Youth Football (PE1319)
Good afternoon and a good new year to all of you. Welcome to the first meeting in 2011 of the Public Petitions Committee. I ask everyone to ensure that all mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched off.
Obviously, this is an important petition that raises serious issues. I want to focus my questions on point 1 of the petition, which involves the legal status and appropriateness of SFA clubs entering into contracts with children who are under 16. Are the documents that are signed by young players a contract or a registration form? We have had differing responses from various members of the panel. Who would like to kick off? I should say that that pun was intended.
It is a registration form. FIFA requires that any player who is to be attached to a professional football club be registered with the association of which that club is a member. It is not a contract.
I take it that you agree with Mr Doncaster on that point, Mr Regan.
Absolutely.
Have you anything to add?
As Neil Doncaster said, it is a registration that is entered into with the full knowledge of the parent or guardian. It is not a contract as you would understand a contract to be; it is a registration form.
Are there any contrary views?
There has been a lot of discussion about whether the form is a contract or a registration document. Whatever it is, it acts like a contract, because it ties the young person to the club. The young person signs it and, as far as I am aware, parents do not always countersign it. The Scottish Child Law centre clearly confirmed that a child under the age of 16 cannot enter into a contract. The key point is the impression that is given by the document and the way that it impinges on children’s behaviour. People are under the impression—rightly or wrongly—that they are signing a contract. That has all sorts of consequences, which form the main concerns that are set out in the petition.
I do not want to get involved in the semantics of the issue, but I would like to know what other members of the panel think about Mr Baillie’s point that, whatever the document is, it binds a young person who is under 16 to a particular club for one season with no exit clause. Do members of the panel feel that those conditions constitute more than simple registration?
No, I do not think that they do. You are absolutely right that, in effect, they bind a player to a club for that season, but there is an exit clause in the sense that, at the end of the season, the player is free not to stay with that club and to move on to another. That goes to the heart of the matter, which is what the restriction is. At the end of the season, if the club does not wish to retain the player, the player will become free. If the club wishes to retain the player and the player wishes to stay with the club, there is no problem—everyone is in agreement. The issue occurs when, at the end the season, the player’s existing club wishes to retain him, but another, bigger club wishes him to come to it. That is the practical restriction that we are probably all talking about. The heart of the matter is the compensation for the training that the smaller club has given, which our rules oblige the bigger, acquisitive club to pay the smaller club.
I do not want to go into compensation for training at the moment, because other members will ask about that.
I agree with what Mr Doncaster has said in that the player signs with a club in the full knowledge of his parent or guardian, notwithstanding what Mr Baillie has said. He signs an agreement that, in effect, binds him to that club. At the end of the season, he becomes a free agent, if you like. The agreement is simply an agreement for the club to provide coaching and development services; it is not the contract that people believe it to be.
I would like to hear from Mr Sinclair and then Mr McCart, if that is okay.
From my experience with our parents, my concern is that they often do not have full knowledge of the ramifications of signing the document. The compensation levels are not always explained to them, nor is the fact that there will be a price on the head of their youngster.
Are you saying that in your view, unfortunately, there is a lack of transparency at that important interval and that, if there were more transparency, there would be more choice?
I do not think that there is anything Machiavellian about it—
That is why I did not use the word “Machiavellian”. I just meant—
All that I am saying is that, as the registration procedure stands, it denies a young person and their family an element of choice that should exist.
I want to go back to the question about the registration form. The parents sign the registration form, which is the same at boys club level as it is at pro youth level. The parents sign it at boys club level and at pro youth level. The young player will be accompanied by a parent or guardian when they enter into the registration agreement.
What about Mr Sinclair’s point? Do you think that it has some validity?
It certainly does, but we are moving on two or three levels. We are going on to talk about development contribution and scouting players from other clubs, and the freedom and the choice that a young player has. He might not be aware that other clubs are interested in him. The SFA has set out its terms of reference on approaches to young players, and clubs follow that approach, but whether the young player or their parent is fully aware of the interest of other clubs is yet to be seen.
Right. Can I have one more question, with your indulgence, convener?
Yes.
I want to get this right because I am not expert in this field. My information is that the youth initiative registration/contract form for the signing of a 15-year-old player enables the club to hold that child for a further two years after the initial year elapses. Is that not different from what Mr Doncaster and Mr Regan said about younger children?
To be fair, I think that Mr Sinclair and Mr McCart are far more familiar with the detail of the 15-year-old level than Stewart Regan and I are.
The process is just as you described. Registration is annual until the age of 15, or when we come to the end of the under-14s season. When a young person signs at that point, they are in effect signing a three-year rolling contract to which they are bound.
The right age is actually the school leaving age, which is normally 16 but, because their leaving date can be before the child’s 16th birthday, there is a small window during which they can sign at the age of 15. A professional contract can be signed only after the player has left school or on their 16th birthday.
Is that a sort of transitional agreement before going on to a full contract?
