Place of birth and talent development

By Dr Laura Finnegan

Successful athletic development requires athletes to navigate a range of ‘secondary factors’ that can impede or facilitate development (Wattie, Schorer & Baker, 2018). One such factor appears to the population characteristics of where the athlete was born. Theories of development emphasise the importance of the synergistic relationship between environmental and individual characteristics for elite development (c.f. Weissensteiner, Abernathy, & Farrow, 2009; Baker & Horton, 2004; Bronfenbrenner, 1977). There are a multitude of characteristics that impact on talent development in football (e.g. psychological, physical, social, environment, culture, luck, family, opportunity, access to coaching), this piece will examine the environmental characteristics of areas associated with development. The football spatial landscape is a key consideration for any Football Association or professional club, as organisational processes can influence player development (i.e. through the location of ‘centres of excellence’ or scouts in certain areas). The attributes of talent ‘hotspots’ or ‘hothouses’ are increasingly becoming of interest to researchers in an attempt to both identify some commonalities and also to gain insight into attributes that could potentially be replicated elsewhere.

Not a single player from England’s women’s world cup squad in 2019 was born in London, in fact, the majority of the squad were from the northern half of the country. An analysis of the English men’s team also showed the north-west being the most successful region for producing senior internationals. Differing developmental contexts and environmental and institutional processes can shape sporting landscapes and player production (Finnegan et al., 2017; Woolcock & Burke, 2013; Baker et al., 2009). MacDonald and colleagues (2009) suggest that “the birthplace effect is powerful and systematic and plays a significant role in sport expertise” (p. 236).

The Birthplace effect research

A place of birth effect (or ‘community size effect’, Côté et al., 2006) has been explored in many countries, e.g., US, UK, Germany, Ireland, Denmark (Finnegan et al., 2017; Rossing et al., 2016; Baker et al., 2009), with the variation in optimal population size for sport expertise attainment suggesting that results are buffered by geographic, sport-specific and sociocultural factors (Hancock et al., 2017). In their study of college footballers in America, Bowen and Fludd (1982) found that half of the total participants were from towns of less than 30,000, with 15% coming from moderate-sized towns (30,000-100,000), and 37% from larger communities (greater than 300,000). Although noting that exceptions do occur, Baker and colleagues (2009) found that elite Olympic athletes were less likely to come from very small or excessively large communities. An over-representation of players from smaller and medium-sized communities was found in Canadian professional and Olympic hockey players, while players from large cities and rural areas were under-represented (Curtis & Birch, 1987). MacDonald and colleagues (2009) found an over-representation of athletes from cities with less than 500,000 population and an under-representation of athletes from cites with a population of over 500,000. This was consistent with Côté and colleagues (2006) findings, who noted a greater probability of becoming an elite athlete in cities with a population of fewer than 250,000. Despite over half of the US population living in large cities (greater than 500,000), proportionately less professional athletes originated in such areas (ranged from 29.4% in basketball down to 13.1% in golf). Baker et al., (2009) stated that differences exist across country borders and sport contexts. For example, Canadian Olympic athletes were more likely to come from cities of over 100,000 inhabitants while in the UK areas of between 10,000-29,999 were over 2.34 times more likely to produce Olympic athletes, with areas of 500,000 – 999,999 being 69% less likely to produce Olympic athletes. Other inconsistencies can be seen with within-country variations across sports, with Lidor et al., (2010) finding a place of birth effect in Israeli soccer, handball and volleyball but not in male basketball players. Baker et al. (2014) highlight the importance of breaking down such analyses even further, noting that both Vancouver (pop. 410,000) and Edmonton (pop. 460,000) fell into the same category (i.e. 250,000-499,999) yet Edmonton produced 26 NHL draftees with Vancouver only managing to produce 9 draftees during the same period. In addition to population size, the density of the location is another important variable in analysing talent production (Rossling et al., 2016; Baker et al., 2009)

Place of birth explanatory factors

The opportunities afforded to the development of expertise and playing standards between smaller and larger cities differ (MacDonald et al., 2009; Weissensteiner, Abernathy, & Farrow, 2009) with sporting and social infrastructure related to population size influencing talent development (Hancock et al., 2017). Smaller cities and towns have been reported to provide unique advantages in terms of talent development environments, expertise development and opportunities (MacDonald et al., 2009). These opportunities could include access to elite clubs which have been shown to influence the probability of becoming an elite footballer (Rossing et al., 2016). Specifically, smaller cities and towns tend to provide more opportunities for play (as street and traffic danger is reduced), greater social networks and development of social and motor skills (Baker et al., 2009; MacDonald et al., 2009; Evans, 2006; Côté, 1999). In smaller communities’ children were more likely to walk or cycle to school, whereas children in larger communities (especially those living in apartments) are significantly more likely to be sedentary (Mitas et al., 2009). Côté and colleagues (2006) advanced the theory of differing psycho-social and physical environmental conditions experienced by athletes from large urban centres and smaller rural locations, suggesting that the more informal and familiar environment is more conducive to success and lower levels of dropout (Imtiaz, Hancock, Vierimaa, & Côté, 2014). Psychosocially, smaller communities may allow for greater integrative approaches to sport participation that engage family units, foster coach-athlete relationships, promote positive social norms and promote the culture of greater pride in sports teams (Bale, 2003; MacDonald et al., 2009). Socially cohesive neighbourhoods can ease parental concerns about time spent outside the home and in the surrounding areas (Kneeshaw-Price et al., 2013). Further possible explanations for the place of birth effect have been described by (Curtis & Birch, 1987), for example the idea that sport as a potential profession offers an avenue for social mobility, of which there may be fewer opportunities in lesser populated areas, compared to more densely populated areas where there may be more opportunities and that originating in a small town may also promote physical toughness which may be valued in a team sport. A ‘big fish-little pond’ effect may occur in smaller cities, with youth athletes more likely to have elevated self-confidence and greater expectation for success (Marsh et al., 1995). Limited sporting opportunities can create a stronger cultural norm for dominant sports in smaller communities (Rossing et al., 2016). There may also be per head of capita less elite teams in larger areas than smaller cities resulting in greater opportunities to make these squads and thus becoming visible to scouts (Curtis & Birch, 1987). Finnegan et al. (2016) found that youth footballers were more likely to gain access to a Football Associations talent development programme if they were based in lower population areas. Rossing and colleagues (2016) found that the optimal development community size for an elite footballer was medium (30,000-50,000) but ideally with a high population density. Curtis and Birch (1987) suggested further exploration of the accessibility of resources in relation to population, ideally a community that is large enough to have facilities but not so large that demand outweighs participation opportunities.

