The system of player development

How do we develop players "like Europeans do"

Now that another non-American has won the NBA MVP award, making it 5 straight years, legions of social media experts will suggest that we (in the United States) develop players like in Europe (despite Embiid being from Cameroon, starting to play basketball at age 15, and moving to the United States at age 16).

I have coached in five European countries now, and conducted clinics in a few others; every country is different in terms of basketball, the Federations, coaching, the systems, and more. However, the major difference between “European basketball” and the United States is the authority of the federations. Their pyramid is created to produce national team players to sustain a competitive senior national team; everything else is secondary (although changing with the times, especially as EuroLeague and other competitions gain in importance and finances).

In the United States, under the hierarchy of the United States Olympic Committee who theoretically oversees sports in the United States, the NBA, NCAA, NFHS, AAU and USA Basketball sit on the same line in the hierarchy: They are equals. In European countries, the Federation is at the top of the pyramid and directs ALL basketball within the country: It manages the national teams, sponsors the local competitions, educates the coaches, and more.

Not every country works this way, and, for instance, I believe the EuroLeague is outside the scope of FIBA and the country’s federations (although not 100% positive), but many countries operate in this way at least to an extent.

Many conflicts and compromises in the United States basketball landscape arise from the impotent federation. NFHS will not extend the high-school season because of the nostalgia for the three-sport athlete and conflicts with AAU. NCAA does not institute a three-year rule, like college baseball, because of the NBA. Players play too many games because NFHS and AAU exist side by side.

A strong federation allows for meaningful player and coach registration. Player registration restricts player movement; transferring clubs (AAU) is more like transferring colleges: Allowed during the offseason, but not in season. Coach registration ensures a coach fired from one club/program at one level for something egregious or illegal is not hired in another state or at another level without a proper investigation. Currently, coaches resign for inappropriate activities with players at one level and move to a different level or from one state to another and without an arrest record, allegations, resignations and even dismissals rarely show up on background checks (if they are even conducted). I worked at an NJCAA who fired its softball coach for grooming players (essentially), and he was hired a week later at a different junior college 100 miles away.

The Federation at the top of the pyramid changes the economies of the sport. Imagine if USA Basketball negotiated television and sponsorship deals for the NBA, NCAA, NFHS, AAU, and the national teams, and the billions of dollars cycled through the Federation first, and the Federations determined how to spend those dollars. Sure, NBA franchises would not be worth $8 billion, Stephen Curry might not make $50 million/year, and John Calipari might not make $9 million per year, but are those sacrifices worth it if youth basketball was free or playing U9-U14 AAU basketball was subsidized heavily?

Currently, the money stays at the top because the NBA and NCAA negotiate their own television deals and have no impetus to share the money. Consequently, franchise prices and player salaries skyrocket, while children are priced out of the sport. NCAA programs who do not pay their players use the billions to pay coaches millions of dollars and build newer and better facilities annually.

As a small example, both of my European professional women’s teams shared a gym with a middle/high school, as well as numerous other youth and adult teams. This season, we could only have morning individual practices twice per week because the school had P.E. classes on the other days. Many NCAA Division 1 programs now have practice gyms specifically for their basketball teams, and some even low major Division 1 programs have separate gyms for men’s and women’s basketball teams. The facilities at many NCAA D2 and D3 programs, not to mention many newer high schools, exceed anything in most European countries outside EuroLeague teams, national team arenas, and maybe a handful of others.

My point guard last season wants to play in college mainly because of gym availability; if she wants to work out on her own, she has to use the high-school gym between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM because of school physical education and club team practices. She has heard of colleges with their own practice gyms where players have their own key and can access the gym at any hour of the day, and she imagines this is heaven. Another European player played high-school and college basketball in the USA, and her favorite thing in HS was the court availability to practice.

Based on finances, in the United States, we value franchise values, professional salaries, college salaries, and facilities; we do not value development, youth basketball, coach education, youth coaching, and more. If USA Basketball had billions of dollars of television money from the NBA, NCAA, et al., how would basketball development change?

Each Federation differs, but generally money is spent in a way that incentivizes development, as ultimately the Federations’ goal is to produce national team players and national team success. The senior men’s and women’s national teams are at the top of the pyramid. Again, in the United States, the national teams are on the same line of the hierarchy with professional contracts, college scholarships, high-school teams, and AAU tournaments.

