1

The developmental model for Organized

Youth Soccer
David J. Verso
djverso@yahoo.com
June, 2001
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2
Current situation............................................................................................................... 2
Motivational issues........................................................................................................... 4
Developmental issues....................................................................................................... 6
Analysis of current situation .......................................................................................... 12
Developmental Model for Organized Youth Soccer...................................................... 14
Methods for promoting development orientation........................................................... 21
Administrative issues ..................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 24
End Notes ....................................................................................................................... 26
2
The developmental model for Organized Youth Soccer
Introduction
The sport of soccer is called The Beautiful Game. At once both so exceedingly simple
that an average four year old can learn to play in a few minutes yet so complex that no
one can come close to mastering the infinite range of tactical improvisation and technical
skills. It is a game that requires no special size to succeed, just a balance of skill,
quickness, endurance, finesse, power and the speed of thought needed to react to
constantly changing conditions.
In many ways it is the ideal team sport for youth. It requires a minimum of low cost
equipment and provides a never-ending set of enjoyable challenges while exercising both
hearts and minds. The soccer experience allows children to learn important lessons about
determination, commitment, communication, and teamwork, while acquiring increased
self-confidence and self-control.
Unfortunately, many children are not able to enjoy the potential the sport has to offer for
a variety of reasons, among them:
The competitive structure and training for beginning players is based on a non-
realistic age-appropriate concept rather than the highly varied and
unpredictable way children actually develop.
Soccer administrators and coaches are often volunteers untrained in and
unfamiliar with principles of motivation, development and enjoyment.
The only results that get measured are win/loss records.
As a result, parents are often given a choice between a very expensive, high pressure,
high commitment environment or an environment that impedes teaching, learning and
ultimately enjoying the game. Administrators, coaches, and parents decry win-at-all-
cost mentality yet fail to define what this means and have league policies with
conflicting goals and objectives.
The objective of this paper is to help define a systematic approach and rational
implementation strategy, for preadolescent players, which addresses the causes, not just
the symptoms of these problems. This paper will provide an overview of the problem,
background information needed for understanding, and possible solutions with suggested
implementations.
Current situation
Currently there are about 10 million children in organized youth soccer programs in the
US.
1
The overwhelming majority of youth soccer organizations use strict age based
cutoffs to place players. The advantage of this approach is that it is easy for everyone to
understand and it produces a standard to prevent people from cheating.
Although there are countless different ways organized teams and leagues are set up, in
general there are two predominate models: One approach most often referred to as
Recreational places children of the same chronological age(s) onto teams without
3
regard to ability or experience. In these leagues anyone who wants to play can play
irrelevant of skill (though some exclude more skilled players). The other approach,
which goes under various names including competitive, travel, club, all-star and referred
to herein as Select takes higher ability players and attempts to group them by level
within chronological age groups.
In some programs like American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), players are forced
to play in Recreational programs if they want to play in Select programs
2
. In other areas
it just the opposite. In Virginia, most Recreational programs exclude VYSA (Virginia
Youth Soccer Association) carded "Travel" players from competing with the non-carded
players
3
. Therefore while the terms Recreational and Select represent the most common
approaches it is instructive for the reader to remember that the application and meaning
of these terms differ widely across the country.
Recreational
The majority of US Youth soccer players are Recreational players under the age of 12. In
AYSO and most state associations, Select teams cannot form until a player is 8 to 10
years old. At these ages, anyone who wants to play and, in some cases, meets residency
requirements can play irrelevant of skill or experience. At older ages, it is also the de
facto bottom level select league for those that cannot make higher level teams. As a
result many leagues, including leagues within AYSO, place restrictions against certain
Select players participating on these teams in order to maintain competitive balance
4
.
Recreational leagues also attract players that could make select teams but choose not to
for other reasons including players that want to avoid conflicts with other
sports/activities, dont want to make required commitment, or want to play with friends.
The coaches in these leagues are typically volunteers with a large variation in
ability. The play in these leagues is typically uneven and participants are often
said to play for fun, participation, or skill development.
Select
Select play typically starts at U10, although it appears the popularity of younger
teams is increasing. Select teams are characterized by significantly increased
commitment in the form of money, practice time and travel. There are
typically several levels of play.
Even at the youngest and least committed levels such as U10 recreational all-star teams,
All-Star season, off-season/indoor tournaments plus required recreational play mean
that players can play year round. Conversely, many Select coaches want to keep the team
together throughout these different seasons, so year round play has become a requirement
to participate on many select teams. In general, the coaching at select teams is at a much
higher level than recreational teams. Many teams pay trainers and/or coaches. In
Southern California, the cost of playing on a non-AYSO select team is typically between
$1,000 2,000
5
, not including travel costs for many out of town tournaments as
compared to $50 $150 for recreational play. Expenses and expected commitment
typically increase as the quality of the play increases. However those that play feel the
increased competition, better coaching and the fact their teammates play at a reasonable
level make it worth the dramatically increased cost and commitment.
4
Motivational issues
What motivates children to play soccer and keep playing? The reasons cited
generally include
6
:
having fun,
improving skills,
developing fitness,
being with friends,
achieving success,
experiencing thrills and excitement.
Any attempt to analyze these reasons is challenging because the field of human
motivation is an extremely complex subject and several theories can be applied to any
stated reason. Rather than attempting to provide an exhaustive list of published theories,
two bodies of work that are of particular interest to any discussion on youth sports
structure will be examined: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyis research on enjoyment and his
theory of Flow
7
; David C. McClellands systems of human motives with particular
attention to his research on achievement motivation as presented in his book Human
Motivation.
8
Both bodies of work demonstrate direct causal relationships between the
challenges faced by the participants and quality of their experience. Both enjoy a wide
range of empirical support and are frequently cited in the field of sports psychology and
human motivation.
Enjoyment
Dr. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi has developed almost three decades of research into the
process of enjoyment (Fun and Excitement). He has studied in great depth
autotelic activities like sports that are enjoyable in themselves (intrinsically
motivating). In his book, Flow, Csikszentmihalyi stated the optimal state of inner
experience or Flow happens when psychic energy or attention is invested in realistic
goals, and when skills match the opportunities for action. The pursuit of a goal brings
order in awareness because a person must concentrate attention on the task at hand and
momentarily forget everything else. These periods of struggling to overcome challenge
are what people find to be the most enjoyable times of their lives.
Csikszentmihalyi uses figure 1 to explain the concept of flow:
5
Figure 1 Csikszentmihalyis Flow channel
An activity requiring minimal skill with minimal challenge like watching TV is likely to
leave a person in a state of apathy, while a mismatch between the level of challenge and a
persons skill will lead to states of boredom or anxiety. A critical requirement of the
flow state is the person must be pursuing a goal that that is commensurate with their
skills. While passive, relaxed states can be enjoyable, the active pursuit and sense of
mastery of a particular activity is what provides people with long term happiness.