There are players who will, after they arrive at the age of 16, enter into full professional terms with the club. That depends on how talented they are in the view of the club. In our opinion, a contract on full professional terms will not be signed until after the player has left school and is eligible to start work.
I just want to make a quick comment about how we are talking about children—we are talking about them as commodities. There has even been a mention of a price on their head. These children and young people have a right to play, but we are putting restrictions on their behaviour because they have signed a form. They have the right to have an opinion and to have account taken of it. We are talking about that choice being exercised just before they sign the contract, but what about for the length of the contract? All the decision making around the contract is stacked on the clubs’ side. We have to put young people and their needs and rights right at the centre of the issue. At the end of the day, it is nurturing their talent and skills that should be central, not whether the clubs make a decision or not. Frankly, we have to start thinking about children and young people as being at the centre of the issue rather than as commodities as part of the framework.
Mr Regan, if you want to, you can come back on that and then we will wind up. We might return to the subject later, but I am conscious of time.
I totally disagree with what Mr Baillie said. I do not think that anyone thinks of children as commodities. We are thinking about developing talented footballers for the long-term success of the Scottish team. Talent needs to be nurtured and managed and that costs money. Clubs are prepared to invest in developing children with the full knowledge of their parents or guardians, and they agree to bind themselves to a club for a period of 12 months in return for good-quality coaching and development from a professional club. When they reach the school leaving age, like any child in the current marketplace they are eligible to enter the workplace. At that point, they become professionals and are either signed on professional terms or not. No one is talking about children as if they are commodities. We are talking about developing talented children and improving their skills for the long-term success of the game.
The rights of the child are paramount. I have one essential point. Mr Regan, do you think that Mr Sinclair has a valid point when he states, to paraphrase him, that the process could be a bit more transparent, especially in May? I know that you are not saying that the status quo is perfect, because the SFA and others are of course working to develop the strategy. Is that one of the improvements that could be looked at, considered and made?
I refer you to part 1 of Henry McLeish’s report which, on pages 16 to 17, talks about a small review group being set up
Is that part of the overall draft performance strategy that is being developed?
It is not part of the performance strategy per se, but it is a recommendation from Henry McLeish. In support of what Mr Sinclair said, I would say that the processes and ways of dealing with the issue can be improved. I am prepared to consider how we might deal with that to try to tighten up some of the things that are perhaps not as transparent as they might be.
I am obliged.
Stewart Regan makes an important point that with the review of the youth action plan, there is an opportunity to consider the issues that the petitioners have raised. Clearly, there are aspects that need to be considered, because otherwise the petitioners would not be here and we would not be having this discussion. The timing is right and I am pleased to hear what Stewart Regan said. The Scottish Government is keen to work with the SFA and others to consider the issues, but within the context of the review of the youth action plan, which is under way.
Of course, the Scottish Government puts funding into that.
To date, the youth action plan has largely been funded by the Big Lottery Fund but, as of April, the Scottish Government will fund it, so we are keen to work with our partners to ensure that issues are resolved. Clearly, improvements can be made, as we have begun to touch on today, and we are keen to work on those.
I seek clarification on the point that 15-year-olds might be bound for—how long?
Three years.
At the age of 15?
There is a one-year rolling registration form at 15.
That is technically correct, absolutely, but the onus is on the club to reregister the young player. There is no element of choice at the end of the season. If a player is signed with our club, I decide that they will re-sign, rather than the other way round. In effect, the club is committing to the boy for three years, if we want to put it euphemistically.
So if the parents say that they want the child to come out of that at age 15, they are bound.
They are bound.
So there is an issue there.
I want to pick up on Mr Baillie’s point about the rights of young people and looking after them. Any compensation model that is eventually decided on would be far better looking back at what has happened in a youngster’s career rather than shaping it as they go forward. In the event of a young person eventually signing a professional contract for a club, there should be levels of compensation that are paid at that point, but we should not put a price on the heads of 11, 12, 13 or 14-year-old kids. That would send out a conflicting message. To me, it would be far fairer if the moneys were paid in the event of a professional contract being secured, as that would allow for greater freedom of choice and would put less onus on kids and so on.
Do other members have questions on compensation?
I think that Mr Sinclair said that, at the end of the year, the child or young person becomes a free agent.
Yes.
I did not want to put words in your mouth.
Just for clarity, it is the end of the season when the registration period ends.
Okay, so that would be at some point before 30 June. Is that when they have to register?
They—
When would they be a free agent? You said that they can start to have discussions on about 1 June.
If the young player is with Rangers, we would be speaking to them at that point and asking them to re-sign. We have the month of June in which to do that. However, up until that point, the youngster does not know that there is any interest from Chris McCart across the road at Celtic.
I take that point. At that moment, the young player becomes a free agent and it is up to them to choose whether to sign up again for Celtic, Rangers, Dundee or whoever. Is that—
I am a wee bit uncomfortable with your expression “a free agent” because, sadly, that does not happen. The club would maintain and hold on to the registration after that period if the youngster did not want to sign, so they would still be bound to whatever club they are signed with.