Conclusion:

There seems to be a sweet spot of the ideal size and population density of a development area, with small to medium-sized communities perhaps offering enough quality coaches, resources, teams, structures and opponents, balanced with being compact enough to develop relationships/socialise into particular sports, allow for informal play on streets/green areas, get enough game time and not be overlooked in favour of a larger cohort of perhaps earlier maturing players. Understanding the unique social, political and cultural context is key with areas of a similar population size not necessarily having equivalent developmental environments (Baker et al., 2014; Wattie et al., 2018).

For those involved in the area of talent development, it is important to understand the environmental factors that impact on such development (along with the more regularly researched personal characteristics) as both have a key role in continued development. By exploring the unique context of your development area, you can begin to identify how to embed facilitative characteristics into your environments (e.g. the ingredients of such environments can include supportive social networks, accessible and engaging activities, a multitude of ‘play’ opportunities and a connection to the community and physical spaces).

References:

Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15, 211–228. doi: 10.1080/1359813042000314781

Baker, J., Schorer, J. Cobley, S., Schimmer, G. & Wattie, N. (2009) Circumstantial development and athletic excellence: The role of date of birth and birthplace, European Journal of Sport Science, 9:6, 329-339, DOI: 10.1080/17461390902933812

Baker, J., Schorer, J., Cobley, S., Schimmer, G., and Wattie, N. (2009). Circumstantial development and athletic excellence: the role of date of birth and birthplace. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 9, 329–339. doi: 10.1080/17461390902933812

Baker, J., Shuiskiy, K., and Schorer, J. (2014). Does size of one’s community affect likelihood of being drafted into the NHL? Analysis of 25 years of data. J. Sports Sci. 32, 1570–1575. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.908319

Bale, J. (2003). Sport Geography, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bowen, R., & Fludd, C. (1982). Race, home town and experiences as factors in deep South major college football. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 17(2), 41–51.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 22(1), 513–531. Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Bruner, M. W., MacDonald, D. J., Pickett, W., and Côté, J. (2011). Examination of birthplace and birthdate in world junior ice hockey players. J. Sports Sci. 29, 1337–1344. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.597419

Côté, J., MacDonald, D. J., Baker, J., and Abernethy, B. (2006). When “where” is more important than “when”: birthplace and birthdate effects on the achievement of sporting expertise. J. Sports Sci. 24, 1065–1073. doi: 10.1080/02640410500432490

Curtis, J. E., and Birch, J. S. (1987). Size of community of origin and recruitment to professional and Olympic hockey in North America. Sociol. Sport J. 4, 229–244. doi: 10.1123/ssj.4.3.229

Evans, G. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423–451. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190057

Finnegan, L., Richardson, D., Littlewood, M. & McArdle, J. (2017) The influence of date and place of birth on youth player selection to a National Football Association elite development programme, Science and Medicine in Football, 1:1, 30-39, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1254807

Hancock, D.J., Coutinho, P., Côté, J. & Mesquita, I. (2017) Influences of population size and density on birthplace effects, Journal of Sports Sciences, 36:1, 33-38, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1276614

Imtiaz, F., Hancock, D.J., Vierimaa, M., & Côté, J. (2014). Place of development and dropout in youth ice hockey. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12(3), 234-244. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2014.880262

Lidor, R., Côté, J., Arnon, M., Zeev, A., and Cohen-Maoz, S. (2010). Relative age and birthplace effects in division 1 players – do they exist in a small country? Talent Dev. Excell. 2, 181–192.

MacDonald, D., King, J., Cote, J. & Abernathy, B., 2009. Birthplace effects on the development of female athletic talent. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Volume 12, pp. 234-237.

Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319. doi:10.3102/00028312032002285

Mitas, J., Nykodym, J. & Fromel, K., 2009. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour behaviour in 14-15 year old students with regard to location of school. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 39(3), pp. 7-11.

Rossing, N. N., Nielsen, A. B., Elbe, A., and Karbing, D. S. (2016). The role of community in the development of elite handball and football players in Denmark. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 16, 237–245. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1009492

Wattie, N., Schorer, J., and Baker, J. (2018). Seeing the forest but not the trees: heterogeneity in community size effects in Canadian ice hockey players. J. Sports Sci. 36, 436–444. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1313444

Weissensteiner, J.R., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2009). Towards the development of a conceptual model of expertise in cricket batting: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 276–292. doi: 10.1080/10413200903018675

Woolcock, G., & Burke, M. (2013). Measuring spatial variations in sports talent development: the approach, methods and measures of “Talent Tracker”. Australian Geographer, 44(1), 23–39. doi: 10.1080/00049182.2013.765346

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s