According to Csikszentmihalyi, sports have been developed over the centuries for the
express purpose of enriching life with enjoyable experiences. Based on
Csikszentmihalyis extensive research, enjoyment in youth sports can be maximized by
providing children with a sense of discovery. The focus should be on developing more
complex skills. External or extrinsic goals - winning, praise, and trophies cause
competition to become a distraction rather than an incentive to focus the conscious on the
activity. Furthermore, these external rewards can become substitutes for intrinsic
(internal) motivation and diminish interest in the activity when they are removed.
Finally, in order for a challenge to be enjoyable it must have the appropriate balance
between skills and challenge.
Achievement motivation
David McClelland and his colleagues developed a theory of achievement motivation
(improving skills, developing fitness, achieving success), which is a learned stable
disposition (habit) to achieve. Achievement-oriented individuals are motivated most
effectively when they are presented with optimum challenge. To provide the right degree
of challenge, the expectation or goal must demand the childs best effort but must not be
so difficult to attain that efforts for success meet with excessive frustration and
discouragement.
This habit for achievement is learned from the way the child is raised and remains stable
during adulthood. A high achievement-oriented child was likely to have been presented
with moderately high standards and given confidence in the childs ability to succeed.
Such children are more optimistic and have a more realistic appraisal of their
performance than children with low-achievement motive.
Further research
9
suggests there are two kinds of goals children set in achievement related
tasks: Seeking to prove one is competent (ability/performance orientation) versus seeking
6
to improve ones competence (mastery/learning orientation). When children experience
failure, those with performance goal tend to drop their performance and to withdraw after
failure, while those with mastery goal are likely to persevere and improve performance
after failure. While both achievement disposition and mastery disposition are thought to
be developed in early childhood, soccer programs nonetheless should help strengthen
these habits by providing moderately high individual standards and help focus the childs
efforts on improvement rather than results or comparisons to other children.
Clearly both Csikszentmihalyis and McClellends work present an extremely strong case
for the importance of matching the challenge a child faces to the skills that child has
developed. Does this mean children cannot have fun if their skill level is not
commensurate with skills needed to play? Not necessarily. Human motivation is not that
simple.
Csikszentmihalyi states: Another universally enjoyable activity is being with other
people (Play with friends). Socializing might at first appear to be an exception to the
statement that one needs skills to enjoy an activity, for it does not seem that gossiping or
joking around with another person requires particular abilities. But of course it does.
Clearly social skills are important to almost every job in the work force.
McClellend also conducted extensive research on the need for affiliation. While a
number of studies validated the level of affiliation need, there is still widespread
uncertainty about the nature of the motive itself and the origins of affiliation motive in
society or in childhood. Research shows that those high in affiliation need are more often
anxious about whether they are liked or not so that often they are not very popular.
Those high in affiliation need did better in warm and friendly classrooms. They prefer
cooperative rather than competitive environments. Research on leadership and
management indicates that a person with moderate affiliation need is most effective.
While the implications for structuring youth sport with regard to maximizing enjoyment
of competition and promoting the achievement motive are apparent, the implications for
enhancing social enjoyment and skills are less clear. If a child is primarily interested in a
sport to play with friends, will that interest persist once friends leave the sport or the
team? Late maturing boys tend to be high in affiliation need. Would these children gain
confidence in themselves competing in an environment with similarly undeveloped
children or would being among generally younger children increase the possible anxiety
about their late maturing status? Are children more likely to continue to play soccer if
there is some sort of ability-based stratification from the very start, or is it better to go
from no stratification to full stratification in a very short period of time, as is currently the
case?
Developmental issues
When asked about the typical practice of placing children of vastly different ability in
competition with each other, a few will claim weaker players benefit by watching how
better players dominate a game. A few others will claim that pitting children of vastly
different abilities in a contest will somehow help them learn the life skills of working
with people of different abilities. Most will agree that it is probably not ideal. The
general acceptance of highly heterogeneous competitive grouping in terms of ability is in
part tied to belief that only a very small number of children in their program are outside
the average ability for a particular age group. This section will review the differences
7
between children and provide perspective on the both the magnitude and scope of these
differences.
Chronological Age
Participants in youth sports are ordinarily grouped on the basis of chronological age, the
age of the child based on his/her date of birth and the calendar. Either One or Two-year
chronological age categories are commonly used in most soccer programs. In areas with
a limited amount of participants, including rural areas and older age groups, three to four
year age groups are common. Two children, whose ages are, respectively, 9.00 and 9.99
years, are classified as 9 years of age, although almost one year separates them.
An issue related to age grouping in youth sports involves arbitrary cut-off dates for a
season. Two almost identical children may develop completely different beliefs about
themselves and their ability to compete solely as a result of their birthday. The AYSO
standard U8 age, for example, has a chronological age limit of 7 years as of July 31
st
of
the current season, i.e., the boy has not reached his 8th birthday by July 31
st
. Boys born
on July 31
st
and August 1st would thus be classified differently. The boy born on August
1st is classified as a 7 year old while the boy born on July31st plays as an 8 year old. The
former boy is an old U8 player, while the latter is a young U10 player.
Learning ability
Evidence of differences in learning ability of children has been available since the
1920s. A rough distribution of the mental ages obtained by the ten-year-olds in that
sample is presented in figure 2 as follows:
10
Figure 2 Approximate distribution of the mental ages of American ten-year-olds, ten at nearest
birthday (based on data obtained from in the standardization of Termans revised Stanford-Binet
intelligence scales conducted in the late 1920s and early 1930s)
As the figure 2 demonstrates, there is clearly an extremely wide distribution of mental
ages in children. Only about of the children are at the standard mental age for their
8
chronological age and almost 40% of the children are either 2 years above or 2 years
below their mental ages.
Physical differences
Soccer is a contact sport and as such, differences in physical characteristics such as
height and weight significantly impact the ability of children to effectively compete.
While additional weight can either be positively correlated or negatively correlated to
performance depending on whether it due to increased fat or increased musculature,
increased height correlates to increased performance for youth players.
CDC height Data for 8, 9 & 10 year old boys
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
110 120 130 140 150 160
Height in CM
P
e
r
e
n
t
a
g
e
95 months
107 months
119 months
Figure 3 Graphs of the CDC normalized height data of boys at 95, 107 and 119 months
As the above graphs (figure 3) of normalized CDC height data
11
demonstrates, on
average children of 119 months (just under 10) are taller than 95 months (just under 8) as
one would expect. However there is also significant difference in the height of children
within a particular age. The smallest 20% of the boys at 119 months are smaller than the
tallest 20% of boys at 95 months.
Maturity Issues
In an article on maturing matching in youth sports, Robert Malina
12
presented research
showing that there are significant individual differences in the rates of biological
maturation, and that these differences can have considerable effects on size, strength and
skill. The studies focused on children transitioning into puberty where indicators of
maturity status such as pubic hair are noticeable and can more easily be classified. The
study cited to highlight the variation in timing showed the 10
th
and 90
th
percentiles of a
9
certain maturity status for boys was 9.0 and 13.5 years respectively and 9.1 and 12.3 for
girls.
Small Empirical studies
As was demonstrated in previous sections, age, cognitive ability, size, and maturity status
vary significantly between individuals, even within a single year age group. With the
exception of age, the differences between players within a single year chronological age
group is greater than the difference between the average of the chronological age group
above and the chronological age group below. The issue for administrators of soccer
programs is how the natural differences between children relate to soccer.