But if the youngster decides that he really does not want to be into football and he wants to take up something else, he is a free agent to do that.
In that sense, he is, of course. Yes.
Can the young person do that at 15 or are they tied in, given the points that you made in answer to—
They can leave football, for sure.
And if young people leave football at that age, the bigger clubs will not chase them for compensation for the investment that they have made up to that point.
No, but I am right in saying that the registration will remain with the club.
So a club could still hold someone—
If it chose to do so. If you think about it, it could be the best player in the club who now decides that he wants to walk off into the sunset, but I know that, across the road, Mr McCart has already had designs on him, and blah blah blah. Not that Chris would do anything as untoward as that, I am sure.
Does that happen often?
No, because they are keen to stay. By and large, 99 per cent of the time, or a high percentage of the time, they are keen to be where they are. They are happy and settled there. I suppose the essence of the matter is whether they have the element of choice. That is where the thorny issue lies.
The flaw, as you see it, is that the young person and their family do not know what other clubs might be interested.
If we are truly talking about choices, all those choices should be made available to the young person. There might be eight clubs that are desperate to sign the youngster but, because we do not tell them, or there is no mechanism for telling them, they cannot avail themselves of that opportunity.
If a youngster and his family were to move to another part of the country, what would be the position?
I think that clubs as a group more or less concede that that is just one of those things. That is life. Such moves are above what we are discussing here.
I want to look at the issue of compensation payments and what the SFA calls reimbursement of the training fee, which currently stands at £5,000 a season, I think. Does anyone on the panel want to comment on how appropriate that is? If you believe that it is appropriate, why is no similar fee paid to clubs that are affiliated to the Scottish Youth Football Association or that are in the pro youth system?
My view is that clubs should be compensated for the work that they do. The mechanism for that is up for debate. What I have difficulty with is how the figures are arrived at, and the fact that, if they are subject to a review, they rise again. I do not know that any great calculation or computation goes hand in hand with that process. That is the issue that I have with the compensation mechanism. However, if clubs are investing, they should be recompensed to some degree.
And on the question about why SYFA clubs do not require reimbursement or a compensation payment—
If we are truly talking about compensation, it should be extended to those clubs, in whatever manner is agreed to be appropriate.
It is important to understand what we mean by compensation, because I think that some people are getting confused and thinking that it is some kind of transfer fee for a child or a young person. In order to encourage clubs to spend time and resource developing potentially talented players, there is a need for money. Some clubs do that free of charge in return for the child’s services over that period, hoping that he or she might go on to represent the team at a higher level later on. If a bigger club comes along and takes that player, clearly there is a need for that money to be returned to the club, in return for the investment that it has put in. That is what we mean by compensation.
I have a couple of views on this. It is a helpful suggestion to decouple the young person’s movement from the money that is paid—the compensation—as Stewart Regan suggested, because the way that the system operates at present suggests that it is a transfer system, as things happen contemporaneously and compensation has to be paid as the young person moves around. It would be very helpful to separate out the money for whatever activity the clubs are involved in and whatever investment is made from the current behaviour of the child or young person. The way that the system currently operates places extra restrictions on things and very much gives the impression that it is about the transfer of a child or young person.
I have a concern about decoupling movement from the compensation payment. The details can always be improved but, at the moment, the principle is that clubs are compensated for the investment that they make in players. If we move away from that principle, we will remove any incentive for clubs to develop young players. The reason why clubs invest huge time and resource in developing young players is that they hope to be able to discover the gems of the future. Those gems will come through and thrive at the club and they might move on to another club and also to represent the Scottish national team. The hope of finding those gems is the sole reason why clubs will engage in such expensive youth development. If those gems are able simply to up and move without a bigger, acquisitive club having to pay a compensation fee, any incentive for the smaller clubs to invest that time and effort will be removed; they will simply stop doing it and the country will be much poorer for it. We need to recognise the value in having a system that ensures that smaller clubs’ efforts in developing youth talent are protected.
I endorse the view that compensation should be paid to clubs. However, UEFA club licensing would insist that a club operates a youth programme and the benefits that accrue to any club, small or large, will remain the same—I do not think that there is any doubt about that. My experience is that we are not talking about mass migration at the end of a season from one club to another. Given the clubs that we are at, I am sure that Chris McCart would endorse that fully. We are talking about an element of choice that should exist—there is little debate about that, whether the number is one or 10. I am sorry, but I do not agree with Mr Doncaster: it will not mean the demise of youth development in the country, for those reasons.
As I understand it, if a young player wishes to move club and the compensation payment or reimbursement for training fee is not paid, that person can no longer play football. Can anyone on the panel justify that? We are talking about children and young people.
