As any modern-day sports fan knows, sport is big business. To many it is a job, a living, and as such some of the joy of playing is squeezed out of what should be a dream job.
In 2010 in the USA it was estimated that the sports industry generated USD$500Billion a year. The spectators alone contributed USD$18Billion to that sum. The incidental sales of merchandise at various events brought in another sum of money in the tens of billions of dollars. So sport really is big business!
Researchers have determined that your earning capacity from sport is clearly linked to whether your team or program is successful or not. Team performance is “a motivator or a constraint” when it comes to consumers shelling out their hard earned money to go and watch an event. A winning team attracts more revenue from not just fans but also sponsors. While winning was found to be a key component when it came to funding and revenue, to a lesser extent fans stated that they wanted to see their team play in an entertaining style.
Vast sums of money across the world are now ploughed into the development of athletes who can deliver victory, and therefore more money and investment. Some are labelled “High Performance Units,” others “Academies,” but all aim for the same outcomes. If an athlete fails to deliver the system spits them out without a second thought.
Russia and the other former Eastern Bloc countries have been credited as being the first to adopt centralised Athlete development models after the Second World War. These proved so successful that they were copied by other nations seeking Olympic Glory, such as Cuba, China, Australia, Canada and the USA. Of course since being adopted by these other nations the real reasons for the success of these programs has come to light; the repeated use of performance and life-changing drugs.
Ironically all of these sporting systems stemmed from the American Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s idea of Scientific Management developed in the 1880’s and 1890s. It came into its own in the 1910’s and was based around the key principles to ensuring success in an industrial environment, which were: “analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste.” Also in the mix was the standardisation of best practices.
The Russians, and in particular Vladimir Lenin initially derided the system, but following the Russian Revolution which brought him to power Lenin did an about turn, and advocated that the nation must adopt such management systems. He even brought American experts to Russia to assist with the implementation. Included was the creation of the “five year plan.” This move led to his successor Joseph Stalin claiming that “the combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism.”
While many of the centralised sports programs that were created following the success of the Eastern Bloc countries were based on these programs, few adopted many of the same structures. However, if you look at the vision statement from the English Premier League’s Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) from May 2011 the Scientific Management principles are evident. It states “The EPPP is a long term plan which promotes the development of a world leading Academy System. It aims to deliver an environment that promotes excellence, nurtures talent and systematically converts this talent into professional players capable of playing first team football at the club that develops them. The EPPP must promote technical excellence and ensure financial viability now and in the future.”
Maybe it is because of the emphasis on money that many centralised programs are now coming under scrutiny. Maybe it is a generational issue, but some countries are witnessing a very strong push back against the centralised programs from their athletes.
One can’t help thinking back to our Podcast#73 in which Brian Fitzpatrick from Headspace talked about creating a culture within a team environment. In particular he talked about how in the Australian Men’s Hockey team, the Kookaburras, they do not talk about ‘sacrifice,’ but of ‘choices.’
How many of the athletes invited to be a part of a centralised program are forced to take part in it? In some countries this is very much the case. In fact it is incredibly hard to leave the program, as your family are given a home on the back of the athlete being a part of the program. This is sadly becoming prevalent now in England with football clubs offering incentives to parents to have their child sign with a certain club, they in turn receive a car and other perks when the child does sign. The pressure that this puts on the individual athlete is immense, as suddenly in their teenage years they are supporting their family. Is it any wonder that many crash and burn in their sporting career, or simply fall out of love with the game that they are playing? In many programs where the athletes have been identified at a young age they have never even had a boyfriend or girlfriend.
Most athletes in Western Countries are however given a choice. They are invited to become a part of the program. A chance to be one of a very small percentage who may go on to represent their country at international level, attend a World Cup or an Olympics. Something that many claim they would give their eye-teeth to be a part of. Yet few would survive in such a highly charged environment.
Away from sport there are many people who have career ambitions. They want to achieve in their given field of expertise. In many cases there will come a time when they will be forced to make a decision as to whether they are prepared to move company, city, state or country to realise those dreams, the choice is theirs to make. Is this not the same for an athlete that wants to be a part of the International sporting landscape?
There are many in the general workforce who will opt to stay where they are. The life they have created is the one that they will settle for rather than the upheaval of the unknown. In many cases family will play a big part in that decision process. If they move, their familial support may not be there. It is worth noting that with communication the way it is today, it is far easier to stay connected than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
The same is true of athletes, many extremely talented sportsmen and women, choose not to be a part of an elite program. For some the idea of having to play a game they enjoy every day has no appeal. To others they are simply not that committed or that interested. They have the talent, but that talent has always been there and they would rather live the life they have and play with their mates, and have a beer after the game with them. Top flight sport is not for everyone.
Like anyone who wants to excel in their given field it takes a great deal of commitment on behalf of the athlete. Regrettably today we are seeing coaches trying to identify talented players at younger ages, and the decision to commit is often being made by the parents and not by the individual. It is the parent who is fulfilling their dream through their child. This cannot be good for anyone involved. There are tales of children doing their homework on the backseat of their parents cars as they drive them to and from training on a week day, is that really the best for your child? Is it any wonder that many burn out, or end up with mental health issues later?
If a centralised program is to take in young players before they turn eighteen, and some would say maybe even up to twenty, should there be a duty of care on behalf of the sport or club taking them in?