This section attempts to highlight how age and other variables relate to a childs ability to
compete with other children on the soccer field. There are two sets of data used in this
section. One set is from data used to place boys aged 6 to 10 (U7 U10) in a recreational
spring soccer program.
13
The second set of data was developed from post-season
evaluations of regular season U10 recreational teams (ages 8,9,10)
14
.

Agility Test Histogram
0
2
4
6
8
6
.
5
7
.
5
8
.
5
9
.
5
1
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
1
2
.
5
Time in seconds
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
U10 U8
Figure 4 The time in seconds for children to sprint around 3 sides of a 10 yard square starting from
a prone position. U8 children were 6 or 7 years of age at a cut-off date 9 months prior to the test
while U10 players were 8 & 9 years at the same cut-off.
The chart in figure 4 shows the distribution of U8 and U10 times for an agility test which
involved a player sprinting around 3 sides of a 10 yard square starting from face down
position on the ground. As the chart shows, the distribution of time within the age group
7.2 seconds 12.27 seconds for U8 and 6.56 11.15 for U10, is much wider than the
average (mean) time for the two groups which was 8.11 seconds and 8.65 seconds for
U10 (including U9) players and U8 (including U7) respectively. Although the sample
size makes it less obvious visually, the distribution of the two groups is very similar-.92
to 98 in standard deviation and 1.44 to 1.45 in skewness.
At its essence, soccer is a series of one on one battles either attacker vs. defender on the
ball, a 50-50 fight to win loose balls, or off-ball running to create or destroy space.
Children are grouped by age in the belief that doing so will provide the vast majority with
10
a fair and realistic chance to win these battles. For this to be the case there would need to
be a strong relationship between age and player ability.
There are several related mathematical methods to compare the strength and relationship
between variables. A mathematical technique called regression can be used to determine
the strength of the linear relationship between age (independent variable) and ability
(dependant variable). If R
2
is 1 there is a perfect linear relationship between the
dependant and independent variables. If R
2
is 0, there is no linear relationship between
the two.
Age/Ability Line Fit Plot
0
2
4
6
8
10
90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0
Age in Months
P
l
a
y
e
r

r
a
t
i
n
g
Rating Predicted Rating
Figure 5 A plot of age vs. ability rating of U10 soccer players with 10 being highest
and 1 being the lowest as rated by a group of all-star coaches very familiar with
the players. Predicted rating was derived using least squares linear regression.
The chart in Figure 5 shows the plot of Age vs. ability for the Fall League data sample.
The R
2
for this sample was .095, which is not very high. Clearly there is linearity to the
sample since the cloud of points appears to be moving within a band on each side of the
regression line. However many of the oldest players are below average while some of the
youngest players are among the best. A player at 110 months seems just as likely to be
rated a 2 as he is to be rated an 8 (on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the best) which means
that age by itself will explain little of a players ability.
In contrast the chart in figure 6 shows the time in the Agility test vs. Player ratings
regression plot for U10 players in the spring league. Unlike the age-based plot of ability,
the points are much closer to the regression line. A fast player was very likely to be
highly rated (120 being best) while a slow player was very likely to be lowly rated (10
being lowest). The R
2
for this sample was .49, which means the players ability in large
part could be explained by their agility times. Since agility and speed are highly related,
the R
2
for speed would likely be high as well.
11
Agility times/ratings Line Fit Plot
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
6 9 12
Time in Agility test
P
l
a
y
e
r

r
a
t
i
n
g
s
Rate Predicted Rate
Figure 6 A plot of time in seconds for children to sprint around 3 sides of a 10 yard
square starting from a prone position vs. ability rating of U10 soccer players with
120 being highest and 10 being the lowest as rated by several coaches during
preseason practice sessions. Predicted rating was derived using least squares linear
regression.
As the table in figure 7 shows, the R
2
for age was consistently low in every sample
because large variability in children. The agility score at U8 was also a poor predictor of
ability/effectiveness at that level because children tend to be bunched up. At that level,
one would expect size, strength and aggressiveness to be better predictors of a successful
player. The R2 for speed in skills of fall sample are probably slightly higher than they
should be in part because they were subjectively developed and the coaches likely
adjusted these to match the ratings. But even a lower relationship demonstrates that it is
not that difficult to do a better job of placing children where they have a reasonable
chance to succeed, have fun and learn the game.
Data sample Variable R2
Spring U10 Age 0.14
Spring U10 Agility 0.49
Spring U8 Age 0.15
Spring U8 Agility 0.17
Fall U10 Age 0.09
Fall U10 Speed 0.67
Fall U10 Skills 0.78
Figure 7 R2 values of rated ability/effectiveness vs. various measurements of Youth soccer players
Anecdotal support of differences
The following examples are from a small spring 6 v 6 league 128 boys from U7 to U10
plus 5 U6 players playing up
15
. Players are placed based on a combination of ability and
age. Children are divided in 3 divisions as follows:
12
Division Composition of players
First U10 players and better U9s
Second U9 players, better U8s, a few U10s playing down
Third Remaining U8 and U7 players& 5 U6 players
Arguably the best player in the first (top) division was the youngest of 3 U8 players in
that division (it should be noted that a couple top U10 players had moved to full time
select teams). Undoubtedly, the top player and leading scorer in second (mid level
division) is a U7 player that had more technical skill and vision than 80% of the kids in
the top division. Arguably the top player in the third division was a U6 player playing up
and the remaining 4 U6 players playing up are all arguably among top 10 players in that
division.
On the other hand, an informal poll of 10 current recreational coaches with at least two or
more years of experience coaching U10 or above, most recall having at least one player
that barely touched the ball all season despite being on the field for a minimum of 50%
for each game played. One said a player touched it 3 times all season while another
claimed he had a player that never touched it once.
16
Analysis of current situation
AYSO case study
AYSO is the second largest youth soccer organization in United States. Research
17
shows that children would rather play for a losing team than sit on the bench for a
winning team, that close games are more fun that blow-outs and negative coaching styles
cause children to quit playing. The AYSO program stresses that everyone plays a
minimum of a half game; it goes through great lengths to make sure all teams are
competitive; and it mandates extensive training for volunteers to ensure positive coaching
styles are used and sportsmanship is promoted.
One would think that AYSO would be very successful in retaining players. Yet with all
these very positive aspects about the AYSO program, the attrition rate for AYSO players
is significantly higher than the average as compared to overall numbers for the United
States. As of 7/1/99, the breakdown of the 604,000 children was as follows
18
:
U6 (18-mo div) 14%
U8 26%
U10 24%
U12 18%
U14 11%
U16 5%
U19 (36-mo) 2%
The median age of soccer players in the program was somewhere under 9.0 years of age
and the ratio of players 6 11 to 12 17 is approximately 3.78 to 1. According to figures
from the Soccer Industry Council of America from the same period, the national ratio is
1.33 to 1
19
. According to US Soccer Data Base Services, the 1998 ratio of players 6-11
to 12-17 for USYSA, the nations largest youth soccer organization, was 1.88 to 1
20
.