I can try to answer that. We have a mechanism that protects children from exactly that circumstance. Any such circumstance can be brought to us and the SPL board then adjudicates on it. If a disagreement were ever to arise and a player felt that he was being restricted because of those rules, that is exactly the sort of thing on which we would adjudicate after looking at the circumstances. If it was down to a player moving because of a family move across the country, for example, that could be taken into account.
Are the parents and children aware that they can come to you with disputes? We have heard a lot about how they are not always fully aware of what they are getting into. How are they made aware?
That is a valid point. Although we might hope that the documentation is completed in the right way and that people are fully briefed at the time they enter into the registration, we must accept that that may not always be the case.
Bearing in mind that a lot of people in that position may not yet be aware—because the code of conduct is still being worked on—that they can come to you, how many disputes have come to you? How many young people are you aware of who are currently unable to play football because of the compensation issue?
We have had no formal hearings, certainly in the 18 months in which I have been involved with the SPL; I cannot say what happened before that. Anecdotally we hear of issues, but those generally tend to be resolved between clubs. They usually come down to a player wanting to move to a bigger club for whatever reason, and there may be some sort of question mark over the compensation to be paid to his former club. That is what tends to happen, but in all instances in the past 18 months the issues have been resolved—they must have been, because we have never had any formal complaints brought forward to us.
Alternatively, you have not had any because people are not aware that they can come to you. I would welcome the code of conduct; the more that you can do to promote that, the better.
You make some very good points, as Mr Doncaster said. When the players enter into the registration and sign with their parent, the clubs have to give them the terms of reference and all the details are part of that. In reality, only three teams in Scotland—Celtic, Rangers and Hearts—are prepared to pay the development contribution. No other club can afford to pay it at the level at which it is set.
I agree entirely with Chris McCart. However, not all youth development programmes are of the same standing. It is in the interest of Scottish football for the best young players to go to the best academies; I make no value judgment about where those are. Not all academies have the same ability to produce young players. In the interest of Scottish football, all of us should look to promote flexibility and mobility, so that players can work with the best sport scientists, coaches, facilities and so on, instead of being bound through a lack of choice or awareness of their ability to go somewhere else, even though another club wants them to come there. It seems that we are fighting against one another, but there is a bigger picture for Scottish football.
I invite the minister to comment on the variation in quality of provision, given that taxpayers’ money goes to clubs for youth development. Through sportscotland, she will have a view on the quality of provision that should be in place where taxpayers’ money is involved.
Sportscotland has been fairly up front and clear with the SFA about what will have to be delivered in the second half of the youth action plan, which has been subject to a great deal of discussion over the past few weeks and months. We are halfway through the plan. Undoubtedly, some good things have been delivered, but it is time to step up delivery. More money is going into football now than went in in the past, but the whole of sport must recognise that financial times are difficult. Despite that, significant investment will be made in football in the next few years. At issue is what is delivered for that investment.
It might be interesting to hear some smaller clubs’ views on the issue, as the facilities that are offered are very different.
How many people go into development squads and what percentage of them end up with professional footballing careers at the end of the day?
There are six teams in the development programme: the under-11s, the under-12s, the under-13s, the under-14s, the under-15s and the under-17s, which is a dual age band. We are allowed to register 20 young players for each age group, but not every team exercises that right to sign and register 20 players. Underneath that, clubs also have age groups of under-eights, under-nines and under-10s, where the boys train and play with their boys club but come in to get some elite training as well.
Are the younger end of eight and nine-year-olds prohibited from playing football with their school team and so on?
No, not at all. They would play with their boys club.
I am encouraged to hear that, because social development is very important at those young ages. Playing with their peers and interacting with their friends is very important for the boys. I was a bit concerned about that being lost, but you have reassured me that that is not the case.
What are the rules about boys playing in schools football?
The performance level clubs take a view that the youngsters in their charge should not play schools football, principally because, by and large, they would be with that club four nights a week and on a Sunday for a game; in anybody’s language, that is a massive commitment, given that the boys also have homework and everything else to do. There is also the issue that, if we are indeed dealing with the elite young players, they should be given a consistent message, not a conflicting one, about how they develop. Many of our young players would welcome that decision being taken out of their hands and the fact that they are not press ganged by anyone else to play.
This issue is brought up a lot. If the interests of the young person are paramount—I think that everybody is agreed on that—where is that in relation to this issue?
For me, it is quite straightforward: the restrictions on young people’s choices are unacceptable. I accept that the clubs put a heavy investment into the children and young people, but by the same token the young people have a right to make their own decisions and choices.
I want to give a slightly wider context. Because of the petition, we are focused on the youth football initiative. Out of the 2,700 boys who are going through that initiative, only about 4 per cent go on to professional football. In my and the Government’s view, it is important that we see football in its wider context and in terms of recreation. It might be of interest to the committee to consider the active schools network’s contribution to football. Nearly a million football sessions have been delivered in schools through the network, so there is a wider context. I understand why we are here and why we are focusing on the youth football initiative, but the funding that the Scottish Government provides very much relates to a lifelong interest and is not just for the boys who are lucky enough to go into professional football. They are a tiny number of the boys and girls who play football in schools and, we hope, at an amateur level beyond school. We must remember that that is of huge importance.
