VAR Sidebar
While we know that Canada Soccer does not suggest tiering or scorekeeping in most grassroots stages the reality on the pitch is that these groupings still exist in most larger districts albeit under different labels.
Once in these “excel” programs, they gain access to the highest level of coaching, often superior facilities (better training pitch selection), and more intense training. By the time they become teenagers they haven’t just maintained their lead but widened it through years of accumulated advantage.
So let’s dive into some of the data:
Where the cutoff for age groups is typically January 1st, reports show a massive skew toward players born in the first three months of the year:
- A landmark study by Roger Barnsley found that roughly 40% of players in top-tier Canadian Junior A hockey leagues were born in Q1, compared to only 10% in Q4. A trend that follows players into the professional ranks. Historically, nearly twice as many NHL players were born in the first half of the year compared to the second half.
- Research into elite youth soccer academies (like those in the Vancouver Whitecaps or Toronto FC systems) consistently shows that Q1 and Q2 players are significantly overrepresented in “Tier 1” or “Academy” squads.
- At age 10, the physical difference between a Jan 1st and Dec 31st child can be as much as 4-5 inches in height and 10-15 lbs in weight, purely due to chronological age.
Mentioned briefly above the “Accumulative Advantage” or what Sociologist Robert Merton called the “Matthew Effect” (“For to every one who has will more be given.”) outlines that since a child born in January is nearly 12 months older than a child born in December they are naturally taller, faster, and more coordinated. Therefore because they look better now, they get selected for the higher tier. With the higher tier typically comes:
- Better coaching.
- Higher-ability teammates.
- More frequent/intense practices.
- More “touches” and game-time confidence.
Considering an entry point of 8 or 9 years (to stay consistent with the details above) that means by age 14, the January player isn’t just better because they are older. They are better because they have had six years of superior training that the December player was denied.
The most sobering part of this data is the “missing” talent. In some Canadian youth programs, you are statistically four times more likely to be in a representative tier if you are a Q1 baby versus a Q4 baby. This suggests that for every January-born star we develop, there is a potential December-born star who was cut from the system before they ever had the chance to catch up physically.
But wait Q4 babies! It’s not all doom and gloom. While Q1 babies dominate the number of players who make it, there is a fascinating “reversal” at the very top of the elite level. Research suggests that players born in Q4 who actually do manage to make it to the pro level often have longer and more successful careers than the Q1 players (Fumarco et al., 2017). Why? Well it is thought that to survive the “physical” disadvantage of youth sports, the December-born player has to develop superior technical skills, higher “soccer IQ,” and more mental resilience (the “underdog effect”). If they can stick with it until their growth catches up (usually age 16-18), they often surpass the “big kids” who relied on size rather than skill.
As we look at the current structures in our sports communities, the challenge is to ask, what are we missing? Are our organizations designed to find the best athletes, or simply the oldest ones?
Around the world clubs are experimenting with innovative solutions to level the playing field:
- Appropriately Applied Bio-banding: Grouping players based on their biological maturity (growth spurts and height percentage) rather than their birth year (Towlson et al., 2023). While some organizations have tried to implement elements of this strategy the lack of continuity and club support is often cited as a stumbling point.
- Rotating Cut-off Dates: Changing the age-group deadline year-to-year so that the “youngest” players eventually become the “oldest” (Webdale et al., 2020). Currently being trialed in some US youth soccer organizations.
- Quotas: Requiring teams to maintain a minimum percentage of players from each birth quarter.
Have you noticed this within your own, or your child’s club? What do you think could help your local organization ensure we aren’t leaving talent behind?
References:
Barnsley, R. H., Thompson, A. H., & Barnsley, P. E. (1985). Hockey success and birthdate: The relative age effect. Journal of the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 51(4), 23–28.
Gibbs, B. G., Jarvis, J. A., & Dufur, M. J. (2012). The rise of the underdog? The relative age effect reversal among Canadian-born NHL hockey players: A reply to Nolan and Howell. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(5), 644–649. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1012690211414343
Fumarco, L., Gibbs, B. G., Jarvis, J. A., & Rossi, G. (2017). The relative age effect reversal among the National Hockey League elite. PLOS ONE, 12(8). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182827
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.
Grondin, S. (2024). To be or not to be born at the right time: Lessons from ice hockey. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, Article 1440029. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2024.1440029/full
Sierra-Díaz, M., González-Víllora, S., Pastor-Vicedo, J., & Serra-Olivares, J. (2017). Soccer and Relative Age Effect: A Walk among Elite Players and Young Players. Sports, 5(1), 5. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/5/1/5
Towlson, C., Watson, D. J., Cumming, S., Salter, J., & Toner, J. (2023). Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-banding. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274079
Webdale, K., Baker, J., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (2020). Solving sport’s “relative age” problem: A systematic review of proposed solutions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 187–204. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1675083
