The storyline is well-known.
Tiny Iceland, a country the size of Kentucky (or Pennsylvania) with the population of Corpus Christi (or Peoria, Santa Ana, or Staten Island), shocks the world by qualifying for the 2016 UEFA European Championships and then for the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
The statistics are even familiar.
More than 700 highly-credentialed coaches trained since 2003, at least thirteen full-sized indoor facilities constructed since 2000, more than 150 mini-fields built outside schools since 2003.
Three years ago I wrote an initial outline for how Maine's soccer community could learn from Iceland's meteoric rise in international soccer, which reads like a 37,000-foot overview based on other writers' visits and research.
But as good as those pieces are, they weren't enough. So back in February I traveled there myself and visited with representatives from the national association and three clubs--Breiðablik, Grindavík, and Vikingur--for a 72-hour cram session on all things soccer in Iceland.
Fortunately, my hosts were very welcoming and accommodating, so most of my time in the country was spent in boardrooms and on soccer fields having hours-long discussions about all aspects of Icelandic soccer with more transparency and collegiality than many of us have probably come to expect here in the U.S.
I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express while on my trip, so this post isn't intended as an exhaustive look at soccer in Iceland.
But it is intended as a jumping-off point to get the discussion started, because there are some aspects of Icelandic soccer we could adopt here in Maine if we want to move the needle in the development of Maine's clubs, players, coaches, and overall soccer culture.
Geography, Geography, Geography
Iceland and Maine are more similar than different when it comes to geography.
So there could probably be a really interesting thread on how the perceived geographical isolation of both locations simultaneously forces Iceland and Maine to be both self-reliant and dependent on other states and countries for development.
Another geography-related perspective could be on how both Iceland and Maine face challenging climates as a result of our geography and how the adaptation (and in some cases lack of adaptation) to those challenging climates impacts soccer in both those places.
But those takes aren't the most significant geographically-related takeaways from the trip.
The most significant geographically-related takeaway is how geography is the simple yet fundamental organizing feature of Icelandic soccer: If you live in a town, then you play or work for your town's club. And if you live in a city that has multiple clubs (like, say, Reyjkavik), then you play or work for your neighborhood's club.
This emphasis on geography in Iceland as an organizing principle for clubs has yielded a stable yet vibrant culture for developing clubs.
This emphasis on geography in Iceland as an organizing principle for clubs has yielded a stable and vibrant culture for developing players.
And this emphasis on geography in Iceland as an organizing principle for clubs has yielded a stable and vibrant culture for developing coaches.
As a result of the country's hyperlocal approach to organizing its clubs, Iceland has nearly fifty clubs that have programming for U6 through semi-professional (or professional) players. That's nearly fifty multi-generational clubs in a country in which 334,000 residents, 22,6000 registered players, and hundreds of coaches compete in an open system to realize their fullest potential.
These geographical definitions have ensured each club has consistent long-term investment of money, time, and sweat equity. These geographical definitions of clubs have ensured each club has civic ties and public support on and off the field. These geographical definitions of clubs have ensured clubs focus more on developing their own players and coaches, instead of poaching them from one another. And these geographical definitions of clubs have ensured there is a predictable and sustainable ecosystem in which clubs can compete against one another, instead of cannibalizing one another and prioritize growing market share.
These geographical definitions of clubs in Iceland are also the fundamental structure that enables their system to feature purpose, resources, value, and efficiency.
Efficiency
Efficiency in the Icelandic model for soccer refers to maximizing potential by doing more with less, and it also refers to the model's streamlined development pathway for players, coaches, and clubs.
When it comes to doing more with less, there is no place on Earth better at producing a stronger culture for developing players, coaches, and clubs with relatively limited resources than Iceland.
According to the CIES Football Observatory, a research group based in Switzerland, Iceland leads the world on a per capita basis in developing the most professional soccer players playing outside their home country.
