The Failure of Youth Development in the Premier League

The potential of young players is being ruined by the big clubs

A few weeks ago the Next Gen Series came to an end in Lake Como, Italy. The final involved two English sides; Chelsea and Aston Villa, with Villa the eventual winners. Arsenal had also made the semi final of the competition highlighting that although the senior sides in England have struggled in Europe this season, perhaps Arsene Wenger’s belief that English football needed a ‘wake-up call’ was incorrect.  However although the Next Gen series appears to point to a brighter future for English football, the truth is that this is not necessarily the case. As this article will discuss, many English sides are letting down players when they need the most support.

The NextGen tournament is for under 19’s and although it has only being running for two years it has built up a following and popularity already. The concept is impressive; a tournament which offers players who are not yet ready for senior football a chance to experience a competition which is similar to that of the Champions League. This season twenty-four sides competed which involved big clubs such as Ajax, Borussia Dortmund, Barcelona, Juventus and last years winners Inter Milan. England had six teams involved; Liverpool, Spurs and Man City adding to the three semi-finalists.

We have to consider that in order to compete and progress further than some of Europe’s finest teams English sides must be doing something well in terms of their youth development and in many ways this is true. There is no doubt that some clubs provide their players with genuine world class facilities and environments on which to develop and progress as players.

Foreign talent or clubs which are killing English players?

Yet perhaps the major reason for English sides success was their ability to recruit some of the finest talent from across Europe. English teams did well, yet was it because of English players? 

With sides like Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal when players turn 16 years of age they immediately go looking for the best foreign players. It is hard to see that these 'big' clubs are neglecting English lads over French, Spanish and Portuguese players. Is this right?

Other nations do not do this to the extent that English ones do. Because many clubs do not have the luxury of money which affords many of England's top clubs. 

Young foreign players are being brought over, especially by the top teams, at the expense of our own. This is simply not right. It is not right for the English players development and not for the foreign player; being moved to a new country at 16 and expected to adapt is not ethical. For all the Fabregas’ of this method, how many have been ruined by this vicious and soulless pursuit of the next Messi? 

And as this article will discuss, the impact on players social development as well as football development appears ignored at this crucial time. For every Cesc Fabregas that comes through, how many other young foreigners are being left behind, their careers ruined?

I understand football is a tough environment, yet surely these young Spanish, Portuguese players would be better suited learning and developing at home? For the good of English players and the national side, more needs to be done to prevent English sides poaching young talent from abroad, which will allow more English talent to be given the chance to develop and progress from 15-21 years of age.

Would it not be better if young foreign players were not allowed to move abroad until they were at least 18, more in line with university age, where a player is now a young adult and not an adolescent.

The debate regarding club vs country rears its head once again.  When analysing the top English sides youth development methods there is certainly a propensity to favour talent over nationality. The approach to youth development in England has been globalised and multi-national and there are many who believe that this philosophy has affected England’s potential to develop world class players.

Arsenal’s approach is to bring in top talent from all across Europe. When Wenger arrived he felt that the English players lacked the touch, subtlety and tactical intelligence to compete with those around Europe. He made the decision to bring in young foreign talent to help improve the team (and the clubs finances). This mistrust of British qualities reached its peak in February 2005 when Arsenal became the first English club to field an all-foreign 16-man squad in a Premier League fixture at Highbury against Crystal Palace. Losing Ashley Cole appeared to signify that Arsenal did not care about English players developed through the academy (unlike perhaps Man Utd who pride themselves on developing and retaining home grown talent).

In the NextGen series semi final between Arsenal and Chelsea Arsenal’s team consisted of Dejan Iliev (Macedonia), Hector Bellerin (Spain), Hajrovic (Switzerland), Issac Hayden (England), Martin Angha (Switzerland), Yennaris (England) has been at Arsenal since seven years old, Olsson (Sweden), Kyle Ebecilio (Holland), Thomas Eisfeld (Germany), Chuba Akpom (England), Serge Gnabry (Germany).

However it is appears that Wenger has started to build a team with more British players which hopefully benefits the future development of English players. In recent years players like Jack Wilshere  (British football’s most exciting young talent), Kieran Gibbs and Yennaris have come through the ranks from a young age. Other English players like Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Theo Walcott were both signed from Southampton (whose academy is one of England’s best) and Carl Jenkinson  who was taken from Charlton in the summer of 2011.

Integration is key

However for all the promise of youth development and improved standards, developing players is the ‘easy part’, it is integrating them into the first team which matters most. I heard recently that Fulham’s youth sides have been very successful this past season, yet youth development is not about winning competitions but preparing players for professional football and I cannot recall all too many Fulham academy players breaking into the first team.

