An analysis of organizational structure and transition outcomes in the youth-to-senior professional soccer transition — Part two.
In the previous article (click here to read part one), we discussed a study conducted by Dr Robert Morris exploring the youth-to-senior transition in professional football (if you’d like to read the study in full you can do so here [an academic login is required]). In part two of this series I describe Organisation B’s approach to supporting the junior-to-senior transitions and in particular, the demands, resources, and barriers experienced by the players.
Organization B
There were limited data implying that Organization B’s transition program recognized and responded to the elements presented in Stambulova’s (2003) model to the same extent as Organization A. Transition demands In contrast to Organization A, there was limited evidence in the club’s committee meeting minutes to imply Organization B’s demonstrated an understanding of transition demands, an observation supported by the interviews (see Table 1). A senior team coach explained,
It’s not something we have tended to pay much attention to. The academy manager suggests that the players we want are the ones who are able to deal with whatever is thrown at them, rather than us helping them through it. …He says that they are not going to get help all the way through their career, so they need to learn how to deal with that now.
Similarly, one of the players who moved up to the senior squad suggested that he was completely unaware of the demands he was likely to face when moving up, saying, “No one really spoke to us about the demands or whatever, it was more a case of deal with it.” In addition, the parents interviewed suggested that they were unsure of what their son was going through when moving up to the first team and had no concept of how they could help:
We have heard nothing from the club, it’s all seems a bit unclear and they don’t always seem to know what they are doing. I think there are obvious things that could be demands, like the pace and fitness of the guys in the first team, but I am only guessing, surely the boys should be told?
Awareness that the youth players needed to establish themselves in the first team was shown, however. Prior to moving up to the first team permanently after the summer break, players were given opportunities to train with the first-team squad once or twice a week, 2 or 3 months before their summer holidays. This exposure was designed to “allow the players to settle in better and establish themselves a bit more before they move up,” according to one academy coach. He also explained that the exposure allowed the club to assess earlier if players could handle the expectations and demands. He also said discovering which youth athletes were unable to manage the transition could save the club money, because the club would not offer them contracts. Athletes suggested that this introduction helped them assess their ability and fitness levels. A player said, “It made me realize that if I did move to the first team, I wasn’t going to be like a fish out of water and struggle to handle it.” This quote again highlights the potential value of a staggered entry system, similar to that used by Organization A.
Transition resources
In contrast to Organization A and the use of multiple sport scientists to support all age groups, Organization B had two sport scientists to work with every club squad, including the youth teams (see Table 1). An academy coach suggested that this situation resulted in the academy players being left behind because “they aren’t the priority, the first team are.” Similarly, one of the youth team players interviewed suggested that this lack of sport science support felt like an oversight on the part of the club:
It suggests the club don’t understand how important being physically fit at that age can be to their players. If they had fitter and better prepared players, perhaps they would cope better in the senior team, the boys all seem to get swamped physically when they move up, which isn’t fair on anyone.
In addition, Organization B did not appear to use other social support sources, such as parents, to help athletes. One parent suggested he had no concept of how to support his son through transition, saying, “We [the parents] don’t get any help to support our son, we don’t know how to do it or what to say when he comes back feeling down after a hard session, so I don’t think we do support him properly.” They also added that they had never felt they could be a resource, because of this lack of club support. This dialogue highlighted that the parents wanted to support their son, but because they did not receive advice or support from the club, they could not do this appropriately. This is in contrast to Organization A, which helped parents support their sons through the transition to senior sport. Transition barriers In contrast to Organization A, Organization B did not show an understanding that a lack of appropriate resources may hinder transition (see Table 1). As discussed previously, there was a lack of social support given to the players moving from youth to senior sport. When this support is given to the players, it could be classed as a resource. In contrast, when this social support is not given to players, it may be understood as a barrier to successful transition. A youth team coach suggested that any support was largely provided by the coaches:
We don’t really use much in terms of supporting the players apart from us coaches. We can do most of the work required, like the fitness training and the like. With the amount of money and stuff that we have to work with, it’s a case of us doing a lot of the work and it works well.