In one country, clubs receive funding for every player who competes with a youth or senior national team during the year. The payment to the club is not exorbitant, but would a high-school or AAU team be able to use an extra $1000-2000? Obviously, the scale is different, but we had 7 players on one youth national team, 3 on another, 2 on another, and one pro player on the senior national team. That’s one part-time coach’s salary.

Many Federations sponsor their own basketball academy for high-school players. Helsinki Basketball Academy (HBA) and INSEP (France) are two of the more well-known now. Some federations pay the clubs who send players to the academy. First, this is a payment for developing talented players. Second, this is compensation for weakening the home club by losing a talented player who may compete for an U18/19/20 team plus a men’s/women’s team. By offering clubs payment, the Federation engenders the clubs’ support, rather than clubs competing to keep their most talented players at the home club for competitive reasons.

This also incentivizes development. In our case, I believe the club received roughly $1000 per year with a player potentially playing there for three years or a potential $3000, and the home club was allowed to use the players in cup competition and age-group (U18) playoffs.

Some countries, either directly through the federation or by rule overseen by the federation, pay clubs who produce professional players. The payment is based on the level of professional contract with a small fee for a 4th Division and a much bigger fee for a 1st Division. These fees are paid annually starting when a player first signs the professional contract.

To use the U.S. system as an example, imagine at 18 years old, a player from Club X signs a junior college scholarship; the junior college pays Club X a small fee ($1000). When the player returns for his second season at the JC, the JC pays Club X another $1000. After his second season, the player signs an NCAA Division 1 scholarship. The D1 pays a larger fee because it is a higher level ($5000). That fee is split between Club X and the JC ($2500 each). When the player returns for his final season of eligibility, D1 pays the JC and Club X again ($2500 each). An NBA team drafts the player, but he is assigned to the G-League. The G-League pays a larger fee ($10k). The fee is split between Club X, JC, and D1 ($2k, $4k, $4k). After one season, the player signs his NBA contract. The NBA pays a larger fee ($50k) split between Club X, JC, D1, and G-League ($10k, $10k, $15k, $15k). This fee is paid annually for as long as he plays in the NBA. Club X is compensated $21k plus an additional $10k for every additional NBA season. Would this type of payment system change the way youth basketball teams approached their seasons and skill development? Would this encourage more and better coaches to be involved with youth basketball?

The financial structure promotes development. Rather than AAU coaches trying to get shoe contracts to support the program or HS/AAU/NCAA programs worrying only about wins, (1) they focus on retaining players; and (2) they focus on developing those players because of the long-term financial reward.

A strong Federation is required to oversee these payments and contracts and to settle disputes, and the player and coach registration systems track player movement to know who deserves what amount.

This is one way federations and professional teams support development and fund lesser clubs. Another source of funding for many clubs is the local government. This funding may come through access to community facilities (high-school gyms) or renumeration.

Currently, the U.S. funds sports in this way at some levels, although we do not think of it like this. High schools use community facilities for free (schools generally are paid for by local taxes, but access is restricted to those who attend the school). NCAA teams use college facilities for free (in college, I paid student fees that went to the athletic department, but as a non-athlete, I could not access the facilities for which those fees were used, and non-students could not use the recreational fields/track). Coach salaries are paid by schools regardless of revenue. Often, these salaries are determined by won/loss record.

In Europe, some funding from local governments is based on participation. Ultimately, the city council is unconcerned whether a high school wins a state championship or a professional team captures its championship. Its concern is providing recreational, educational and fitness opportunities for the children under its governance. The more players participating in a club, the more funding the club receives. Clubs are incentivized to find more and more players, regardless of ability, and to retain those players for as long as possible. This is the exact opposite of the USA, where clubs, high schools, and colleges cut players as quickly as possible when they decide a player is not good enough or lacks potential.

In the USA, we want to devote those meager funds to the best players. If a high-school team gets three hours per day for basketball practice, many coaches would prefer to have the varsity team practice for three hours, and not have a freshman, junior varsity, or middle school teams. They focus on the immediate and the wins. If adding more players increased the budget, coaches may prefer multiple teams.

High-school teams generally go six days per week in-season with games or practices. I have never coached a team in Europe, at any level, that did not have two days off per week as a general rule. A typical schedule might be Monday, Tuesday, off on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, play Saturday, off on Sunday. The off-days free up gym time for other teams. I coached two youth teams, as do many coaches, because practices and games do not overlap. With youth teams, we might have combined practices (two teams) on 1-2 days per week. Again, the goal is to increase participation because funding is tied directly to the number of players actively playing in the program.