From the national federation down to the smallest clubs in the country, it is recognized that inclusivity is necessary. Regardless of whether the meeting featured a representative from the national association, the biggest club in the country, or one of the smallest clubs in the country, "[W]e need every player," was said at least once and the country's approach to inclusivity is proof that sentiment is more than just a talking point.
The second remarkable display of efficiency in Icelandic soccer is the streamlined pathway for players, coaches, and clubs.
Below are two images that outline the common pathway typical soccer players in Iceland and Maine
each have available to follow from ages 3 through adulthood.
This first image depicts a common pathway for a typical soccer player in Iceland:
And this next image depicts the common pathway for a typical soccer player in Maine:
As you can see, the pathway for a typical Icelandic player is streamlined, efficient, and stable and the pathway for a typical Maine player is, well, none of those things.
From U6 through U19, our typical aspiring Icelandic youth player will have the opportunity to play youth soccer (and other athletics) year-round with his local club throughout his entire youth career and potentially play semi-professional or professional soccer in Iceland or elsewhere in the world as an adult.
That's up to fourteen years of year-round seasons (yes, the typical season in Iceland is year-round, with periodization based on ages and other sports seasons baked into the schedule) in which a player has access to a connected pathway, high-level coaching, a predictable annual schedule, and consistent exposure to quality competition in the next town over.
Contrast that with the byzantine pathway our typical aspiring youth player in Maine experiences in start-and-stop chunks over their 14-year career as a youth soccer player in our state.
Our young player in Maine from U6-U19 is involved with as many as eleven different organizations without ever changing his address, and there are currently no decent opportunities to play semi-professional or professional soccer in Maine and no precedent of Mainers playing professionally overseas.
So that's up to fourteen years of considerably less time on the field with access to an disconnected pathway, uneven levels of coaching, a partially-predictable annual schedule, and uneven exposure to quality competition that many feel can only be found outside our area code.
Here's another way to think about the contrast in efficiency.
Remember the statistic about there being fifty U6 through semi-professional clubs representing the pathway for Iceland youth soccer players?
On the one hand, that number can be seen as remarkably large considering a pool of only 22,600 registered players in the country. On the other hand, it can be seen as remarkably lean, when you consider the number of organizations involved in the player development pathway for soccer players for Maine.
In Maine there are numerous unaffiliated amateur leagues for adults, one semi-professional men's team mired in the bowels of our country's closed system, more than a dozen college programs, about 130 high school programs, probably a similar number of middle school programs, about fifty town-based travel teams, around ten premier clubs (including a couple whose base of operations and footprint extends beyond Maine), and dozens of town-run recreational programs. And very few of those programs have anything to do with another.
So if the Icelandic model is an exemplar of rationality, efficiency, and connectivity, then the Maine model is disjointed and has the structure of a Jackson Pollock painting.
Value
- More athlete-friendly and family-friendly schedules
Each of the three host clubs offer some variation of the following sports for year-round participation: Basketball, cycling, handball, judo, karate, powerlifting, skiing, swimming, and tennis.
Since a single organization offers these activities in a geographically-convenient location year-round, youth soccer players not only get more time on the soccer field but also on the basketball court (or handball court or pool or handball court, or, well, you get the idea).
For example: During the height of soccer season (May-September), it's common for a youth soccer player in Iceland to participate in up to four soccer training sessions and a few basketball (or handball or judo) practices each week, while the schedule frequencies flip during the soccer off-season. And because of the role geography plays in determining club, both those sessions will likely take place on the same campus and will conclude by dinner time.
Since a single organization offers these activities in a geographically-convenient location year-round, youth soccer players not only get more time on the soccer field but also on the basketball court (or handball court or pool or handball court, or, well, you get the idea).
For example: During the height of soccer season (May-September), it's common for a youth soccer player in Iceland to participate in up to four soccer training sessions and a few basketball (or handball or judo) practices each week, while the schedule frequencies flip during the soccer off-season. And because of the role geography plays in determining club, both those sessions will likely take place on the same campus and will conclude by dinner time.
