TOO MANY CLUBS, NOT ENOUGH TEAMS?

It seems to me that there are lots of clubs, which have only one or two teams and which are based in close proximity to other clubs with a similar small number of teams.
The landscape of English Grassroots football, certainly in the corner of the South East where I live, seems to be one of parochial interest and almost tribal rivalry, at times.

HOLLAND

Having taken an educational trip to Holland around 3 years ago, I was delighted to see clubs local to a community (rather than a street or two) with huge numbers of teams and literally hundreds of playing members. The playing membership covered the full scale from young beginners to veterans’ teams providing football for both sexes of all abilities.

Some of the coaches were volunteers but at the ‘top’ end of the club, a semi-pro team with paid coaches showed the very professional approach they took to development of the club and its people.

I have a friend who has a similar tale to tell of France. Community based programmes with multiple teams, graded for ability within each age group which caters for the social or ‘recreational’ player and the more serious players with equal enthusiasm.

TIME FOR A CHANGE?

I understand that the evolution of grassroots and semi-pro/senior non-league football in England (I can’t speak for Scotland, Ireland or Wales but please post a response if you can add to the discussion) has been different to that on the continent but is it time for a conscious change to how we do things?

Senior non-league clubs often have a first team, reserves, U18 and maybe a U16 team but not often anything ‘below’ them. Conversely, junior clubs have lots of teams from, often, U6s and upwards to U15 / U16 but nothing else at the older ages.

Could all of football benefit from a specific combination of the two elements described to share resources? Resources in the form of funds, equipment, expertise, facilities and so on.

With multiple teams at the same age group and graded according to ability, I believe coaches and parents would be able to include MORE players at a competitive level suitable for the players’ point in their development at that time.

A FLAWED APPROACH?

At the moment, in recreational clubs with only one team at an age group, the temptation, certainly at least when teams get to 11 a side at U11 (don’t get me started !) is to give the less well-developed players less game time than their more developed team-mates.

The consequent result to that strategy, of course, is that the less well-developed players have their development and, sooner or later no doubt, their enthusiasm stunted. This is, of course, a flawed approach. Often, it is shown, that people (players) who take longer to learn something are better at that thing in the long term – it seems that the skill is better embedded. But with only one team, will the late developer get the chance to develop at all – or will they be lost to The Beautiful Game?

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

Now, with MORE teams in a club, we can start to play more players in games (as well as practice) more of the time. So everyone develops; they maintain their enthusiasm for and involvement and participation in the game for longer and which hopefully has benefits for society at large – contributing to a healthier nation. A by-product of keeping more people in the game for longer, of course is that the late developers come through and, you never know, may even become an international.

I believe we need to make a determined move towards the continental model I mentioned above.

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

Certainly in these recessionary times it makes fiscal sense to pool resources. But for volunteers it would mean spreading the load and getting personal and family time back in the weekend / evenings. It would help clubs to develop both the individual volunteers but also the collective and cumulative knowledge that the volunteers have and, I believe, provide a much more valuable resource for the community at large than does the fractured approach we take at present.

A bit like a company in the world of business which works to improve its service to customers and enhance its corporate knowledge it grows, develops and becomes stronger through mergers and sometimes acquisitions of smaller groups which are not so stable.

INVALIDATING HISTORY

I know that the feeling of people within clubs which merge or are taken over is that everything they strived for, everything that they achieved over the years is somehow invalidated or diminished.

I do not believe this to be so – if you have had any hand in fuelling the passion of a young person for football and helping them on the path to a healthy lifestyle, the fact that your identity as a club has changed absolutely does not diminish your positive influence.

History proves that change and evolution are all around us and will forever be the case. If your club merges with another for the benefit of its members then I firmly believe it strengthens the history of both. Surely better for a merger (or an “acquisition”) which perpetuates at least part of the history than to let a club wither and die?

THE WAY AHEAD

I hope this post has sparked some thoughts and if your club is one that has relatively few teams could you instigate a move to pool your resources with another local club? If you have a strong club in terms of teams and structure, could yours offer to help a less secure club by working together?

Please feel free to comment