His view contrasts with another youth team coach, who said,
We, as coaches, need to realize our limits and bring in people like fitness coaches, and psychologists, people who can help these guys better than we can. Most of the other guys here don’t understand that.
In addition, one coach suggested that a lack of technical knowledge may hinder athletes moving to senior sport, saying, “Without the knowledge of their position, they will have a difficult time.”
Comparisons Between Organizations A and B
As just presented, there were differences between Organizations A and B in terms of the way they approached the youth-to-senior transition. Table 2 highlights differences in transition outcomes, using measures such as player retention and dropout rate, which may illustrate the effectiveness of the two programs. The results in Table 2 suggest that these clubs have different outcomes when talent development rates are compared. Organization A engenders more successful transitional outcomes, as evidenced by a greater percentage of players transitioning to first-team soccer, remaining in the sport, more first-team appearances by transitioned youth players, and greater value obtained on sale of their former youth players. This is despite the club spending less money on their youth development setup.
In examining Organizations A and B, some suggestions of best practice emerged that may support previous literature and offer guidance to practitioners, coaches, teams, and clubs. Organization A, for example, took a proactive approach to discovering what factors influenced the youth-to-senior transition, creating a list of variables believed to contribute to the move. Many of the factors on this list paralleled previous studies and Stambulova’s (2003) model (e.g., physical demands). Previous literature has discussed sporting organization’s obligations to support athletes’ career transitions, particularly around retirement (e.g., Fleuriel & Vincent, 2009), but the current study is among the first to investigate how these responsibilities may be enacted at the youth-to-senior level and the possible consequences. Organization B did not believe they have an obligation, a viewpoint in contrast to much of the literature in the area (e.g., Bruner et al., 2008). The current study implies a proactive approach to supporting transitions may yield positive consequences.
The current study adds to previous literature regarding coaches’ role in the youth-to-senior transition. Previous work and theory, for example, has implied that coaches can provide support, which the current study echoed. The current study also poses questions regarding the limits to which coaches can provide support, or when they provide assistance beyond their expertise. For example, some coaches in Organization B implied they could offer much of the support provided to athletes (e.g., sport science support), although this was not echoed by all coaches interviewed. This view was in contrast to Organization A, who employed a number of specialist sport science supporters. Perhaps by providing this specialist support, Organization A is providing better assistance to the athletes moving to senior sport. The players may be receiving a more complete/comprehensive package of specialist knowledge and experience, which one individual may not have.
As a third example, both organizations used a staggered introduction into the senior team as a way to help players, albeit for different reasons. Bruner et al. (2008) implied that previous exposure to senior sporting environments may have a positive effect on the transition experiences of youth athletes. The results of the current study parallel Bruner et al., implying that this type of entry into the first team helps athletes transition into senior sport. The athletes suggested that a staggered approach gave them the opportunity to assess their ability level against those they will be training with and integrate themselves into the squad. Of note, there was some indication that Organization B was using this staggered introduction as a further way of assessing player ability; such a message may undermine the utility of helping youth players feel comfortable in that environment.
In addition to supporting players, Organization A supported parents, educating them on the ways they could help their sons. The current study has helped to examine why educating parents may help athletes adapt to the transition. Athletes in the current study suggested that knowing their parents were informed about the youth-to-senior change helped them feel relaxed about the process and able to talk to their supporters. A similar finding emerged with coaches. In Organization A, where the coaches were taught about the youth-to-senior transition, athletes suggested that they felt more relaxed about the transition.
Finally, one coach in the current study highlighted that when players experience negative responses from the fans after moving up to the first team, they may struggle to become a successful athlete. Tauer, Guenther, and Rozek (2009) implied that crowds at home were predominantly supportive of home team athletes. Although more research will add depth to the current findings on fans’ influences on athletes moving into senior sport, and how to provide players the best support, perhaps playing them at home in their first match may help them adjust.
Follow The Regista both here and on Twitter to stay up-to-date on all new articles.
Click here for more articles.