The Australian Institute of Sport’s football program used to focus on developing players for the national under 20 side. It ‘polished’ young talent and prepared those players for a career as a professional footballer, and nearly all when they graduated went back and played for their club sides in the National Soccer League. (Podcast #78) Even in that era there were some players who headed overseas at a young age, such as Harry Kewell, Mark Bosnich and Tim Cahill, but the majority stayed and ‘learnt their trade.’ They would head overseas at a later stage, when they were a little bit older and many of those went on to form what has been labelled ‘the Golden generation.’
Around ten years ago a decision was made to lower the age of those entering the AIS program. The focus was now on producing talent for the Australian Joey’s, the under 17 program. The players played in the National Youth League against players from the A-League youth development sides aged up to 23 years of age. As soon as that change was made the team ceased to achieve in the competition. In 2010/11 the side finished fifth, after that they finished in the bottom three of the ten-team league in every season, and last on four occasions in the six years until it was closed down; two of those last places were when the league switched to a conference format.
Some players who attended the AIS at that time will tell you they hated it. Some went out of their way to get thrown out of the program, as they feared that if they quit that would end their career. They still wanted to play football, but could not cope with the environment. Here was a centralised program that many before spoke of in glowing terms, and how it helped make them professional players, now having the opposite effect. Was this because the players were too young? Was it because the choice to attend had been made by their parents and not them? Was it the lack of support in the absence of their parents? Most likely it was all three.
Many of these centralised programs when questioned about the well being of their athletes will tell you that they have nutritionists and sports psychologists and others to look after the players, but is that what they actually need? Are not all of these support mechanisms performance related rather than athlete well-being related?
In years gone by, football clubs rather than putting players up in hotels would find them families to stay with, just as George Best famously stayed with Mrs Fullaway when he joined Manchester United as a teenager. Here he lived with another player who would go on and be a star for United, Dave Sadler. As Best admitted, Mrs Fullaway was like a ‘second mum.’ In that era most football clubs made their unmarried young players stay in similar places, as it ensured that they were eating properly and also had a surrogate family to support them.
This would appear to have been one aspect of recruitment the clubs in that era did get right. While many of today’s athletes in centralised programs are either housed together, or move out into a house together is this really the best for them? How many of us want to go home at the end of the day and sit around with the people we worked with all day?
We must never forget that these Athletes are human, they bleed, they cry and they have the same emotions as the rest of us. While they strive to be the best they can and may miss out on many things that the rest of us take for granted. Which means that it is important that they do not lose the joy of playing the sport they have chosen, or miss out on the enjoyment of their youth.
So should children be put into such a ruthless unforgiving system before they can make that decision themselves? If an athlete is offered the opportunity to play at the highest level, should not they be the ones who make the choice as to whether this is ultimately what they want? If they make that choice the support has to be there for them to achieve, just as it would be in any major corporation to give them the best chance of success. Sadly in some sports, unlike the general workforce, the financial rewards for such dedication and commitment are not there. While in other sports the rewards are now at the other end of the spectrum.
While sport may be big business, and business principles apply, when running the revenue side of sport the same principles often do not always apply to the athletes.
What is also regrettable now is how many involved in the development of athletes are being drawn into the business side of sport. Here is an extract from a job advertisement for a High Performance Director and the expectations: “driving for results, coaching, decision making, tenacity, delegating responsibility, planning and organizing, aligning performance for success, leading through vision and values, building trust, building a successful team, gaining commitment, facilitating change, athlete focus, continuous improvement, continuous learning, adaptability (general managerial).” Some would say that such a list lacks clarity!
As one qualified coach who walked away from the sport they loved explained, the job is no longer just about making people the best they can be. They explained that they were spending more and more time behind a desk doing paperwork rather than doing what they felt they were good at and had been employed to do. Which was put together the best team, one that was capable of success.
This is where many of these Centralised programs have started to become unstuck. The administrators have failed to create a systematic organisation that maximises the talents of those employed to carry out set tasks. It has been said that in today’s sporting world ‘coaching’ is all about development; which in itself is a far-reaching word. Development can be all encompassing, from overseeing a training program to fully supporting all aspects of an athlete’s life. Ironically this then takes us back to the coaching model developed in former Eastern Bloc sport systems.
While those involved in the management of sport will advocate that the centralised High Performance program is ticking all of the boxes it is important to look at which boxes they are referring to. Let us refer back to the statement from the English Premier League’s Elite Player Performance Plan, “It aims to deliver an environment that promotes excellence, nurtures talent and systematically converts this talent into professional players capable of playing first team football at the club that develops them. The EPPP must promote technical excellence and ensure financial viability now and in the future.” You read this statement and you realise that it is all about money. The players are commodities, they have been dehumanised. If they fail to give value to the system, the system will spit them out. There is not even a support network when they leave that system.
The debate over centralised programs will no doubt continue to rage. There will be some who like it and some who won’t. This is when the individuals have to make a choice as to whether this is the career they want. If the system is continuing to deliver results why would you change it? Football in Australia made that mistake, and is now playing a heavy price with not just their national team, but also their national competition. Some would say that the lack of development at the highest level has once again put the game into financial jeopardy,
The key is to evolve. Just as the successful businesses move with worldwide trends, so too does the central program have to have flexibility to also move with changing attitudes and structures. Those that have that ability will see more athletes stay the course and be happy in that environment, and with that in time will come success, and success is the key individually and collectively. For success as mentioned at the beginning is ‘a motivator’ to consumers. It is success that drives the revenue on which sport survives.
