Does the ‘One Ball, One Player’ Approach Actually Work?

Some of the greatest players in football history grew up with little access to equipment, rarely owned a ball or footwear nor had access to a facility.

So does the ‘one ball, one player’ approach actually work?

Not if a player doesn't miss the ball, doesn't take offense when they lose it or feel that it is something they miss when they don't have it in their possession. It's a useless endeavor to give a player a ball if they don't care about it. The ball is often something that a player treasures and they spend every waking minute with. They walk with it to school or dribble around the house. They take it with them everywhere they go. 

A common discussion point is how great players developed such extraordinary skills in the past when there was less equipment, facilities and coaching available.

The answer is that players played with any object they could find (smaller balls, “rag” balls, etc.) in typically unsupervised environments on concrete or dirt. Artificial turf didn’t exist nor did nice grass. They referee’d their own games, they found their way to and from practice and games and they spend a large majority of time on their own or with close friends practicing ball mastery and being inventive. They had to use the power of imagination, something seriously lacking in today’s players.

Silicon Valley’s best creations were made by one or two individuals in a small office or no office at all and then along came the sales and operations/management (I have an MBA so I’m actually criticizing the very thing I went to graduate school to do!) to monetize and scale but this shouldn’t be confused with original, novel innovation, inventiveness and architecting a disruptive product. Let it be known that genius players are scarce and unique and hard to scale but the culture and environment which enables them to develop must be considered.

More doesn’t equal better.

More players and participants doesn't mean more, better players. Club squads are getting bigger due to more games and events which leads to more, average, generic players but this also leads to dilution of product. It's something the game has to tackle if it is going to flourish and indeed, survive.

If the whole world is saying that there were less 'qualified' (note: qualified doesn't mean 'capable'- there are many licensed coaches who cannot teach or coach well!) coaches, less equipment and less measurement tools (GPS, etc.) back in the day, then why the need for all of these accessories if the end product has resulted in less creativity, innovation, individual genius and less entertainment value (which is ultimately what brings spectators to stadiums and TV audience)?

The reason is because commercial entities that partner with or invest in sports governing bodies — usually in the form of a smaller equity stake or SPV or a partnership with non-profit youth organizations (that own databases and have access to key decision making units (DMUs), those who make spending decisions within the household) — want more participants and consumers. They don't want players playing 'up' an age group, they want more numbers playing age-pure to fill out more age groups, and they want more players to register so that they can be accessed and monetized. Businesses want to increase the participation numbers, segment the market and target these markets to increase spend and profits.

When players are registered they become consumers which ultimately pays the investors/private equity funds who want their partners to sell more product, more tickets, more events. It's not in their best financial interest to offer less! When we met with the Nigerian Federation they could not tell us how many registered players boys or girls that they had and the same could be said for many countries who have developed world class players.

Greater numbers should never be confused with player development. Nearly every top player you see playing in the world today did not have money to spend as young players. They usually came from an environment of financial hardship. We all know that the size of a country, its population and the size of its economy and the consumer spend has little to do with developing excellent football players. Why don't we have an Algerian coaching curriculum and coach education offering or a professional league? Ask Zidane, Benzema and Mbappe. They played on concrete in tight spaces on estates and poor surfaces for much of their lives. Sunrise until sunset.

With all of this in consideration, if we think that giving every player a ball each (or more equipment, more facilities, etc.) will help us develop more, better players, then this is a mistake.

What players need to do is learn to win a ball, how to intercept a ball, pounce on loose balls, steal balls and ‘protect the ball with their lives.’ They have to learn to hold off opponents and ride tackles and offload the ball to teammates when getting hit. They have to feel like someone is taking their limb when an opponent is going to steal the ball, which is why all of the top players in the world invite more tackles and fouls and there are more bodies sliding and falling around them. They have to learn to fend for themselves and stick up for themselves and not be bullied by over-zealous opponents who want to destroy and break. If a coach can create this kind of environment in training, which allows for something close to this type of competitive dynamic, then this will help develop players.

However, nowadays, with the emphasis on scheduled practice and play, and oftentimes overly manufactured and structured environments and curriculum, the improvisation, ingenuity, intensity, ‘scrappiness’ and unbridled energy and drive that is such an integral element in the formative education of special players is seen less and less and disappearing in many instances. The question is how we can find a solution to preserving these qualities within a society that has irrevocably changed and will continue to evolve. Can we still help nurture these kinds of players today and in the future?