For the past decade Arsenal appeared excellent at providing their young players with opportunities to progress in the senior side, which is in major contrast to their London rivals Chelsea. The difference between the two clubs this past decade is at opposite ends of the spectrum. One club whose model is on development and making profit to the other who seek to buy the best talent in order to win trophies. The success of the sides since 2005 however points to why top sides are wary of using youth players; Arsenal have won not one trophy whereas Chelsea have won ten. However, if we base this article on youth development, surely Chelsea is the worst place for a young player to go to?

When Roman Abramovich arrived at Chelsea he created a new superpower in England and across Europe. He sought to buy the best talent around and his goal was clear; to win every trophy possible. Now with this kind of mentality it is often very hard to seek to integrate young players into a team with such lofty ambitions. Especially when your manager is Jose Mourinho who often shows a distrust of youth because they are often liable to errors. Chelsea’s problem appears simply to be an inability or lack of will to provide young players with opportunities for the first team.

It is not like the talent is not there yet the lack of stability with the management means that unlike Ferguson, it is very hard to show patience and allow time to integrate and progress. Expectations at Chelsea are viewed in the short term which results in young talent being neglected.

As the NextGen series showed Chelsea do have talent in their youth system. And many of those are English. Their side consisted of Mitchell Beeney (England), Andreas Christensen (Denmark), Alex Davey (England), Danny Pappoe (Ghanian), Kevin Wright (England), Alex Kiwomya (England), Lewis Baker (England), Ruben Loftus (England), Adam Nditi (Tanzania), Islam Feruz (Somalia), Jeremie Boga (French).

When looking at the careers of their English lads it pleasing to see that players like Davey, Pappoe, Kevin Wright, Lewis Baker and Ruben Loftus have been at the club since they were between 9-12 years old. This certainly shows that Chelsea are doing something well in regards to their development of youth. Even players like Adam Nditi and Jeremie Boga who are not English nationality have been at the club since 2008.

However, although Chelsea’s academy can be regarded as one of Europe’s best and in terms of facilities and coaching it is, what is the point of having a youth academy if you do not attempt to produce players for your first team? If Chelsea’s youth development is so impressive then it begs the question as to why there are so few youth academy prospects breaking into the first team.

Chelsea’s second tier

In recent years there have been a couple of English players such as Josh Mceachran and Ryan Bertrand who have come through the academy. Bertrand actually was at Gillingham till 16 so cannot be said to really be a ‘product’ of Chelsea unlike Mceachran  who has been at Chelsea since he was seven.

The concern of Chelsea’s integration policy can be seen best by Mceachran.  When he first came on to the scene the attention he received was high. Lampard spoke highly of his intelligence and creativity and it appeared that Chelsea had produced a player who would be given a chance in the first team. Yet four years later and he is now on loan at MIddlesborough after experiencing a poor time in Swansea with Brendan Rodgers.

For all his potential he has not been given the opportunity these past few years to continue his development and because of this he has not progressed. The truth is that between the ages of 16-21 these players will not progress to the levels they have shown to reach if they are not given the opportunity and experience to do so. The most important aspect of becoming a player at this age is to play.

Dermot Drummy guided Chelsea Under-19s to the final of the NextGen Series and has demanded that British kids are finally given a proper chance at Stamford Bridge. He has seen young stars such as Josh McEachran and ­Nathaniel Chalobah sent out on loan, and Drummy claims his youngsters cannot keep being blocked by ­expensive foreign ­signings. “It’s difficult because Chelsea will buy ready-made players,” said Drummy. “But the bottom line is you’ve got to ­produce a player. There is a second tier now, where the lads like Nathaniel and Josh tend to go out on loan. But there has to be a pathway and ­opportunities, in my opinion, for the young British ­players to get a chance.”

The problem at Chelsea is that because they have an owner who demands immediate success and who is unwilling to be patient and give his managers time to develop and plan for the future. And there is a Director of Football who has a large chest of money which he is happy to spend on some of Europe’s brightest young talent in players such as; Eden Hazard, Romelu Lukaku, Oscar and David Luiz. These are exceptional players yet it appears Chelsea have no vision or plan in terms of their transfer policy, it looks like they are simply hoarding players.

Therefore if you are a young Chelsea academy player and you see players like Lukaku (bought for £20m) going out on loan then you to ask how likely it is that they will become a Chelsea player. Players like Lewis Baker who is clearly a talented player will be wasted by staying at Chelsea. And this is what makes the news of Kasey Palmer being signed by Chelsea this week from Charlton all the more worrying. Chelsea have purchased Palmer for £200k which could rise to £800k based on appearances. However does Palmer have any chance of making it at Chelsea. The odds are very slim and so surely it would have been better for him to stay at Chalrton, where opportunity would be more forthcoming?