Mom and dad don't generally have to act as chauffeur shuttling kids from one town to the other, and the common administration of multiple sports by one organization often results in coordinated schedules among the activities. One club, for instance, recognized many of the players in a particular age group also played basketball, so it designed that age group's soccer and basketball schedules to be complementary.
Travel to games is similarly convenient, because the geographical definition of clubs and the open system of leagues at both the youth and semi-professional levels ensures there's ample competition in local areas. (One club's youth director mentioned that his youth teams' longest commute can occasionally clock in at two hours, so the club sometimes springs for a bus to take the pressure off parents who are accustomed to much shorter commutes to games.)
Contrast that with our typical Maine youth soccer players' schedule that usually features a single-sport focus that involves multiple organizations in the same sport at the same time; or multiple sports run by multiple organizations at the same time; or just a single sport run by a single organization that nevertheless has heavy travel commitments required. And since those organizations and activities aren't organized geographically, participation in multiple sports means multiple car rides and long, 12-hour days for parents and athletes alike.
- More efficient expenditure of private funds and resources
Price shock is common in Iceland. Even when you've accounted for the huge disparity in exchange rates (it takes some time to get used to your coffee costing 738 anything), the island is still notoriously expensive.
Despite these notorious consumer prices, conversations with club administrators about the costs associated with youth soccer in Maine (and the U.S.) often resulted in wide eyes, shaking heads, bristled breath, and usually a "You guys pay what?!" exclamation.
That's because for twelve months of programming in multiple sports, Iceland's families pay between $725-$900 per year, depending on the club. That annual fee means multiple training sessions in multiple sports for 52 weeks and multiple competitions in multiple sports for 52 weeks. Travel costs are of course nominal.
Any soccer parent in Maine who has winced at paying double--or triple or quadruple--that range of fees for fewer sessions, fewer competitions, and more travel should probably look away from this factoid: That $725-$900 price point is actually halved for families due to local governments subsidizing these fees as part of an effective 20-year effort to curb high drinking and drug use among Icelandic youth.
Even without this subsidy, though, parents in Iceland are still paying only a fraction of the typical private U.S. clubs' registration fees, while their sons and daughters are getting more than twice as much time on the soccer field.
Even without this subsidy, though, parents in Iceland are still paying only a fraction of the typical private U.S. clubs' registration fees, while their sons and daughters are getting more than twice as much time on the soccer field.
- More efficient expenditure of public funds and resources
The aforementioned participation subsidies aren't the only way the public sector invests funds into Iceland's soccer clubs. The other key public investment in youth athletics in Iceland is the public funding of the construction and the maintenance of the clubs' facilities and infrastructure.
The public funding of clubs' indoor facilities, stadiums, practice fields, mini-sized fields is part of a public-private grand bargain that is possible primarily because of the importance geography and efficiency play in the Iceland soccer structure.
In this public-private partnership, the locally-affiliated private athletic club provides recreational programming and well-trained staff and opens up that programming to every town resident.
In exchange for the club's expertise and inclusivity, the local government provides the facilities and the infrastructure for the programming. Private funds (i.e., participation fees) are directed to the private club to cover labor costs and other costs associated with the programming, while public funds (i.e., taxes) cover the costs associated with facilities and infrastructure.
To understand why this system represents a more efficient expenditure of public funds and resources, it's helpful to think of our typical youth soccer players in Iceland and Maine again.
In Iceland, our 3-year-old joins his local soccer club and his parents pay an annual participation fee so that he can participate in the club's soccer program (and other athletic programs) all year. For the next fourteen years, it's a rinse-and-repeat transaction with the same organization that is governed by a board of directors, a few administrators, and a group of compensated coaches who almost all still need to work a full-time job other than coaching to make ends meet. Over the course of those fourteen years, our 3-year-old in Iceland will likely use the same limited number of facilities and infrastructure (indoor complex, stadium field, and practice fields.)