Given that, will you respond to the question about whether it is acceptable for young people to be prevented from playing school football if they are involved with a club? As the minister for sport, do you think that that is acceptable?
Quite honestly, I think that we need to consider that. Several issues have emerged today that are worthy of closer examination. My worry is about young people putting all their eggs in one basket. Some of the 96 per cent who do not go on to play professional football might find that basket to be not all that they thought and hoped it would be. We must think about how to ensure that something is available for those young people, so that they do not lose interest in football entirely. A support mechanism must be in place, which might be through school football or playing at an amateur level. We need to consider that.
In my head, I thanked the minister for bringing us back to focus on the very small group of children who sign the forms. However, I was disappointed with the second part of her answer, because I wanted to focus on that small group in a question to Tam Baillie about their choices. I agree with him 100 per cent that young people should be able to make informed choices about what they will do for the rest of their lives. However, we are talking about a very small group of children who have the opportunity to train as elite athletes. As Mr Sinclair said, they will have to give up four nights and one day a week. There are only seven days in the week and they have to give up five days to try to become an elite athlete. Surely that choice is made at the beginning of the season. From what we have heard today, the young person should at any time have the choice to move away and become a free agent. Is Tam Baillie saying that it is not enough to allow young people to make that choice at the start of a season and that they should be able to make it at any time throughout the year?
Yes. We have heard that children and young people’s circumstances change, as can their outlook and experience of being with a club. Therefore, they should be given the space to change their minds during that period of time. We might want to build in the same notice period that the clubs give the young person, so that there is equity in the agreement that they come to, but it is perfectly reasonable for people to change their minds as the year unfolds.
But there is nothing to prevent them from doing that. They can walk away at any point in the year. My point applies to all sports and not just football. If a young person goes into a sport and wants to become an elite athlete, they have to sacrifice something. It would not be healthy for a young person to train with a club for five days a week and then go on to do something physical on the other two days.
There will probably be precious little time left in the week if they are training for that amount of time, so why would we want to put that heavy restriction on the young person? It applies to a whole range of activities. It is not just about school football. Why would we do that if they are already being trained to a high level? We know that, to become an elite athlete, they have to commit to training four or five times a week, particularly at the later stages.
I just feel that—
Please make this your final point.
The governing bodies and the clubs seem to be saying that all is not perfect and we could get something better. It seems to me to be a weak part of the argument to say that there has to be choice at every stage. There has to be a point at which the young person makes a choice and says, “I’m going to commit to this for the few months of the season.”
I have already welcomed the fact that both bodies are saying that they are going to review it. There are checks and balances that they will have to take into account, and as I said, I am particularly interested in how they will exercise the duty of care, particularly when they are dealing with the hopes, aspirations and dreams of young people. The prizes are very significant, but we have to deal with the matter in a sensitive way and ensure that children, young people and their parents are aware of what they are letting themselves in for.
This is a really interesting point as far as the whole debate is concerned, and it is a fundamental point for me. Cathie Craigie made some excellent points on developing successful players for the future. Talent development is important. This country invests millions in sport—some in participation, but also some in performance, to try to get this country to develop the very best athletes.
I emphasise the point that Mr Regan has just made. We are not all about performance, as a nation. We have to be about participation. We have to be about getting everybody up off the chair to do what they can. Rather than affording yet another choice for the already chosen ones, if you like, who are in the youth initiative programme, is there not an ideal opportunity for us to get the kids who have never had an opportunity to play and represent a school team to do that? In my previous life at the SFA, that was one of the main thrusts of what we were about. If the first group of kids are taken away, surely there is an opportunity for the others, who have never had a chance to put on a school strip, to do that.
Many young people all over Scotland are involved in other sports, outwith football, some of them at elite level, and there are not the same restrictions on those youngsters. You can develop young elite sportspeople without the kind of restrictions that are being placed on them. That is the key difference from the situation that we are discussing.
I understand that point fully. However, most people would argue that, with growing young bodies, four nights a week and a game would suffice. Rather than losing a choice, we are gaining one. The point that I am trying to make is that other young kids now have the opportunity to represent their schools.
The key issue is the duty of care for young people under 16 and the element of choice.
There is no disagreement with what Cathie Craigie said. Whatever sport a young person chooses, at elite performance level they make a major commitment. There is a duty of care on those surrounding that young person to ensure that they are not pulled in all directions. I was trying to make the point that there needs to be better support for the young person at the point at which it becomes obvious that they will not be a professional in the sport concerned. I am not sure that such support is as good as it could be. We need to get better at supporting people into the other options that are available, such as the school team or the local amateur team. If we do not, we may lose them to the sport, which would be a shame.