There are some serious concerns regarding these rules. Firstly should sides like Chelsea and Man City really be able to ‘poach’ the best talent from clubs around them like Crystal Palace, Chalrton and Watford or Bradford, Bolton or Crewe? The truth is that these ‘lower league’ sides are actually greater producers of professional players than the ‘big’ teams.

However under the new EPPP rules tier one clubs can easily take the best players from these lower clubs. If we consider the issue of playing time and opportunity for those at big clubs then surely it makes sense to have players stay with clubs who can provide them with first team football earlier? You only to have to look at the stories of John Bostock, Tom Taiwo and Michael Wood.


The bright lights ruin careers

In all instances it was a case of too much too young. John Bostock would seem to be a prime ­candidate for the “too much, too young” brigade. Bostock appeared to be the next big thing, watched by ­Barcelona and admired by Arsenal and other ­Premier League clubs. And in the summer of 2008, he joined Tottenham for £700,000. There was some controversy over the fee yet it appeared Spurs had signed a player with real potential for a bargain price. This was a player who had made his first team debut at 15 years 287 days.

However since his move to Spurs the career of Bostock has suffered. The reason many say is that that he moved too early and that he should have continued with his development at Crystal Palace. Since then we have seen players at progress and develop at the club before making that step up. This has been the key for players like Zaha, Clyne and Moses who have all become top players in the past few years.

After signing Bostock Spurs sent him out on loan and this is the situation regarding consistency. Since 2008 Bostock has played for Brentford, Hull City, Sheffield Wednesday, Swindon Town and now for Toronto in the MLS. He has barely played regualry for any of these clubs yet it must be hard for him to be moving to new clubs, new environments constantly.

Where is the stability? He is still only 21 yet the key development years between 16-21 have been effectively ruined because of his move to Spurs. By staying at Palace those players mentioned before have played in a side which they know, close to their families and in a comfortable environment.If they had left early like Bostock could they have been in the same situation as him now? The Bostock situation highlights the ills of moving to a new club between 15-18 particularly.

However these top clubs still don’t learn, they are obsessed now with getting players younger yet appear unwilling to truly develop them or give them the opportunity to improve. It would be best for these clubs to allow these players to stay with the clubs they are still developing with and allow them to continue to develop.

In 2006 Chelsea bought Leeds acaemy players Tom Taiwo and Michael Woods for a total of £5m when they were both 16 years old. The issue involved allegations of over 'tapping up' from Chelsea that led to a court case and Chelsea agreed to pay Leeds £5million to settle the matter. However £5m does not guarantee success, especially when moving to Chelsea. Both players found opportunities limited and they quite simply stopped progressing.

As Taiwo says; 'At 16 I was rated as a very good prospect; now I'm at Carlisle. You see boys who weren't rated at 16 who at 23 are playing for England. Chris Smalling, he was playing non-League. Now he's a top player with Manchester United and England. It makes a mockery of the academy system, shows it is not the be-all and end-all. Boys like myself have been right through the system and now I'm nowhere near his standard. That's the worry.'

They also found the situation difficult in terms of being away from their families. These players are still kids and yet I think when our academy players turn 15 too much is expected of them too early. If youth development was thought of more up to 21 years then I am positive that we could develop more players.

Both Taiwo and Woods are now playing for Hibernian and Harrogate, which would highlight a serious problem of moving to one of the‘rich’ clubs. A lack of opportunity, the pressure to justify a big price tag and a failure to understand that these young lads are still developing and still require support. Chelsea therefore appear an ‘academy’ which promotes career suicide. My advice for a player at Chelsea would be to move to a club like Palace or Watford and develop there, because at least these clubs need and want to develop youth.

Taiwo also speaks of academies not taking into account 'peaks and troughs', of differing rates of physical and emotional development. His argument centralises around an issue which is seen most commonly in English academies regarding ‘physicality'.

Young players, often those regarded as ‘late developers’ can be left behind by academies who favour physical attributes over technical and tactical intelligence.

The argument of whether Xavi, Iniesta or Messi would have been deemed ‘too small’ at 15 or 16 years old is used often, yet there is the possibility that the majority of teams in England would have viewed them as too lightweight. Therefore to judge players at 15/16 when they are still maturing and developing appears lunacy, these lads still have five to six years of development to go. Yet if they do not find the right place for them where they can nurtured and developed, then how can they fulfil their potential?

Nick Powell, now at Man Utd is a perfect example of why staying at a lower league is the best option. Powell joined Crewe as young lad and at 16 he made his debut for the first team in August 2010 becoming the second youngest player to play for Crewe. Between 2010 and 2012 he was given opportunity to play and develop and in total played 55 games for the club. His performances in 2011/12 particuarly alerted many to his potential, enough so that Man Utd bought him for £4m in the summer of 2012. Imagine if Powell had left Crewe at 16, would he have got the opportunity to play and develop with a Premier League side like he did at Crewe? Not a chance. Therefore it appears near essential that young players should be given opportunities in a comfortable environment between 15-18 at least in order to keep developing.

