The debate is raging in Fotball-Norge after the article “Breddefotballens skjämseide”, about the boy who only got 14 minutes of playing time in the Norway Cup. Most recently, a soccer dad wrote that the most enthusiastic lose their spark if playing time is distributed equally. It seems that most people agree that the goal must be to keep players as long as possible, but disagree about the way to get there. The Norwegian Football Association (NFF) talks about a formula to keep players: Safety vs. Challenges + Coping = Well-being and development. But what should be the basis for achieving this? If we take an imaginary group of players (20), they are roughly divided into children’s teams like this: If we all run in a common group in training, we will only cover the needs of group B, in line with the football association’s formula. If we choose to differentiate on the training field, we will be able to meet the needs of groups B and C. We will never be able to meet the needs of group A, no matter how we choose to distribute the players. For group A, we simply do not have the element “challenges” in the toolbox. This is where hospice comes into the picture. Then you will be able to make an offer to group A as well, but this requires that the club has teams in all years. Imagine if this had been the facet, then it would have been easy. When players are selected for hospitalization, someone immediately throws an arm in the air and calls it selection of the best. And then they shout loudly that this is a children’s sport. The flow zone model of the NFF will help the coaches to find the balance between mastery and security, as well as find the right challenge to ensure that the training does not become boring. But what if you don’t have enough tools in your toolbox to satisfy everyone? Then we get someone who finds training boring and loses motivation. This often leads to the parents of the keen ones ending up enrolling their child in other football activities, preferably academies or other commercial offers. Great, problem solved then? Those who are eager get an offer where they face challenges at their level. If only it were so good. But then there are big debates about private offers, about the fact that this costs money, not an offer for everyone, etc. Last year in children’s football, the NFF came on the field with the national team school and zone. This is an offer for those who are far ahead in their own cohort, but it is worth noting that they try to include players who were born both early and late in the year, since there are big differences within a cohort as well. Great , then the problem is solved for those who are far ahead? No, then there are some who howl that the selection ends when the children are 11 years old. I would like to clarify that it happens in the child’s 12th year of life, and many have entered their 13th, in line with the football association’s guidelines. Zone is also an offer to those who are far ahead in the entire circuit, it is not a given that each individual club will get any players there after the end of withdrawal. The team will still have those who are far ahead, and must work to give them an offer that satisfies and covers the individual player’s needs. This is probably where the shoe really presses. A player who is far ahead requires more: more training sessions, higher quality coaching resources, greater challenges in match situations, etc. This also affects the cost picture. Track rental, costs for trainers, the list can quickly become long. Now we are at the core of the problem. As many as possible, for as long as possible should be the basis. It is a clear goal in the NFF’s broad profile. Who is the most possible? Does it leave room to exclude a group? Yes it does. As many as possible often end up in groups B and C. They require fewer resources and are easier to satisfy in their own team. Not that you don’t want to include group A as well, but they often require more resources than what a grassroots sports team can devote to a small group of athletes. The sports team does not have resources, and this group of players will quickly become bored. Some choose to quit the sport altogether, while others find other clubs to switch to. A club that often has a different profile than a purely broad club. Then the problem begins in the team. When the best players quit, they often take several other players with them. It can have several causes, but is often socially conditioned. The following year, the players who have now been the strongest in the team leave. The club has not been able to find a good offer for them either. The challenge has been removed. Now it often goes quickly. The group becomes smaller, those whose main motivation for participating is social, no longer find the same offer within the team. They find other arenas that perhaps have an even stronger social profile, and stop playing sports. You are then left with a relatively homogeneous group, a group that can find security, challenges and mastery within its own group. It is probably these that are called “most possible” in non-professional sports. There are not enough resources to offer a customized offer to everyone. Cross-country skiing is the most difficult sport you can do. Everyone has different needs, different motivation and different intentions with their sport. It is all these needs that we must strive to meet. Don’t cut everyone across the board and pat ourselves on the back and say we have a good offer. If we fail to do this, not only will the eager lose their spark, they will just lose their spark a little before the others. A grassroots sports team has a social mission. This task involves giving children and young people a good offer. A good offer is not necessarily an equal offer. It is something that both sports teams, parents and players must learn to accept. Follow the debate:
ttn-69
Will everyone lose their spark? – Speech
