for a club other than the one who has developed them, the transfer fee must include a solidarity payment that covers the expense of their education. In instances where the parent club wants to retain the player for whom a counter offer has been tabled, they would have right of first refusal to keep the player providing they match the offer.
Some will argue this disadvantages lower ranked clubs as they would be less likely to have the finances to support an academy. Not so. The money saved in establishing and running their own academy could be reinvested in the purchase of players developed by others. They would still have the option of scouring the amateur competitions to pick up players for which there would be no development charge. It was interesting that in the SFA report, the older players canvassed, made their debuts lower down the league system at a time when academies were not as prevalent. This should tell us something. Plenty of players have made their way in the game prior to the inception of academies, there is no reason why this cannot be the case in the future.