One likely reason for this is that AYSO as an organization believes ability based play
must not be an integral part of its program. According to the stated policy The National
13
Board of Directors (NBOD) recognizes that such programs (Select teams based on
ability) have historically been a part of the AYSO program in various parts of the country
and allows it as an optional part of the overall program. The NBOD, however, advises
caution when conducting these programs because it is by its very nature exclusionary, not
inclusionary
21
. While high demand for these programs forces some reluctant
administrators to provide Select programs, with the exception of extremely small test
programs, players must first participate in a full season of non-ability based games.
Potential concerns with current Recreational & Select system
The US recreational leagues do a good job of introducing the game to younger players as
well as providing a relatively low cost ($50 - $100 per season with lower amounts for
additional play outside the main season) of organized play. However, the vast
differences in ability, experience and other factors within a single chronological age
group (see Development) mean that there is no way one can effectively teach to a
common standard without creating boredom and anxiety for many of the players (see
Motivation).
At the younger ages without extreme short-sided team sizes, some children can go a
whole game without touching the ball while others will score 3 or more goals each game
and in the process reduce many of their teammates to the role of on field spectators. As
a result, most players move to select programs or leave the sport by 14. In addition to
undermining the benefits and enjoyment of the sport for the players, the significant
developmental differences places additional burdens on typically inexperienced volunteer
parent coaches. While most recreational administrators like to place the blame for the
trend of younger Select (Competitive) play at younger ages on ego-driven parents and
money hungry coaches, the reality is that they are probably the biggest contributing factor
to the situation.
The existing select system does a good job of providing high level coaching and
competition for those children that are able to make these teams. However it does so at
significant tangible and intangible costs. The most obvious is that those children whose
parents are unable or unwilling to pay very high fees are unable to participate at higher
levels of play.
Most Select structures are set up on a promotion/relegation basis where the top teams in a
division move to the higher division while the bottom teams are relegated to the lower
division. In this system a team that starts at the top level has a much easier time staying
at the top as compared to a team trying to rise from the bottom. Most coaches are
competitive by nature and want the best teams with the best players. When combined
with the fact that a professional trainer with a top team can command more direct income
from providing access to the highest level of competition and indirect income from
camps and private training that benefit from the prestige of having a top team it is not
surprising that the pressure to create top teams is often very intense.
There are several negative consequences that many people including the professional
trainers that benefit from the system agree to be problems:
Early developers and older players within the chronological age brackets are
provided better coaching, equipment and attention. Players coming late to the game
and late maturing players are put at a disadvantage that many can never overcome.
14
Playing time is disproportionately given to those players that can win games.
Early developers can be held back at their own chronological age where their
advanced athleticism can be utilized to win games (in older travel leagues) while
sacrificing development of technical, tactical and process skills that not only hinder
long-term development, but also can cause the player to leave the sport completely
22
.
Recruitment with corresponding promises of tangible and intangible benefits for
playing that at the very best, erode the joy of playing by serving as extrinsic
substitutes for the natural intrinsic motivation competition and at the very worst,
serve to disillusion the player when they are broken.
Children as young as 8 are only given an option of year round participation. This
trend has led to a dramatic increase in repetitive stress injuries to children and
discourages better athletes with a range of sporting interests to keep playing the
game.
23
Obviously these are generalizations and there are many exceptions of various degrees
throughout the country. Thus while many children have a positive experience, a wide
range of people that range from authors of books on childrens sports to professional
soccer coaches have concerns about our present system. Among the class of sports
similar to soccer (basketball, volleyball, hockey where the ball is shared among
teammates in a free flowing manner), only soccer has fewer children playing from 12
17 than 6 11
24
. Of the major team participation sports, only soccer and baseball, suffer a
drop in participation, though baseball has nowhere near the rate of children quitting as
compared to soccer. The early age and large numbers of children dropping out of soccer
as compared to other team sports should serve as a warning that something is remiss.
Developmental Model for Organized Youth Soccer
Overview
In real life people are not sorted by age, but instead interact with other people of all ages.
If one goes to a playground they will see people of mixed ages competing in various
games. Players will either segregate themselves by ability or will modify patterns of play
and create informal rules to help make weaker players competitive with stronger ones.
The overwhelming majority of youth soccer organizations use strict age based cutoffs to
place children in competition with each other. The advantage of this approach is that it is
easy for everyone to understand and it produces a standard to prevent people from
cheating. However this structure invariably creates teams of players with significant
developmental differences, that at times severely undermine the benefits and enjoyment
of the sport for the players or requires players at the extremes of ability to travel
significant distances to find enough players of similar abilities to form teams and play
games.
At the U8 U10 level of most organized soccer programs, it is very common to have a 5-
year developmental difference in terms of soccer skills between the most developed and
least developed players. At one end of the development scale is someone like U17 star
Santino Quaranta, an exceptional athlete with a birthday in the first quarter of the cut-off;
from a family of All-American and professional soccer players; and who was so
15
developed he played in a U10 league as a 5 year old (very few leagues allow this and
many would force a similar child to play within his age group). At the other end of the
scale would be an inactive child born 4 or 5 months premature, with some resulting minor
disabilities and a birthday that just barely makes an age group cut-off.
The Development Model described herein is not specific implementation guaranteed to
fix all the problems that have been identified in our current system. Further research may
yield even more effective solutions or show that boys and girls might benefit from
different implementations.
The Development model is instead a conceptual model for youth soccer that takes into
account significant differences in children and their maturation cycles to place them in
positions where they will be challenged yet have a strong chance to succeed. Much like
the Montessori method of instruction, it factors in the developmental stage of the children
when placing them in competition instead of strictly relying on chronological age during
the childs prime developmental period. It allows the sport to build the confidence of less
developed children rather than destroy it. The emphasis is on measuring skills rather than
wins and placing advanced children where they are better able to develop their game
rather than win the game. Doing so provides all children in the program with a more
reasonable chance to compete and develop their skills. These are proven ways to
enhance their motivation, achievement and enjoyment.
U6 U8 Developmental objectives
In this age group the children and their parents are adapting to their respective roles in
organized sports. The objective at this stage of development is to lay a foundation for
both groups that will help the children maximize the potential benefits from participation
in organized soccer. At these ages children are rapidly changing and primarily base self-
perception on feedback from parents and coaches who in turn should provide support and
encouragement to meet realistic challenges.
Concept informal pick-up style competition
The concept is that a group of players get together at a location and are then separated
into teams to play several concurrent small-sided games. Games are very informal and
are designed to maximize playing time, competitiveness of players and competitiveness
between teams. The informal setting and structure will help focus the children (and more
importantly the adults) on playing the game and not the result. It will hopefully help
children understand that a ball and two goals are all one needs to play soccer. Finally, if
a child does not fit in with a particular team or parent coach it is just one short game
until everything starts again. Alternate soccer games such as 4 goal games, end zone
games and variations in goal orientation can also be used to enhance development.
Potential Implementation
The ideal implementation would depend on a combination of variables that include
field space, volunteer structure, program size, existing conditions and existing attitudes.