When I was the Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport, I visited several Premiership teams in England that had sports academies, before those were developed in Scotland. I was particularly struck by the fact that, at Liverpool, Steve Heighway—I do not know whether he is still there—was cognisant of the fact that only a tiny proportion of the youngsters would have professional careers and was concerned that they should look at careers in refereeing, for example. It would be interesting to hear your views on that issue. I am conscious of the fact that I am going off the point a little. However, if our aim is to provide youngsters with opportunities and to put them at the centre, it is worth our looking at the issue.
I have two brief questions. First, I am forming the impression—which may be entirely wrong—that the young people who go through the elite scheme, which involves four days of training and a game each week, get hard training that is fairly restrictive. I have the impression that they have little access to the idea of playing football just for the fun of it and for enjoyment. You may want to respond to that point.
The games are played in a non-competitive spirit, so they should involve less stress, more fun and playing for the sake of it, with subs coming on and off. All those points have been factored in. I cannot deny that rigour and seriousness are attached to the scheme; it is a business, after all, and we are charged with producing young players. However, we make it as fun, entertaining and appropriate to their age group as we can. I would be horrified if I thought that I were presiding over a scheme that did not do that.
Each year Celtic invests £1.5 million in its academy. Celtic’s main purpose in doing so is to create champions league and international players. As Jim Sinclair said, the objective is to create a world-class academy that excels in coaching, sports science and medical and performance analysis. We want to cover all those aspects and expose each young player to them to give them an opportunity. Again, that is backed up by a holistic approach.
Good afternoon. I will follow on from previous answers from members of the panel on which I seek clarification, so that I can develop some of the questions. We heard today from the minister that approximately 2,700 young people under the age of 16 are involved in the football development side of things. Is that correct? Is that how many are registered with the SFA?
In relation to the youth action plan, the figure that the minister referred to is correct.
That is how many are registered by football clubs with the SFA.
Yes, in relation to the youth action plan at the performance and initiative level.
I understand that. What I am trying to get at is how many young people are registered with either professional football clubs or others in relation to the petition that is before us on the restrictions that there might be on young people’s freedom of movement between clubs in Scotland.
Within the 2,700, a proportion—I do not know the exact figure off the top of my head—are categorised, as Mr Sinclair said, at being at the performance level. That is the elite end—primarily the Premier League clubs—where they train four nights a week and do the weekend matches. Largely, the clubs themselves have agreements in place that prevent those children from doing any more physical activity. As I said, in developing the very best players, we believe that there is a duty of care to make sure that the child does not burn out before they have fulfilled their potential.
I am trying to extrapolate figures on how many children are registered with the SPL. I think that Mr McCart told us that 20 young people at each level are registered with Celtic Football Club. I assume that that is the same with Rangers. Potentially, 100 young people under the age of 16 and over the age of 11 are registered with Rangers and Celtic. That will be reflected in other clubs. I assume that, based on those figures, there should be roughly 1,000 young people registered with SPL clubs.
Yes, if all the clubs have 20 players registered per age group, which is not always the case.
It is a maximum. The minister also said that, of the 2,700 who are registered, only 4 per cent might go on to play professional football. Are we registering too many young people? Are we raising their expectations and aspirations in relation to professional football if, to use the minister’s figures, 96 per cent of the young people who go through the process never become professional footballers?
The reality is that it is very difficult to determine at a young age quite how far any particular player will go. You can identify players at perhaps under-15 or under-16 level who appear to be extremely talented at that age but who never come through the ranks, even though they might be well ahead of their peers at a particular age. You have to draw the line somewhere. I would be concerned if we were dramatically to reduce the numbers of players coming through our clubs’ youth development systems, because so many players are late developers. It is vital that the country has the maximum number of talented young players coming through the system. There is a real tapering off and if you do not have sufficient numbers of a sufficient quality coming in at the bottom, you will not end up with the right number at the top.
In some respects, I accept that argument. However, you said that there are some late developers who might not have gone through the youth development programme with the clubs and might not have been registered but whom a scout talent spots playing on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning in a local park. I know that there are many scouts throughout Scotland who might identify to a club a player who is playing youth football, who is not attached to a club, who might have great potential and who might be taken up, but on whom the club would not have spent the type of resources that Mr McCart indicated. Based on the figures that he gave, I think that Celtic Football Club is investing almost £15,000 a year per player in its youth development programme at Parkhead.
These children are part of elite academies because, at the outset, they have a degree of talent, which is nurtured. There comes a point at which a decision is made about whether the child will fulfil their potential as a footballer. There is an element of choice right the way through. The parents or guardians sign up to the scheme, and the child is usually keen to pursue a footballing ambition, especially if it means playing for one of the bigger clubs.
Conversely, could it not be argued that the £1.5 million, which we match, has been invested to make the experience of the young players who are involved in the programme of an excellent standard, as opposed to what would otherwise be provided?
