Youth sports performance pathways are subject to diseconomies of scale. The bigger they get, the less efficient they become.
Which raises two questions:
- Who in their right mind would pursue a diseconomy of scale?
- What would an economy scale look like in youth sports?
For example, Man City’s academy might suffer from diseconomies of scale, but when it produces players worth millions, it might just make sense. And if it doesn’t, they have an ownership structure that is willing to pay the price.
To operate at an economy of scale, the production of one player makes it cheaper to produce another; the process gets more efficient, and if not, you don’t have a system; you have yourself a slot machine.
When it comes to the development of our youth, optimisation is expensive. To control risk, narrow our options, and produce talent pathways, we have created inefficiency – bureaucracy.
Perhaps then some of the answers, particularly in health and physical activity development, lie in acceptance of risk, optionality, and social entrepreneurship.
When risk is borne by the service provider, not the consumer, you have entrepreneurship. Point practitioners in the direction of a social problem, but don’t tell them what to do, and you have social entrepreneurship. Successful practitioners generate revenue—positive feedback that pays taxes and funds further experimentation.
Optionality appears when conditions are created for risk acceptance, not prescribed delivery. Some will succeed, some won’t – that’s the point.
Performance becomes a design feature, not the point.