Smaller programs with large fields have been successful having children meet and
splitting them up on game day. More developed players are sent to one area and less
developed players to another. This allows the most physically and technically developed
players to challenge each other and later developing players increased time and space
16
necessary to develop their skills. Players in the average range of development would get
to play in a variety of competitive situations.
In larger urban programs that may have a large number of players utilizing many small
parks, a more formal rostering methodology would be appropriate. If, for example, the
children were playing 4 v 4 games 15 children could be placed on one roster. On game
day, 3 fields could be set up where one roster of players would play another roster of
players in 3 concurrent games.
In this example, the fields could range from the most developed soccer players on field 3
to the least developed players on field 1. At half-time or end of mini-game one the
best players on field 2 from one roster can switch places with the weaker players on the
same roster from field 3 and the weaker players from field 2 can switch places with the
stronger ones on field 1. This type of rotation ensures all players are able to play at least
of the time, play against players of similar development and get variation in game
situations.
Most programs use 2-year age groups at these ages and in general the older players are
stronger than younger players. Once the season is completed, those younger players that
are obviously extremely advanced for their chronological age would be encouraged (but
not forced) to move up with the similarly developed older players they had primarily
been competing against during the season. Similarly those older players far behind for
their chronological age would be encouraged to remain with the younger players they had
been primarily competing against.
The important concepts are:
Providing an appropriate challenge for each player,
Maximizing playing time,
Providing flexibility to deal with rapid changes in childrens development at
these ages,
Stressing play, not formality of game.
Issues like roster sizes and exact game formats are not important. Players could switch at
half-time, in between mini games, or each week depending on the most convenient
roster size for the given field ability, volunteer coaches and organization needs.
Comparison to current programs
One of the major selling points of short-sided games is that kids have more time on the
ball and will naturally improve their technical skills. Fewer numbers of players on the
field will also simplify complexity and help the development of tactical skills. However,
these assumptions quickly begin to break down when players are developmentally
dissimilar. Fewer children means that the strong early developer can dominate the game
unabated while lesser developed teammates become on field spectators.
Placing players of similar development stages facilitates learning. Late developers are
afforded time and space to make decisions while early developers receive real challenges.
The majority of players in the middle are stretched when playing in faster games and gain
confidence when playing in slower ones. From a program standpoint, this translates into
very few, if any, blowouts, many more children being able to score, more effective
rotation of players into different positions and much more accurate player assessment.
From a players standpoint, it translates into more fun.
17
In soccer it is said the game is the teacher but only when you get to play the game.
Since children at this age are often sick, going to birthday parties or doing other
activities, standard organizational guidelines for short-sided games call for very large
rosters relative to the number of players on the field to make sure there are enough
players to field a team on game day. The current guidelines for the two largest US
youth soccer programs, USYSA and AYSO, allow situations where playing time for
some players is limited to a maximum of just 16 and 10 minutes a game
25
.
On the other hand, the proposed Developmental Model needs to carry proportionally
many fewer players since absences of any two players is less significant on a larger
group. Furthermore, since the focus is on individual play and not the team, players are
used to playing with a variety of players and it is no big deal to put on a vest or a
reversible jersey and play for the other team.
Younger players of an age group in particular can show great development during the
season. This system allows them to more quickly gain confidence at the beginning of the
season and allows for increased challenge when they are ready to handle it.
Volunteer development any student teacher can tell you that there is a big difference
between being taught to teach and the experience gained from actually doing it. Larger
rosters mean that the limited numbers of experienced and capable volunteer coaches are
spread between fewer groups of players. At the same time, having multiple concurrent
games create a true need for assistant coaches. These assistants can gain experience
and confidence helping out at practice and handling substitutions during games under the
direction of more knowledgeable and experienced parent coaches. Volunteers can get
additional technical training needed to coach their childs team the following year or run
a team for a younger sibling.
Parent development Many organizations go to great lengths to educate parents that the
objectives and behaviors associated with youth sports are very different from the
professional sports entertainment industry. In addition to almost ubiquitous educational
programs, some programs have gone so far as to outlaw parents from making any noise
during games.
26
Then starting from day one they draft children onto teams, schedule
formal games, put them in official looking uniforms, create team banners just like
professional sports entertainment organizations and then wonder why parents quickly fall
back into life long behavior habits learned from observing professional sporting events.
The informality of the Developmental Model helps parents by giving them a couple years
to develop new behavior habits before children start moving into teams that begin to
resemble what they see on television and the professional league stadium.
U8 U12 Developmental objectives
Internationally known soccer coaches including Tony Waiters and Bobby Howe
27
refer to
U8 U12 players as being in the Golden age of learning. This is typically the age
where children are developmentally ready and eager to learn. At this age children begin
to rely more on peer comparison and evaluation as their basis for self-perception.
Children build upon the foundation of individual skills learned playing in pick-up game
formats and begin to add more complex team based skills. The objective is to use skill
development to build a virtuous relationship between achievement and self-perceptions
whereby better perceptions of oneself and one's abilities lead to enhanced effort,
persistence and achievement, which in turn further benefits self-perceptions.
18
Concept Developmental rather than chronologically based teams
At this stage of their soccer development, players start transitioning from individual skills
and small sided games to team oriented play and more complex positional play. As a
result, they need to regularly be with a group of players to develop these skills. The
concept is simply to place players of similar development together on teams and in
competition and reduce the emphasis on chronological age. While the concept of
creating ability-based teams is nothing unusual, the proposed implementation process of
using non-chronologically grouped players is seemingly a unique concept in soccer.
At this stage of their development most players can rank order the position of their
teammates in ability about as well as their coaches. Yet few will realize the kid who just
scored 3 goals in a group of 10-year-old players just turned 8.
Potential Implementation
At the simplest level, one solution is to allow very developed and less developed players
to play outside of the standard chronological age group. Allowing just 1 3% of the
most extreme cases will create a significant improvement.
A more comprehensive approach can be implemented by creating overlapping divisions.
Instead of strictly using age, previous playing experience and developmental differences
are also considered, enabling children to be assigned to a level that is most appropriate
for them. In more extreme cases (under 5%) with informed consent of their parents, it is
possible for players to be placed below the lower bound of the lower division or above
the upper bound of the upper division.
For the last 2 years, the boys U8 & U10 divisions (112- 128 players) in a Southern
California recreational soccer league have been combined to create 3 divisions of 8
person teams playing 6 v 6: The approximate age division were as follows:
U10 - 8/1/89 - 7/31/91 (8.0 9.9) though typically (8.5 9.9)
U9 - 8/1/90 - 7/31/92 (7.0 8.9) though typically (7.5 - 8.5)
U8 - 1/31/92 - 7/31/93 (6 - 7.9) though typically (6 - 7.5)
Although many of the players and the prime evaluator came from outside leagues that did
not have spring programs thus making the selection process far from the recommended
ideal, only one parent in 2 years called regarding the placement of their child. Since
many leagues already rate all children to balance teams, the process can easily be adapted
to place players. Furthermore, the development model calls for much more extensive
tracking of players development which further simplifies the process. While there are
still developmental differences between players, the differences more closely resemble
those of select teams than typical recreational teams.