That could be a converse argument, but my point relates to the expectations of a 10-year-old. Effectively, we are talking about clubs signing up and registering 10-year-olds, to take them through a programme that may last six or seven years. At the end of that programme, they may not become professional football players. The point that I was trying to make about aspirations and expectations is that you spot talent at 10. Players make a six or seven-year commitment to you for four nights a week and Sundays, only to find that they are no longer required in the sport at professional level.
You make some really valid points. Chris McCart and Jim Sinclair have an extremely difficult job. Having to look young players in the eye and tell them that they do not have a future in the game is something that I would not wish on anyone. That is an extremely difficult thing to have to do; unfortunately, it is the sad reality, given the hard-edged nature of professional sport. Only the very best in any age group will make it through the system.
Most of my questions have been answered, but I will make a couple of comments.
I will respond to the first of those two good points. I read the papers and saw my name associated with a 28-day opt out, but that is not something that I am familiar with. I have spoken to my colleagues and I do not think that the SFA has any awareness of it either.
Then I need to be certified, because I have it written in my notes. When I visited you initially to talk about the issue, I wrote down, “28-day opt out.” I remember thinking, “Jeez—I’ve never read that before.” We had better agree to differ on that, but you can clarify whether there is a 28-day opt out.
There is not. At the moment, registration of any player is done at both the SFA and the SPL. There is a case for looking at whether that process can be streamlined, potentially with a single registration process. That is a fair point.
I want to clarify a couple of things. We have talked about the freedom of youngsters to choose whether to participate in schools football or move to another club or whatever and about some of the constraints on them. Does that apply to Premiership clubs, and to Barcelona, Inter Milan or some of the other big clubs throughout Europe?
Yes. A similar system applies across the world. FIFA, the world governing body, has in place regulations that affect the transfer of players at those ages. The big difference between the FIFA system and our system is that the FIFA system kicks in at the point at which a player transfers from one club to another, although a payment will not be triggered until that player signs his first professional contract. That said, the amounts that FIFA uses are much higher than those that are used in Scotland. There is therefore a trade-off between our system, where lower amounts are paid on transfer, and the system that FIFA uses for any cross-border transfer, where higher amounts are paid at the point at which a player signs a professional contract.
Do they also relate to constraints on youngsters taking part in schools football?
I am not familiar with the rules and regulations in different associations as regards participation in schools football. However, as regards a compensation payment to a club for the training that it has provided, that system applies worldwide.
We have been talking about boys’ football, but what about girls’ football?
It is doing very well.
I know—I am very much aware of that. However, in terms of incentives and clubs’ involvement, no girls are involved in this scheme.
Girls’ and women’s football is very much in the development stage. Obviously, fewer girls play football than boys. In terms of professional status, girls’ and women’s football is not at that level, so they do not have the same sort of issues as those that we are talking about. However, to echo the minister’s point, girls’ and women’s football in this country is doing very well, and has reached its highest ever UEFA and FIFA rankings within the past six months.
Absolutely. I have been to many matches.
Convener, I know that you are pushed for time, but I would like to ask the minister and the SPL and SFA witnesses some questions. From parliamentary responses, we know that £12.5 million was invested in the SFA between 2006-7 and 2008-9. Does the minister think that we—the taxpayers—get good value from that investment? What did we get for it?
I can make some general comments on that. As I said earlier, the first half of the youth action plan was funded primarily through the Big Lottery Fund. We are now almost halfway through the plan, and the second half, starting from April, will be funded primarily through Scottish Government funds. A lot has been delivered; Stewart Regan will be able to give more detail on that.
Has there been an audit process to ensure that we are getting value for every pound that is spent?
Yes—sportscotland has with every governing body a very clear performance management framework for the public money that they receive. I think that the last audit of the SFA that was done as a fit-for-purpose audit, if you like, was back in 2008, and the SFA was approved, for lack of a better word. However, that was not just a one-off, because such monitoring and performance management are parts of an on-going dialogue—essentially, it is a partnership. It is in everybody’s interests to ensure that everything is clear so that everyone can see what has gone in and, importantly, what the outcomes are for the investment, whether for football or any other sport.
Can you see from that whether the £12.5 million, and whatever has gone in since then, is going to clubs in the Scottish Premier League, or whether it is getting down to the level of clubs such as Raith Rovers and Clyde, in my constituency, and beyond that?
Maybe Stewart Regan could respond to that.
It is important to understand what we mean by the £12.2 million, which is the figure that we are talking about. That was a 10-year commitment for the youth action plan. Of that £12.2 million, £2.2 million has gone to women’s and girls’ football, which has covered the appointment of key staff to coach and administer the game as well as the setting up various teams and initiatives to do with the running of the girls’ and women’s game across Scotland.
I have a final brief question. Is the £5,000 per season for compensation or reimbursement of training fees subject to a multiplier? In other words, is the figure multiplied by the number of years that a young person stays at a club, which means that it could actually be up to £25,000?
As soon as a young person reaches 11, £5,000 has to be paid in the season in which they play. The same happens at 12, 13 and 14. When they reach 15, 16 or 17, £10,000 has to be paid. As a result, if the boy stays with the club from the under-11s through to the under-17s, the total figure will be £50,000.
