The “Private Academies” are Evil Debate!

 It’s been 6 years since I last felt strongly enough to blog anything football related. During this time my work situation has changed markedly, from being a full-time pro club employee (Lead Phase Coach YDP) to Head of Coaching (part-time) at a private academy. The private academy debate has always stirred up extreme emotions for some reason and I’ve read a number of posts over the years, mostly negative, but not been in a position to speak with any insight or real conviction either way. Now that has changed I thought I’d share my thoughts, not to change anyone’s mind (most people are so entrenched that they won’t change regardless of the argument) but just to offer an example of what happens in our environment. I stress, this is my current working environment and I’m not saying that we are any better or worse than anyone else.

What’s in a name? 

The word comes from the Academy in ancient Greece, which derives from the Athenianhero, Akademos. Outside the city walls of Athens, the gymnasium was made famous by Plato as a center of learning. The sacred space, dedicated to the goddess of wisdom, Athena, had formerly been an olivegrove, hence the expression "the groves of Academe".[1]

I suspect that most clubs would like to consider themselves “centres of learning”, in that their coaches are teaching the game to young players, and that is fair enough, but it’s just a name - there’s no need to be upset by it. Are (is?) Manchester United? Are Blackburn or Doncaster really Rovers? In our case our name is aspirational, it describes a mentality more than anything else.

When I first became involved in pro football (2002, yes, I’m that old!) Clubs operated Centres of Excellence, rather than academies. Depending on your particular take or experience, some people would argue that even this dilution of the Academy ethos was stretching the term “excellence” in some instances. Nowadays anyone can use the term Academy and this is often frowned upon by coaches both at grassroots and pro club level. It was always stressed that the C of E was there to develop individuals, rather than teams, which made sense (to me at least). However, football being a team sport meant that there may be some individuals who were there to aid the development of others as well as maximising their own potential in an environment conducive to that development. So in essence, it was still “a centre of learning”.

At our club we have a range of coaches, from some of our older young players being mentored towards their first qualifications to UEFA Pro and A Licence coaches. We are coaching to a syllabus which is tried and tested at the pro club level and we have regular CPD for our staff to stay current, well informed and well supported. We have qualified physiotherapists with the relevant experience and qualifications, injury clinics and rehab protocols. We have our own facility (which comes with bills which need to be paid). I can’t speak for what other “academies” provide and I don’t worry about what they are called. 

I also see coaches claiming that private academies are hoovering up all the local talent, again I feel that this largely untrue. Whatever people’s opinions on the JPL are, it was set up to allow players to play with their grassroots teams on a Sunday and with other players on a Saturday (one of the regular complaints about Academy football is that it stops players playing with their mates/peers) so we can’t have it both ways. If some clubs are “attached/affiliated” to their local pro clubs, so what? Is it really any different from the pro clubs running “shadow” squads or Elite Development Centres or grassroots clubs refusing to allow scouts to attend because “we’re so and so’s partner club”?

Or is it the fact that most of these private academies are charging parents to take their kids there? I regularly see posts on social media bemoaning the fact that grassroots coaches aren’t paid. Well, where is the money going to come from to pay these coaches (who are definitely worth compensating in most cases). Our coaches are compensated for the time they put into planning, delivering and overseeing games and training and that money comes from subscriptions. If we rent out training facilities, match pitches, pay referees, competition registrations etc then that money comes from those same subscriptions. 

If parents feel they are being short changed they simply won’t pay the clubs for training and will go back to the Sunday morning grassroots game. No one is holding parents to ransom. They are told from the outset what they are getting for their money and they make a decision based on whether they think they will get value for that money. 

I’m sure that most of the above will be dismissed by those who are opposed to the “pay to play” model and that is their right. But it’s a model that, on the whole, seems to provide something that parents and young players want without promising the world.