Comparison to current Recreational programs
The currently recommended method of coaching a particular aspect of the game is to use
a progression of drills. In this approach, drills often start at an individual level and
progress in complexity by adding more players. At the end of practice a full team of
players are encouraged to use what theyve learned in a large sided game or scrimmage.
Given the large disparity in developmental level, the typical recreational coach must
teach to the lower middle half of the range to ensure most of the team will be able to
execute any concept. However during the larger group drills and scrimmage, the most
19
developed players will dominate play limiting the learning of other players. This results
in a situation where the development of everyone from the least advanced to the most
advanced players is limited. More skilled coaches will place restrictions on the more
advanced players which will somewhat improve the situation but is in no means a
solution to the problem.
While restrictions can help in practice, they are impractical for use in games. More
developed players build bad habits while less developed players begin to stop trying. As
a result of these problems, more and more children of this age are moving to Select
programs or dropping out of the sport.
Comparison to current Select programs
The current method of creating ability-based teams within chronological age groups has
some important similarities with the Developmental Model in terms providing
appropriate challenges for the better players. However, there are several important
differences both from the individual standpoint of advanced players as well as from an
overall standpoint of all players. The focus in this section will be on the effects of the
differences.
As demonstrated by figures 2- 6 in the section on developmental issues, the top 1% of
youth soccer players in this age group are significantly different from others in the group.
These players dominate youth games and can be spotted by even the most casual
observer. The current Select approach is to attempt to group players of a similar
chronological age. However, to create an elite team of 15 top players requires 1,500
children. Even in major urban areas, this is a lot of children. As a result children must
travel great distances to form teams and to find teams of similar ability. This extensive
travel requirement builds a significant expense for those advanced players interested in
playing to their ability. It also adds a significant time commitment that often prematurely
limits participation in other sports and places young players in cars rather than
somewhere developing their skills.
In contrast, the Developmental Model approach provides children with a similar
challenge from playing for local teams and local leagues. Coordinating participation in
other sports is much easier and time can be spent playing instead of traveling.
The process of placing the children on the appropriate level of younger Select teams is
extremely inefficient. Few if any youth coaches at this level have the ability to closely
evaluate 1,500 different players needed to field a team 15 elite players. Furthermore,
physiological advantages are often related to maturation issues so those players currently
among the best may no longer be so if their superiority is based primarily on ephemeral
developmental differences.
As a result players slowly shift teams through a sometimes painful process of recruiting,
tryouts and cuts. Since coaches and team members would typically rather have better
players join them to create a top team rather than have the better players leave, the focus
quickly shifts from developing the individual to developing the team so it can advance to
the highest level of play. There is significant pressure to perform and to put in
commitment for the team. For many players the internal motivation of playing sport is
replaced with external factors. Players can begin to base their self-perception on the team
which can have very negative consequences should a player be cut.
20
In contrast, the Developmental Model much more efficiently places children in
appropriate situations. Players are well known to local league administrators from their
earliest years. The emphasis is using the team to develop the player rather than the player
being used to develop the team. The desire to win is primarily intrinsically motivated
since consequence for winning and losing is minimal.
Another issue with the current select/recreational model is that it only addresses children
at the upper end of ability and ignores the issues of children at the lower end. While it is
very unlikely these children will develop into top players, there is absolutely no reason
they cannot enjoy the sport. As long as they can continue developing more complex
skills and find appropriate competition it can be a rewarding lifetime activity. There are
many current and ex-professional athletes that have a passion for golf even though very
few could come close to winning a match with a top teenage golfer. They enjoy the
constant competitive challenge of improving their game to beat their previous score as
well as socializing with friends. Similarly, the Developmental Model provides all
children with a realistic chance to compete and build their skills until they get mature
enough to start internalizing their self-perception. At that point they may choose to focus
more on the competitive aspects of the game or choose more socially oriented leagues
such as co-ed play.
Finally, the Developmental Model raises the overall level of coaching. There is a high
correlation between high ability parent coaches and high ability youth soccer players. If
5 of the better U8 recreational coaches place their children on a select U9 team,
approximately 50 children just lost a quality coach. As a result, the quality of experience
and the quality of play goes down causing more children to look to Select teams or
possibly leave the sport. In the Development Model advanced players can continue to be
challenged for several additional years allowing the recreational program to function at a
higher level while making it easy for Select programs to identify truly select players.
Of course, this process will reduce the problem of less qualified parent coaches. It will
not eliminate it. This is certainly a realistic concern for those parents that are not coaches
but have advanced children. This concern can often be addressed with private lessons
that would likely be no more expensive than paying training fees in club programs where
quality is not necessarily assured.
U13 U19 select
Although the Developmental Model for Youth Soccer is primarily focused on improving
the experience through their formative years, the process can also be extended into the
more competitive years. At this point players begin to decide if they are interested in
making a commitment to mastering the sport or whether they are primarily interested in
the exercise and camaraderie that playing the sport provides.
One umbrella organization has created standard ratings criteria for players across several
recreational leagues for interplay purposes. All players interested in committing to
additional practices and travel will be placed on a team at their demonstrated level. In
cases where there are not enough players at a particular level (primarily at lower levels)
or not enough to form one more additional team, players are encouraged to attend the
select practices thus providing an avenue for late starters or late developers to advance to
higher levels of play.
21
Methods for promoting development orientation
What gets measured gets done
Everywhere one looks there seems to be a source expressing concern about the seemingly
excessive focus on the win/loss records in youth sports. From feature articles, featured
books, bulletin board discussions and organizational education to specific non-profit
organizations created to change youth sports, there has been seemingly little progress in
changing the win at all costs environment in many programs. Yet if the only costs
that are measured are losses, is it really all that surprising that despite all attempts to
educate otherwise, coaches, parents and players quickly begin to focus all their energy on
winning?
Certainly part of the issue is that patterns of group behavior take time to change.
However given no other objective measure of performance, many parents incorrectly
infer that a coach winning games is better than a coach that is losing games; that a
premier level coach is better than a recreational level coach and so on. Parents end up
fighting to get the children in the best programs without understanding what is best for
their children. Combine these forces with our current culture and it is not surprising the
must win attitude seems to be intractable.
In the Development Model, success is measured by gains in players achievement, not
just the result of the latest game. A critical component of the system is to define and
track the progress of each players development. It also involves developing
supplemental competitions to help measure achievement and provide players with an
opportunity to demonstrate their improvement. Since children are continuously
developing, all will naturally improve.
Curriculum and skill objectives
A critical component of the program would be the development of a model curriculum
with a specific set of objectives for skills and tactics as they progress from beginning to
proficient players. The approach is based on the concept of mastering one set of skills
before progressing to the next. It would incorporate an age neutral structure (for
example, the belt system use in martial arts) that would match a set of skills based on the
development level of the player.
At its most basic level it would involve defining and tracking a set of skills that each
player should be able to master at the level of play. For instance, if the concepts were
applied to the standard age based groupings, a program could start with something very
simple 3 basic shielding/dribbling moves and an instep kick at U8. If the coaches were
able to help players master these things, more could be added. The U10 program would
then build upon the skills learned at U8. The coach would keep a record of each players
progress at several intervals during the year.