The FIFA figures are much higher, at €10,000 per season for each season from the ages of 12 to 16 and €60,000 per season after the age of 16.
It would be interesting to find out what happens in other countries. Are the figures the same in England?
No.
Are they the same in France, Italy or wherever?
Actually, the English system is far more restrictive, with players being bound to their clubs for longer periods. There is no set mechanism—no tariff, if you like—for the compensation that one club might pay to another; either the clubs agree training compensation or the situation is effectively arbitrated by a body that includes the league. The sums involved vary hugely, but can be considerably more than sums that are paid in Scotland.
In our experience, the whole thing can turn into a transfer market or end up in a bartering situation if, despite the fact that the level of compensation is actually X, the club with the player demands X plus Y. I am sure that you will agree that that is reprehensible.
Does that happen?
I am not sure how commonplace it is. All I am saying is that it has happened to our club.
What sort of money was involved?
It got to £35,000 or thereabouts when it should have been, I think, £20,000.
How old was the youngster in question?
He was an under-14.
So the figure got to £35,000 for an under-14.
That is right.
In England, a transfer could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. We have to remember that although there are, in different parts of the world, different versions of the system that we use, systems like ours are used everywhere because it is recognised that unless some system of compensation is in place to protect smaller clubs they will simply not develop players. After all, there would be no point in spending all that time and huge amounts of money to buy in coaches, resources and training facilities to undertake that work unless the club was going to get the benefit of the player playing for them at the end of the process, or compensation for the time and money that they had put in from a bigger club that might come along and take the player.
I simply do not accept that. After all, all the clubs that we have been talking about have an interest in the situation. Football is a commercial business, and any commercial organisation will have to invest some of the return that it gets from its product back into the business. As I say, I cannot accept your statement that clubs will not make that investment. However, I realise that we do not have time to get into all that today so we might have to get back to you in writing, Mr Doncaster.
Our concern is that, as Mr Doncaster said, if we put in place a system to which we must all adhere, that is exactly what we should do—adhere to it. A case for elevated transfer fees should not exist just because a club plays off two others against one another. That is poor practice at that age and stage for a young player.
I do not understand the circumstances in which that could apply, because the tariff is set out absolutely clearly in the rules. That is the compensation payment that a club is entitled to receive. A club is not entitled to a penny more, so why would a penny more be paid? I fail to see any circumstances in which that could apply.
For how long have you had a training compensation scheme?
The scheme started in 2003. Before then, the FIFA model operated, whereby clubs had to pay when players turned professional.
That was post-16.
Yes—the scheme applied when players turned professional.
So, only since 2003 have youngsters been affected. From what age are they affected?
They are affected at whatever age—all the way up.
Are they affected from the youngest age?
Yes. Before the current scheme, the solidarity payment was in place.
The FIFA model that preceded the existing model had the same effect—it protected clubs that invested time and money in developing young players. I am not sure whether there has ever been a time when the time and money that small clubs spend on developing players were not recognised through a system. That can be done in all sorts of ways—the FIFA, Scottish and English systems do that—but no system is perfect. However, if the system that protects smaller clubs were removed, those clubs would have no incentive to develop young players.
You disagreed with Mr Sinclair, who said that much higher sums had been paid for some youngsters. Would Mr Sinclair like to come back on that?
As Chris McCart said, we, Celtic and Hearts have the wherewithal to pursue young players. All I would say is that we have been on the receiving end of such a deal.
Why would you ever pay more than you are obliged to pay under the rules?
Do market forces not come into it?
I ask the witnesses to speak through the chair.
I return to my earlier comment about talking about youngsters as commodities and leaving them open to potential economic exploitation. I will link that to Trish Godman’s question about who is responsible. As the overarching body, the SFA has a clear responsibility to set and monitor the standards on this difficult and sensitive issue. We are dealing with hopes and aspirations for children and young people at the same time as ensuring that they are not open to exploitation. I urge the SFA to make that duty of care a key point to which it attends in the review that has been set up, which I welcome.
Thank you. We must curtail discussion there. How do members suggest we progress the petition?
I hope that members agree that this has been a worthwhile evidence session that has cleared up some matters and raised other issues that will be considered as the review or national framework development—whatever you want to call it—progresses. People will agree on two points: first, that the rights of the child are paramount and that a duty of care is essential to ensuring that those rights are preserved and, secondly, that the status quo is not an option.
We take heart from the fact that the witnesses have already agreed to consider in the review some of the issues that have been raised today. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your attendance. We have had a constructive discussion. The last thing the committee wants to do is to run Scottish football; that is best done by you. [Interruption.] Cathie Craigie probably wants to do it. It is probably sensible for us to keep the petition on the table, so that we can return to it in the future. We look forward to hearing the results of your deliberations. I thank Trish Godman for her attendance.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions