Complaining about basketball development in the United States is every college coach's favorite past time, but few suggest solutions.
Over a decade ago, I wrote that the biggest problem, and the only real way to invoke major systemic changes, is the finances. The NCAA and NBA have billion-dollar television contracts, NBA franchises are worth billions and increasing in value, and NCAA programs still do not pay the talent, but children must pay to play youth sports, and increasingly, even public high school teams, once free to play, charge fees to support the programs. If poorer countries with far less money invested in professional sports can find ways to provide free youth sports opportunities for children, how can a multi-billion-dollar system not?
Of course, the answer is part of the reason franchises are worth billions, NBA players make as much as $50 million per season, and NCAA coaches are the highest paid state employee in almost every state (unless it's the football coach) is the lack of funding for youth sports. Rather than the money from TV contracts being used to develop or buy the players who play on TV and attract the eyeballs, NCAA schools and NBA franchises simply pick who they want, and those organizations, schools, and coaches who spent years developing and mentoring the players receive little, as often they are run on a shoe-string budget, running bake sales or selling hoodies to pay for gym time and giving time as volunteers or near-volunteers. And, instead of rewarding these organizations and coaches, the million-dollar coaches criticize them and the system in which they exist.
I suggested iHoops, when it existed, or USA Basketball organize a way to disperse funds to these youth organizations to reward programs and coaches who develop the players who draw the revenue to these professional franchises. Most people have ridiculed the idea, including people who are paid to consultant with USOC organizations. However, as college coaches again point to Europe to find the answers, let us look at some ways that European countries, federations, and clubs fund development.
First, the major difference is not so much that the U.S. system is scholastic-based, but that each level is distinct and players are essentially free agents at the end of each level. The Miami Heat have no vested interest in youth players in south Florida because any player who develops with the talent to play in the NBA enters the NBA Draft and is available to all teams. Similarly, the University of Miami has no vested interest in youth players in south Florida because it has to recruit against every other program in the country once the player finishes high school.
With my European club, the purpose of the youth teams was to develop players for the professional club. The club had a vested interest in the youth players, as developing its own players is often more cost-effective than signing players from elsewhere. Our players had a consistent pathway from each age group to a professional team if they continued to improve and developed the qualities to be a professional player. They practiced and played in the same gym as the professional team and the professional head coach watched and monitored the U18 players.
Second, youth clubs are paid for developing players. This differs from country to country. But, as an example, one of our U16 players left to play for the federation's sports academy; our club is paid an annual fee for every year that he spends with the academy. A few years ago, an U18 player signed with a EuroLeague club; our club received a five-figure development fee. Essentially, the cost the club incurs to develop a player over a few years is repaid, at least in part, and potentially in excess, when the player leaves to play elsewhere.
In another country, clubs receive payment for every season a player plays for a professional club. For example, if a player played from 8-18 with Brian BC, and then signed a contract with a 2nd Division club, Brian BC might get $1000/year; if the player has a 10-year career, that's $10,000. If the player transfers from the 2nd Division club to a 1st Division club, the fee is higher, but Brian BC shares some of the fee with the 2nd Division club. So, the 1st Division fee may be $5000/year, but the 2nd Division team gets half; now Brian BC gets $2500 for the rest of the player's career.
Third, beyond simply funding youth sports and reducing expenses to parents, the lure of potential money authorizes USA Basketball to make changes. As an example, in another country, every player invited to a national team camp earns a youth club a point; every player playing in the domestic professional league earns a point; making a national team earns a point. The clubs divide the federation's budget based on their points. However, to be eligible to receive the funding, the club must be registered and in good standing as a "sports center". This may mean a certain percentage of licensed coaches or a certain coach to player ratio. One country requires the club to stay in the top division of the U17 and U19 leagues; relegation costs the club money. Because the club's depend on this funding, they must follow the directions of the federation. When people discuss coach education in the United States, this is the way to incentivitze true coach education.
These are countries with miniscule investment in basketball when compared to the United States. Of course, the U.S. has many more youth teams and players, which complicates matters. However, as I have suggested, and using these models:
What happens if clubs/schools share a proportional payment for every player invited to a USA Basketball National Team Camp?
What if they shared an additional payment for every player who makes a USA National Team?
What if they shared a payment for every player who signs a scholarship?
What is they shared a payment for every player who signs an NBA/WNBA contract?
Would this cause problems? Sure. However, as NBA and college coaches point out currently, problems exist. We can spend another 20 years complaining about the same problems and listening to millionaire coaches whine about their players or we can follow their suggestions and adopt a more European system; this is, in part, how the European system is funded (also, most clubs receive money from the local government for providing extracurricular activities for children, much like public schools theoretically receive money from the local government to provide after-school sports teams; however, in Europe, the fee often is based on numbers, so retaining players, not cutting players, is the goal).
Despite potential problems, such as recruiting (which exists currently), the potential to profit from player development incentivitizes USA Basketball to demand certain things from clubs. Not every club has to abide, but they lose out on the potential revenue. The potential payments also provide more incentive for organizations to build or improve facilities, improve coaching, do more research when hiring coaches, allow more access, and more.
The U.S. handed over its development system to shoe companies around the turn of the century. The shoe companies funded the biggest tournaments, clubs, coaches, and more. The shoe companies do not care about better basketball, teamwork, coaching, etc.: Their incentive is to have their shoes on the teams that are on TV the most and the players who become the biggest stars. They care more about one LeBron than developing the other millions of players. Consequently, the system rewards those with access to players; recruiting or acquiring the most talented lead to the greatest financial rewards.
Changing the financial rewards changes the system. If the U9 coach/program of a player who eventually becomes a professional now stands to benefit the same as the varsity high school coach or the u18 AAU coach or the college coach, the system starts to change. Without changing financial structures, overall systemic change will be very difficult because the incentives to change, for those who benefit and hold the most power currently, are not there.
Where does all the money for these payments come from? Universities are educational institutions, but many pay basketball coaches 10-20x their best-paid professors. Why not cap coaches' salaries? NBA teams pay a buyout to European clubs when they sign a player under contract with a European club. Why not pay NCAA programs in the same way? Why do we allow the NBA to help fund European professional clubs, but not our own development pathways?
NBA teams could object. If the NBA objected, the NCAA could pass the same rules as in college football and baseball and not allow players to leave after one year. Yes, some players would skip college and go straight to the NBA or G-League. But, the NCAA forcing players to stay 3-4 years would potentially improve its product sufficiently to compensate for any loss of talent, and potentially generate higher TV ratings when fans know players are staying for 3-4 years, which would increase their next TV contract.
The NBA's objection and the NCAA forcing players to stay 3-4 years could lead to the NBA starting its own development system. It is possible. Theoretically, that would be an improvement on the current state of affairs. I worry about this, as the NBA could not possibly provide a system for all current youth players, but the competition would force others to change as well.
There are plenty of questions and potential pitfalls. Most everyone seems unsatisfied with the current system, so what is the true objection to change? What better solutions have been presented by those with a national voice to complain about the current system?