Hopefully these systemic changes demonstrate differences between European basketball and basketball in the USA. The economies of basketball shape the philosophies, and in many countries, youth basketball is based on participation and development because funding is tied to participation and moving players to higher levels of competition. And, the common thread to bind these decision is a strong Federation at the top of the pyramid.

The strong federation, the development philosophy, and the changes in funding enable the other changes many in the United States propose, most noticeably limiting games and coach education.

I believe my U16 players were limited to 60 games per year and U18s to 65 games. We played in multiple competitions, and players played in multiple age groups, but every game was registered with and tracked by the Federation. Our U16s played U16 Cup (4 games), U18 Cup (1), U16 1st Division (14 + 4 playoff games), U18 2nd Division (22), U16 EYBL (3 stages and SuperFinal: 20 games), and BBBL (1 stage: 4): Approximately 69 games. Some played in a few men’s 2nd Division games at the end of the season too. Nobody approached 60 games because some games conflicted (U18 and EYBL), injuries, school trips, vacations, and more. We had 15 players and only 12 could be rostered for each game (FIBA rules). We only had to cut players from the roster for a handful of games; the rest took care of themselves. Every game was visible within the Federation computer system so we could track games played.

Currently, in the USA, most state high-school associations limit the number of games. However, these limits are generally just for in-season games. Some states high-school associations limit out of season contact; this is one reason high-school AAU teams proliferated. When I was in high school, we could not practice with our coach or play games in the fall and spring, and had only 6 weeks in the summer for games. Clubs filled this gap, and many high-school associations reacted by loosening restrictions on high-school coaches.

However, just because a high school association limits teams to 20, 30, or 40 games during the season, nobody tracks how many players actually play, and nobody tracks games out of season. A player may may play 30 games in his HS season, but play another 10 in HS fall, spring, and summer leagues: That’s really 60 games with his high school! Then, add AAU, which, to my knowledge, has no restrictions. And, even when an AAU coach believes his players are playing too many games, and takes time off, another club picks up the player to fill the gap, without, to my knowledge, any requirement to receive permission from his home club. Nobody is in charge.

We took a player from another team to one stage of the EYBL because we had a few injuries, illnesses, and school conflicts. We had to get his club’s permission for him to play with us, and his club essentially loaned him to our club for that competition. He missed a regular season game with his own club, which may have impacted their success, but he played five games with us against better competition. Clubs work together in this way. The Federation monitors, and the games count for him, even though he played for a different team. Nothing is lost because of player movement, loans, different competitions, etc.

This type of cooperation occurs because teams want to help the players develop and coaches work together. Everyone competes and everyone wants to win, but the coaching is more cooperative at the lower levels. As another example, we had a player quit basketball in the fall for personal reasons, so the club did not register him. In the spring, when he got his life back together, he returned. However, he was not registered, so he could not play games. We had had another player quit in the season for various reasons, but he remained registered with the club. In our last two U18 games, we asked the opposing coaches if they would have a problem with the new player playing as the former player on the roster. Technically, this is illegal; it’s cheating. We were using an illegal player. However, the opposing coach did not care; maybe he was happy, as it meant fewer minutes for our top 4-5 players. The coaches worked together to do what was best for the individual player. Had we not sought their permission, and played him on our own, they could have protested the game and likely won the protest, causing us to forfeit. Ultimately, that would have had no bearing on the standings (we may have dropped from 2nd to 3rd, and thus played the 6th place team instead of the 7th), so it did not matter much, but it demonstrates the cooperation between coaches and clubs. Again, servicing the national teams is the ultimate goal, not winning a regular season U18 game.

Similarly, because boys play U18, but boys generally graduate high school at 19 years old, clubs who have an 18 year old, but do not have a men’s team for him to play on, can register the 18 year-old as an U18 player. However, he cannot play on any other team. We had one such player who was immature compared to our other 18 year olds. He was not physically strong enough or mentally prepared to play on any of our three men’s teams. Even on the U18 team, he was not a starter. However, because of this rule exception, rather than quit basketball because he aged out but had no men’s team opportunities, or have to move or drive to another town to find a men’s team, he was able to play one more season and attempt to develop into a better player capable of playing men’s basketball, while finishing high school at his neighborhood school. Often, people complain about holdbacks and so forth in AAU basketball, but this is an example of retaining a player in the sport because teams work together rather than trying to gain advantages by manipulating rules for their competitive benefits. Clubs trust each other; nobody is stacking a team with 18 year-olds who should be playing men’s basketball to win an U18 championship.

