Is a late birthdate a disadvantage in youth sports? New research says maybe not.

A recent study involving European footballers revealed that youngsters with less favorable birthdates can eventually excel, if they stick with it.

Photo by UX Indonesia on Unsplash

One of the most perplexing challenges in youth sports is how to address the relative age effect (RAE). The way age categories are structured creates an environment that favors youngsters born earlier in the year or during a specific selection period compared to their same-age peers born later in the same period. Even though young athletes may share the same chronological age, as any parent can attest, physical differences can be substantial, particularly at younger ages.

Earlier birthdays confer a natural growth advantage that translates into a performance boost. Those born early in the selection period tend to be larger, stronger, and faster compared to those born later. They develop better motor control earlier than others, which enables them to acquire sports skills more efficiently. The combination of these factors—being bigger and stronger, running faster, and learning skills sooner—contributes to the perception that these youngsters are more talented. This apparent superior skill opens up greater opportunities, attracts more attention from coaches, and receives more praise and recognition from parents and others.

Because this all happens while athletes are young, the benefits supercharge their early sport experience. Initially, physical growth helped them stand out from their peers, but the added attention sets them up for more opportunities, travel, and selection to higher level camps and teams. In short, being born early in the youth sport lottery can unlock several athletic opportunities not available to others.

Coaches and parents often misinterpret a youngster’s exceptional performance as a sign of talent and future success. This misinterpretation exacerbates the relative age effect, leading to an overestimation of the youngster’s abilities compared to their peers.

The relative age effect (RAE) describes observable differences, usually related to growth and performance, between young athletes who are the same chronological age but have different developmental ages. The effect is caused by the relationship between chronological age and an eligibility cut-off date used for cohort selection. Understanding the relative age effect, May 2021

The RAE is evident in any group of young people engaged in a performance-based activity. While the performance gap eventually disappears, it’s noticeable and concerning to some who may not be aware of its causes. Although its effects are short-lived, they can have long-lasting consequences. For instance, research on sport dropout has revealed that athletes with unfavorable birthdays are more prone to prematurely leaving sports.

Attempts to mitigate the impact by altering the method of determining age, such as adjusting the cut-off dates in team sports or employing flexible “as of” dates in individual sports, are ineffective. Regardless of the age calculation dates set, someone will inevitably be on the windy side of the RAE. Date adjustments only change which athletes are affected.

The most effective and, so far, the sole approach to disrupting the RAE's influence is to recognize its existence and refrain from overreacting to what is essentially an illusion of talent.

National governing bodies should refrain from providing advanced camps and travel squads to young athletes because the individuals selected for such benefits will predominantly be born early during the selection period, thereby negating the very purpose of these camps. Offering advanced training or travel opportunities is not appropriate until athletes reach a more mature age.

A recent study of European footballers followed the success of those born at opposite ends of the age calculation period, from their developmental programs to their professional careers. By the time athletes reached professional status, the researchers discovered fewer athletes born late in the year, which could be attributed to the RAE. Interestingly, these athletes played more, as evidenced by their professional career minutes (PCM).

"Results show that in the youth academy, there are fewer players that are born late in the year compared to players that are born early in the year, confirming previous findings of RAE. However, we also find that players that are born late in the year achieve more PCM on average. This indicates that players that survive the RAE selection bias are exceptionally good at achieving long, successful careers."

The birthdate distribution in the study aligns with what one would expect for professional teams whose players were subjected to RAE selection bias during their younger years. However, as the researchers pointed out, “players who survive the RAE selection bias” eventually perform just as well or even better than those who benefit from the bias.

This gives me the opportunity to return to an underlying theme in lots of the articles I write for this letter: Time is the most important factor in talent development. There are many obstacles in keeping youngsters involved in sport, the RAE is just one. The guiding principle for sport organizations should be to get athletes involved and then keep them involved long enough to make a difference.

Through research and experience we know that the most important factor in sport talent development is how long an athlete stays engaged with the sport. It's not the training program, strength training, fancy facilities, or how much the coach knows about the sport that matters at this stage. These are important later, after the athlete becomes hooked on the activity. Time is the most important factor in talent development, August 2016

The longer youngsters engage in youth sports, the better their performances tend to become. No one knows what level they will eventually reach, however, keeping them involved is the only way we’ll ever find out. Performance differences caused by the RAE will always be present at developmental levels. Nevertheless, our responses to these differences can significantly impact a young athlete's long-term enjoyment and participation.