Even if players were to consent, do these systems make any sense as player development subsidies?

No. Consider the following scenario: instead of training compensation, an annual sum of $2M is made available by Federations to spend to support player development in the United States and Canada. There are roughly 200 clubs that are part of the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Development Academy and probably another several hundred clubs in the U.S. and Canada with youth teams and academies playing at a fairly high level. So imagine that the two Federations decided to distribute this year’s money as follows: (1) $1,250,000 to Club 1; (2) $500,000 to Club 2; (3) $150,000 to Club 3; (4) $100,000 to Club 4; and (6) $0 to each of the remaining 496 clubs. Is this a rational development system? Would this distribution have the biggest impact on player development? Would it have any real, lasting national impact in either country? The answer to each of these questions is obviously a resounding no, and the actual FIFA training compensation system currently in place is just as arbitrary.

The level of solidarity payments due is based entirely on transfers. Thus, a second or third division player who changes teams multiple times in his career will generate substantially more of these fees than a first division player who moves less frequently.



These systems only apply in the case of international transfers. As a result, a youth team or academy that produces one professional player would receive fees if that player moves abroad. On the flip side, a rival club that produces 25 MLS and USL players over the same time period would receive nothing at all.

Further, because transfer fees vary wildly by position, a striker will generate far more of these fees than several defenders. Is a youth club or academy that develops one international striker doing a better job at development than one that develops several international defenders? Of course not. But that’s how these systems work.

In short, these schemes involve no qualitative analysis of the youth clubs and academies that they reward. Due to demand for different positions, the number of potential transfers for a player over the course of his career, and the fact that they only apply to international transfers, these schemes fail to correlate the money being distributed with the quality of the development system.