The Federation can demand certain behaviors from clubs because they control much of the club’s funding, including licensed and educated coaches. In one country, retaining funding depended on meeting several criteria, among which included a certain percentage of licensed coaches coaching the youth teams, a certain participation rate at national coaching clinics, organizing a local coaching clinic for lower-level coaches, and more. Imagine if all NCAA programs were required to organize a free local coaching clinic for all local youth and high-school coaches in order to receive their percentage of the television revenue from the NCAA, and these clinics had to follow specific guidelines from the Federation. In another country, to receive my license, I had to submit all my transcripts, including my doctorate, several articles I had written, and speak at a national coaching clinic; this was to coach amateur teams! I’m not sure of the requirements for local coaches. What are the requirements to coach teams in the USA? Generally, just the willingness of someone to hire you.

Again, these various specifics all return to one overarching thing: A strong Federation using its power and finances to emphasize player development from youth through professional teams. Too often, it seems like people in the U.S. think European development is better drills or licensed coaches. Instead, it’s a difference in finances and rewards. In the U.S., we generally reward individuals, winning, and celebrity. The money stays at the top, and parents largely fund the bottom.

Imagine the changes if USA Basketball sat atop the pyramid and:

1. Received a portion of the NBA and NCAA national television deals to fund grassroots sports participation (more players = more money) and excellence (scholarships = payment).

2. Registered players and coaches to track games played across all competitions and player/coach movement, discipline, and more.

3. Lobbied local communities to reduce fees for youth club teams to use community gyms (i.e. schools) rather than pay exorbitant fees. One reason there are so many events is it is too expensive to run practices for two hours at $100/hours for 12 players, so teams run tournaments and charge admission, tournament fees, and more. When I coached AAU, we would have 3-4 teams in the gym together, and almost never practiced full-court because there were 40-50 players of various ages for 4-6 baskets.

4. Used the lure of funding to require actual coach education, not just attendance at a random clinic with speakers speaking on their own topics. Why is a youth basketball coaching clinic hiring a Division 1 coach to speak about zone offenses to coaches of 10-12 year olds, while also going on social media to complain about youth teams playing zone defense?!!

People have complained about AAU, too many games, bad coaching, and more since I was playing, but every proposed solution (remember iHoops?) is limited at best. Nobody wants to argue for structural and systemic changes because each entity is an equal on the organizational chart. The NBA could take over, because it has the most money, but that would require spending its money rather than bankrolling billionaire owners. The NCAA is in a tenuous position, as it knows the NBA could start multiple divisions and likely take a majority of the current college players with it. NFHS is concerned about club basketball replacing high school basketball as year-round leagues, but AAU is scared to step on the NFHS’ toes because NFHS and NCAA are aligned through the school systems, and AAU needs access to high-school facilities. USA Basketball should take charge, but without cooperation from the organizations that currently control all the players, what would it do? USA Basketball lacks its power, in part, because the USA is so big. Banning a coach’s, team’s or organization’s players from national teams has no real power because only 12 of millions of players play for the national team at each age group, and there is no financial reward for these players. Most are far more concerned with earning a scholarship or playing professionally, and the national team only fits if it improves their chances. Therein lies the major problem, and the reason that when people suggest we in the USA develop players like in Europe, we lack the system and structure to do so.

Of course, that is based on the assumption that European clubs and countries develop better players than in the U.S., which is debatable. For all of its faults, more and more European are coming to the USA to play, and at younger and younger ages. These players often seek out better competition and better facilities. Colleges, despite not officially paying players, actually pay players better than many initial professional contracts.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that there is more money in basketball in the United States than anywhere else in the world, maybe than the rest of the world combined, but we have children who cannot afford to play, and we have top-notch facilities (high schools, colleges) that are unavailable for general use and too expensive for rentals. The junior college where I coached cut all sports, using Covid as an excuse, because it realized it could make more money renting out its athletic facilities, and its student population was robust enough that losing 150-200 student-athletes mattered little. The real estate was more valuable than the students and the athletic experience. We do not need to exist like this, but there is no true impetus for change. Instead, proponents for change will work around the edges and ask coaches to attend a clinic each year or have games with no fans or take away participation trophies or try to convince players to play multiple sports. There are a lot of consultants making decent livings to argue for incidental changes around the periphery, and nobody to argue that we should not have children who cannot play on a team because they cannot afford it while NBA franchises are valued at $8 billion and NCAA schools build $100 practice facilities that sit empty for most of the day because they spend no money developing the talent that generates all of their revenue.