In programs with additional resources and more dedicated players, a more detailed skill
development history for each player will be compiled so that each year the coach can
understand what skills need to be developed. An ideal program would have supplemental
drills and techniques a player can work on at home, much like the new computer based
learning systems.
22
Potential supplemental programs
It is not necessary to compete at the highest levels to enjoy the sport. Some aspects of the
game such as speed of foot, strength or maturity are not under the control of the player.
One of the goals of the program is to provide children an opportunity to measure their
own growth as soccer players over things they can control.
The exact nature of the program is less important than the fact that it is done on a periodic
basis maybe once during player evaluations and 2 or 3 times during the season.
Though certificates or medals could be handed out to top performers, the emphasis of
these programs is not about winning or losing, but instead about improvement. Team
awards could be given out for the greatest percentage of improvement.
These programs could be run in conjunction with games, practices or on days with no
other scheduled activities. The pure skill competitions might be best for younger children
while the more competitive applied skills might be run for older children. The exact mix
would depend on volunteers, space and interest. Some programs might include every
child in a division while others might be set up for only those that are interested. Below
are some potential example programs:
Dribble shoot pass
The program involves 3 skills: shooting to a target; passing to a target; dribbling through
a slalom course. It is fairly easy to run and set up and is ideal for younger players. MLS
and NY Life have run this program and the winners from the region could advance to the
national competition.
FA Soccer Star Awards
This is a program that was developed by the UK Football Association (FA). The goal
is to help children develop ability in the critical soccer techniques of running with the
ball, dribbling, turning, heading, shooting and other basic skills such as passing, control
and speed. The program, called the Coca-Cola Soccer Star Awards consists of measuring
each player in six basic soccer skills and comparing them against a set standard.
A number of stars are awarded depending on how well the child performs. Each childs
results are sent to the F.A. for processing. The F.A. then sends back an individual
progress report outlining the players strengths and weaknesses and suggestions on how
to improve future soccer development. Players also get a Soccer Star Certificate, Soccer
Star Cloth Badge, and Soccer Star Bag Sticker.
Soccer Volleyball
Soccer volleyball is a great game to develop skills for balls in the air. It can be played
with 1, 2 or 3 players on team. Competitions could be set up for individual players like
an open tennis tournament or between teams as is done in high school tennis
competitions. Competition could take place on tennis courts or with portable nets. Good
for players (U10 on up) that are learning to play the ball in the air
1v1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3 competitions
23
Winning 1 v1 battles are critical to success at any level. Competitions of this type allow
players to test their moves and their defending ability. This is good for players of all
ages. It can be set up so players go at a single cone, single goal or multiple goals. These
can be very quick to organize.
Skill Belts and Ribbons
Most martial arts programs are based on the acquisition of skills. Participants are given
different colors of belts to signify their skill level. This concept can be extended to
soccer where it can provide less naturally gifted athletes a path to success and increase
skill levels of all players.
Juggling, Artistic Dribbling
Fans voted Diego Maradona as the greatest soccer player of the century in a vote
sponsored by FIFA. As a youngster he would often entertain the crowds with amazing
demonstrations of ball juggling during half time of soccer games. Players could be given
opportunities to demonstrate their juggling and creative dribbling moves
Administrative issues
Methods of player evaluation
Accurate assessment of competitive levels is important for fun, fair and effective
competition. Many youth soccer organizations such as AYSO, use various methods to
rate players in an attempt to create even games between teams. In some cases it is done
during a short evaluation, while other use the players coaches.
The majority of coaches in youth soccer are volunteers, some of whom have little, if any,
experience playing the game. Furthermore, few have experience in assessment of skills.
Finally, many coaches have a child of their own playing.
The proposed developmental structure helps to improve ratings in two ways: First,
players start at a young age with flexible short sided games matched up against players of
similar ability. While it is often easy for a coach or even a 9 year old to rank order
players on a specific team, it is often difficult to rank them against the population of the
entire league particularly when a few players may dominate play. Narrowing the ability
levels helps rating by providing more clearly defined standards and by providing a much
more even distribution of touches among the players on the field.
Second, the development nature of the program helps to provide a concrete structure as to
what makes one player more effective than another. Since development is more closely
tracked, coaches are also provided objective information from which to base their
decisions.
Finally and equally important is that the system provides more accurate and objective
feedback to the parents of the player. If a player is lacking technical and physical skills
typically found at the next level of play, this information can help dissuade a parent from
thinking his or her child is better than they really are.
24
Methods of program organization
Since the program is based on the concept that each child is an individual and develops at
different rates, the ideal implementation would involve reformulating teams each year.
This approach not only provides children the opportunity to learn from different coaches,
but also maximizes the opportunity to create teams and players that are truly competitive
with each other. This type of system increases the overall level of the league by allowing
a larger percentage of players to train under better coaches. Finally, it helps coaches
focus on the mission of development of the individual player instead of strengthening the
team.
However, some programs are structured around the concept of forming a team of players
that stay together year after year. While there are certainly benefits to forming
friendships among team members, two problems emerge: 1) Very strong teams tend to
keep players while players from weaker teams tend to drop out creating a cycle where the
strong get stronger while players from the rest of the league lose motivation to play, 2)
Since players develop at different rates, some players are held back while others really
are unable to keep up. One method of dealing with this might be call-ups where a pool of
the best players from the level below are available to play up in games where a team is
low on players. Teams with the worst records would get the first access to players. Not
only would this help the better players develop, but it would also help make the games
more balanced. At the end of each season there could also be an open draft of new
players and players wishing to switch teams that is weighted to create more balance
between the teams.
Methods of conflict resolution
Even the most inflexible chronological aged based system league administrators will
reluctantly agree to make exceptions when faced with persistent parents with compelling
cases. Many youth administrators argue that any flexibility will lead to an avalanche of
special requests. The reality from programs that have allowed flexibility is that it has not
been a problem provided that a clear explanation of the process is provided at registration
and is readily available. A key component is requiring the parents to document their
request and reasons in writing along with any evidence (such as a coaches opinion) that
supports their claim.
Methods to introduce change
Probably the best way to implement change is slowly building up from the youngest ages.
In most cases, the parents will not be particularly tied to the old method of doing things
or this will be their first experience with youth soccer. At older ages, programs can begin
to experiment with some limited exceptions to chronological age grouping by defining
policies allowing the most extreme cases to play up and down. As the policy becomes
more established, the requirements can slowly be relaxed to allow a larger percentage of
children to play within their ability, while still maintaining control of the process.
Conclusion
Millions of children are benefiting from our current organization of youth soccer.
Unfortunately many more millions of children are also dropping out of soccer and
sometimes from team sports altogether. From the late developing 6 year old that never
25
seems to touch the ball even with short sided play to the early developing 11 year old
phenom and everyone in between, there exists an opportunity to do much better. The
philosophy of Developmental Model for Youth soccer is to place children where they are
challenged, yet have a reasonable chance for success.