In Maine, our 3-year-old first joins a town-based recreational program for a couple months in the fall. This program is likely administrated by a director of recreational programming, supervised by town employees, and staffed with parents as volunteer coaches. When he's 8, our Maine player joins his privately-run town-based travel program for three months in the fall that is supervised by volunteers and staffed by parents as volunteer coaches. Also at the age of eight, our Maine player decides to join a premier club for the first time. Depending on the club he joins, the program could be a 6-month program that doesn't overlap with his fall season or it could be a 10-month program that overlaps with his town-based travel schedule. This club could be administered professionally or voluntarily, with coaches whose compensation usually requires a full-time job other than coaching. And in middle school, high school, and (usually) college, the typical Maine soccer players' experience will be administered by public-funded athletic directors and staffed by publicly-funded coaches.
There is no doubt that parents in Iceland are paying less for a superior soccer system in Iceland, and there's a plausible case to be made that even taxpayers in Iceland are paying less than Maine's taxpayers as well.
There is no doubt that parents in Iceland are paying less for a superior soccer system in Iceland, and there's a plausible case to be made that even taxpayers in Iceland are paying less than Maine's taxpayers as well.
Resources
Grindavík is a small fishing village in southwest Iceland with 3,300 residents.
The club's youth program has roughly the same number of players as the Rosevelt Soccer Club (about 200 players) and its registration fees are roughly the same as well ($450-$850, depending on age).
However, its annual revenue outpaces this small Maine club's expected annual revenue sevenfold.
How does a fishing village with the population of tiny Clinton, Maine earn seven times the revenue of a soccer club that primarily draws players from four of the bigger towns in southern Maine with a combined population of nearly 73,000? Let us count the ways.
The first reason is because it receives funding (in-kind or otherwise) from the national association and the local government, primarily when it comes to building and maintaining facilities. But even without this financial aid, the club's revenues would still outpace those of the Rosevelt Soccer Club.
Grindavík is also a multigenerational club that competes in an open semi-professional system with promotion and relegation, so this relatively small club has the opportunity to play in the country's first division. With that comes revenue from television, a state-sponsored lottery that regulates gambling on Icelandic semi-professional games, concessions, ticket sales, numerous sponsorships, and all the other streams of revenue that come along with having a semi-professional side atop the club's developmental pyramid.
And because Grindavík's national association allows (no, encourages) the club to be involved in the global soccer economy, the club can also consider solidarity payments, training compensation, and transfer fees as plausible revenue streams. (Solidarity payments and training compensation are revenue sources that are often involved in a former youth player going to another club, while transfer fees are often involved in a first team player going to another club.)
Grindavík of course also generates revenue by charging it youth players participation fees.
In fact, of all of Grindavík's various revenue streams described above, private clubs in Maine primarily rely only on participation fees and sponsors for revenue.
Private clubs in Maine aren't multigenerational and aren't allowed to operate in an open system, so the first chunk of Grindavík revenue streams described above aren't currently utilized and they'll always be lower than they could be as a result of our current lack of promotion and relegation in American soccer.
The U.S. Soccer Federation has also restricted independent (read: non-MLS) clubs' ability to collect solidarity payments and training compensation for its youth players, so that revenue is off-limits for Maine clubs. And of course the demand for Maine's soccer players on the international market is currently non-existent.
Publicly-funded programs in Maine of course generate revenue from taxes and fees, but the connections between Maine's private clubs and public institutions are generally only transactional in nature, instead of collaborative.
So there's the answer to the riddle: An Icelandic club representing a town of 3,300 has seven times more revenue than a Maine club representing four towns in southern Maine representing 73,000 because it's a multigenerational club that actively participates in an open system inside its country and the soccer market place outside its country.
Results of these greater opportunities for revenue, Grindavík are a 1,500-seat stadium that can hold half the town, a full-sized indoor facility, a small-sided outdoor turf field, and multiple outdoor grass practice fields. These resources also enable the club to plan for even better facilities in the future, all while still keeping participation fees relatively low for its youth players.
Purpose
Geography, efficiency, value, and resources all play an important role in the success of Iceland.
But all of those factors would still not be as important if players, coaches, and clubs don't all have purpose on a daily and annual basis.
Players have the incentive to perform well at every training session and game not only because there's intense competition for playing time within their club (grouping teams by ability and competitive games can start as early as U8), but also because Iceland's efficient pathway includes a coherent and inclusive scouting and identification process for youth and senior-level national teams within the country that formally begins in the U12 age groups.
And besides club and national team opportunities, players have the incentive to train and play with purpose for opportunities to play overseas.
Iceland's clubs also have incentives to develop players who go on to play professionally outside the country. Below is an image that depicts the highest transfer fees a club outside Iceland has paid for an Icelandic player.
These represent the ten most lucrative transfers, but there are hundreds (thousands?) of smaller sums that nevertheless add up to give Icelandic clubs more resources to invest in their club and keep participation fees lower for its youth players, because it's the clubs who are the recipients of either those transfer fees or the solidarity payments that are contained within the transfer fees.
Besides having the purpose to develop its players for potential careers outside of Iceland, clubs also have incentive to perform well within the country.
Because Iceland has an open system, clubs are subject to promotion and relegation at both the youth and semi-professional levels. This means players, coaches, and clubs are engaged in a competitive structure based on their performances on the field each and every year to either maintain their status in a particular level of competition or to be promoted to the next-highest level. During the season from May-September, the twelve clubs in the top division are not only trying to win the league title, but they're also competing to avoid being relegated to the division below them. Ditto for the twelve teams in the second division, the twelve clubs in the third division, and the twelve clubs in the fourth division.
Developing coaches with purpose is also a trademark of the Icelandic system. Even though the country's coaches are some of the most well-trained in the world, a vast majority of them are still paid stipends that are modest enough (one club's stipend range for its youth coaches is from $200-$1,000 per age group) for them to require another full-time job to make ends meet. And the clubs pay for the famously intensive coaching courses administered by the national association, which range in costs from $1,000 for a UEFA B course to about $3,500 to secure a UEFA A license.
Depending on the club or scholastic program, our coaches in Maine earn stipends that run the gamut, but there's no doubt Iceland's national association has made its coaching training programs to be as affordable as they can to ensure coaching education in that country is more inclusive. That contrasts with the U.S. Soccer Federation's (USSF) deliberate attempt to limit the number of opportunities for coach advancement by offering a limited number of coaching courses (there are currently only thirteen USSF A coaching courses being offered right now, and they're all booked) and the relatively high cost (it will cost a coach at least $10,000 just to register for the equivalent courses to earn a UEFA A license in Iceland, and thousands more for travel and accommodations).
The results of the Icelandic model for coach education speak for themselves. They develop on a per-capita basis more highly-trained coaches than any other country in the world, largely because they have the same mantra when it comes to their coaches and their clubs: Every coach (and player and club) matters.
Developing players and competing to win are sometimes seen as mutually exclusive goals. But the Icelandic system that incentivizes both player development and on-field performance seems to have struck a solid balance. And nothing sums up what a multigenerational club who has access to its country's top division of play and the global marketplace can potential achieve more than Grindavík's stated goals for the near-future: Field a first team made up primarily of youth players the club has developed, field one of the top first teams in the country, develop youth players for professional careers overseas, and develop players who'll represent the country on the national teams.
Imagine what Maine (and other independent clubs across the United States) could achieve if we were allowed (and allowed ourselves) to have such purpose.
Conclusion
Throughout this post, I've generally referenced Maine soccer only to offer contrast and context with Icelandic soccer. Possible solutions are planned for what might be described as a third and final installment in this trilogy.
What I do know is that we can make soccer in Maine more efficient. We can make soccer in Maine more valuable. We can make soccer in Maine more resourceful. And we can make soccer in Maine more purposeful.
The question is, Can we get there from here?
- John C.L. Morgan
No comments:
Post a Comment