The Developmental Model for youth soccer also changes the traditional focus of creating
a team with the best record within an arbitrarily defined chronological age bracket to one
of maximizing the development and enjoyment of each child. Many people decry the
Win at all costs mentality of youth sports. Currently the only measure of a season is
the win and loss record of a team. And, as many management experts will state, what
gets measured, gets done. The Developmental Model tracks the growth of players
through assessments and skills competitions.
Placing children in this optimal state of challenge for their ability promotes enjoyment,
achievement and motivation. Structuring the program so that development becomes
more valued than winning is designed to keep unnecessary external motivation from
creeping into the natural internal desire to play while promoting the skills that bring a
sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. These changes will significantly enhance the
experience for many children thus encouraging further participation and allowing soccer
to bring enjoyment into their lives for years to come.
26
End Notes

1
12/2000 Organized Youth Team Sports Participation Survey sponsored by Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association
2
Some pilot programs in places like Southern California and New Mexico are Select programs. But
otherwise, Select programs in AYSO are considered secondary programs and participation in primary
Recreation programs is required to participate in secondary programs.
3
This statement is based on claims from coaches in Virginia and was corroborated from using a quick
check of recreational tournaments in Virgina.
4
Technically anyone that wants can register in AYSO under its national rules. However many local
regions either actively discourage or have rules against traveling/club players participating in their
programs because of competitive balance concerns when players miss games due to conflicts with club
schedules.
5
This is an estimate based on postings from various soccer bulletin boards along with conversations from
parents with players in club programs. A 3 part series on youths sports in LA written by TRACY WEBER
and SCOTT GOLD that appeared in LA Times starting Sunday, February 27, 2000 detailed some program
budgets and the programs mentioned fell into this range. The article stated total costs (including travel,
coaching fees tournament fees and participation fees) could approach $5,000 per season.
6
A similar list appears from many sources although it is unclear whether they were from independent
research or a restatement of previous studies such as Weiss, M. R., & Petlichkoff, L. M. (1989). Children's
motivation for participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 1, 195-211.
7
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
8
David C. McClelland (1987). Human Motivation. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
9
Eva Dreikurs Ferguson (2000). Motivation: A Biosocial and Cognitive Integration of Motivation and
Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 222 224.
10
Roy P. Doyle, Ed.D. Achievement Standards Versus Unstandardizable Students. The Arizona
Graduation Competency Test Statute.
11
Stature-for-age data available from www.cdc.org
12
R.M. Malina and G. Beunen, 1996. Matching of opponents in youth sports. In THE CHILD AND
ADOLESCENT ATHLETE, O. Bar-Or, editor, pp. 202-213. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
13
The data was compiled in April 2000 from a San Fernando Valley based AYSO soccer program in
Southern California for U8 and U10 boys. Since the cut-off date was July 31, 1999 some players had
already turned 10. Several evaluators rated children doing drills and scrimmaging over 3 camp sessions.
The agility test was held on one just one day and some players did not attend that day.
14
The data was compiled in November 2000 from a San Gabriel Valley based AYSO soccer program in
Southern California for U10 boys that were 8 or 9 years old July 31, 2000. Since the data in this section is
completely based on subjective observation, the sample was limited to 6 coaches that were picked to coach
all-star teams that season and was slightly adjusted in a coached meeting to account for small individual
biases. These coaches have more training, rating experience, player familiarity and coaching experience
and thus should provide more accurate ratings.
15
The observations are by league coordinators from April-May 2001 AYSO soccer program in Southern
California for U8 and U10 boys.
16
These are recollections recalled during a series of conversations with experienced boys coaches in 2
different AYSO regions (leagues).
17
There are a several studies generally stating that between 75 90% of players would prefer to be on a
losing team if they were able to play in the games rather than be benchwarmers on a winning team. For
example Rick Wolff - Good Sports: the Concerned Parents Guide to Little League and Other Competitive
Youth Sports (1993) cited 90% while 75% was quoted by Henschen K. L. Griffin in Psychology Today,
Sept. 77.
18
Posted on AYSO Soccer list Mar. 2, 2000
27

19
Soccer Industry Council of America released participation information on May 1999 that was derived
from a larger study conducted by American Sports Data, Inc. According to the information released,
participation rates for children 6 11 and 12 17 were respectively 7.9 million and 6 million youths.
These numbers must be taken with some caution since only about 50% of those surveyed played 25 times
or more per year. However, the AYSO numbers for 12 17 also include players in pilot Select programs
and supplemental Select programs. Without these programs, the ratio we older players to younger players
would likely be much lower.
20
The USYSA national office provided figures based on information gathered by US Soccer Data Base
Services. As of 8/31/98 number of players 611 and 1217 were respectively 1,566,400 and 1,160,600,
which gives a figure of 1.35 to 1 of younger to older players. However it appears the data was either
mislabeled as for example, 9 rather than U9, or age was considered at the end of the season. Therefore in
an attempt to get a more accurate comparison to AYSO, the number of players labeled 7-12 and 13-18,
1,731,700 and 919,000 respectively, was used to derive the 1.88 number.
21
Article 2.7 of AYSO Policy Statements
22
Treasure, Darren C. Motivation: More Than a Question of Winning and Losing
23
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Policy statement; Volume 106, Number 01; July 2000, pp
154-157. ABSTRACT. Children involved in sports should be encouraged to participate in a variety of
different activities and develop a wide range of skills. Young athletes who specialize in just one sport may
be denied the benefits of varied activity while facing additional physical, physiologic, and psychologic
demands from intense training and competition.
This statement reviews the potential risks of high-intensity training and sports specialization in young
athletes. Pediatricians who recognize these risks can have a key role in monitoring the health of these
young athletes and helping reduce risks associated with high-level sports participation.
24
According to the SOCCER INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF AMERICA 1997 NATIONAL SOCCER
PARTICIPATION SURVEY Respective Participants 6-11, 12 17 in millions for the most popular team sports were
as follows: Basketball 9.520, 12.702; Soccer 7.376, 6.034; Baseball 5.047, 4.444; Softball 4.690, 5.418; Volleyball
3.825, 8.706; Football (Tackle) 2.603, 5.435; Ice Hockey .431, .785. Unfortunately more recent statistics were not
readily available to the author and relative differences have changed.
25
The current recommended short-sided implementations posted on the websites for USYSA and AYSO
are as follows:
AYSO
U6 - 3v3; 20 minute games 5 team roster max 1 child plays 2, five minute quarters if all show up.
U8 5v5, 40 minute games, 8 team roster
U10 7v7 48 minute games, 10 per team roster
U12 9v9 60 minute games, 13 per team roster
USYSA
U6 - 3v3; 36 minute games 6 team roster max all children play just 18 minutes if all show up.
U8 4v4, 40 minute games, 10 team roster all children play just 16 minutes if all show up
U10 8v8 50 minute games, 14 per team roster
26
USYSA Region 2 proposed that the Region 2 states experiment with observing Silent Soccer Saturday
throughout the Region on September 30, 2000. Silent Soccer Days encourages silence among coaches and
parents while attending youth soccer activities. The idea quite simply is, the only noise that should be heard
are the players and the referees whistles.
27
- Tony Waiters and Bobby Howe - Coaching 9, 10 and 11 Year Olds
Copyright David J. Verso, 2001