Buying up the best talent yet any first team action?

 

The same problem can be seen at Man City. Vast wealth and unlimited resources has allowed them to go around Europe and pick up the brightest talent around. Nationality has become irrelevant and as their first team shows, being English is not relevant.

City have been scouring the world for young talent as they seek to build a squad for the future. In the NextGen series they did not perform well yet they showcased their new foreign acquisitions. Karim Rekik signed for Manchester City from Feyenoord in the summer of and set a club record when he turned out for the last 12 minutes of the Carling Cup win over Birmingham, aged 16 years 294 days. Marcos Lopez, a Brasil born attacking midfielder cost the Blues around £790,000. Lopez is a Portugal under-16 and under-17 international and was snapped up from the Benfica youth ranks as a 15-year-old. Jules Olivier Ntcham was one of the most promising youngsters in France and was the captain of France's U-16 squad.

Perhaps the two biggest signings that City have made have been the Spanish players Denis Suarez and Jose Angel Pozo. Suárez signed for Manchester City on 23 May 2011. Manchester City beat off interest from Barcelona, Chelsea and rivals Manchester United signing him from Celta Vigo for an initial fee of £850,000 that could rise by £2.75 million depending on appearances and performances. And in Pozo Manchester City showed their financial clout by paying Real Madrid £3.5m for the 15-year-old starlet. The deal could eventually be worth £5million. 

Yet can you see City really integrating young academy players into the first team? Even Suarez has struggled to break through. Perhaps the case of John Guidetti highlights the problems with big teams integrating young players.  In April 2008, at the age of sixteen, he signed a three-year deal with City. Although he showed his quality in the youth ranks, he was not given a chance in the first team. A loan move to Feynoord last season proved his talents scoring 20 goals in 23 games for the Dutch club and many City fans have shown a desire to have him become a part of City’s senior team. Yet there is not a chance he will be given a go at City. If these players do not play then what chance do they really have? As Twente chairman Joop Munsterman said regarding Guidetti “The most important thing for a young player like Guidetti is that he plays a lot of games”.

If we don’t give our young players the chance to develop up to the age of 23, then we are doing a disservice to young players, both domestic and foreign. These big clubs appear to be selfishly ruining players careers.

A problem with English development?

English clubs currently spend more than Germany each year on youth development, around £90 million per season, and put 10,000 boys aged between nine and 16 through a much-criticised structure designed by Howard Wilkinson in 1997. Yet, only about 1% of boys who join an English academy aged nine become professional footballers. This is not economical and clearly there is a problem which money cannot fix.

There are many who point to the issues with English football academies as to why England does not produce more top quality players. However in the past decade English academies have certainly improved their standards and started to produce more talented players. Now although standards and quality could be improved, something which the new EPPP plans have set out to do, there is no doubt in my mind that the issue with English youth development comes between the ages of 16-21.

Far too many top clubs are judging players at 15/16 years and not waiting for them to develop further. At 15 or 16 a young player is still learning and developing both as a footballer and a person. To make judgements on players at this age after spending three to five years already at the club appears to be a waste of time. If youth development was considered in terms of a footballer ‘developing’ till the age of 21, or even 23 like clubs across Europe do, then would English sides not be producing more talent?

Even Sam Allardyce is conscious of the problem; “If I had to point at one area it is that it is basing itself in the latter end of youth development which is 16-21.”

The problem however is that the English league promotes short term needs over the long term which means that clubs need quick fixes which often means ‘proven’ talent or ‘experience’ over young and developing.  Because of the vast wealth which the English league provides clubs cannot ‘risk’ using young players who may make errors. It has resulted in a lack of development and long term strategies.

This is not to say that English football has not improved because of foreign influence and imports. Imagine what the game would be like without it! And as Chelsea’s coach Drummy says “we have learned from the influx of foreign players over the years. Players have learned about technical ability and I think the coaches have learned too so it is onwards and upwards for the future of English football. It is in a good place." However this continued problem of young English talent being neglected when it matters most must be addressed if English football is truly going to develop more talented players. 

Bridging the gap – a need for experience and opportunity

Clubs need to ‘bridge the gap’ between youth and senior football much more effectively and as sides like Chelsea and Man City are showing, for all the money spent on facilities, coaching and wages if they cannot integrate these young players into the first team squad then what really is the point?

For me personally too many players are being wasted at this valuable age. Josh Mceachranis a prime example. With Mceachran he has struggled with consistency and this is perhaps the most important aspect which often gets ignored. Clubs expect to just ship these players around the country, often to teams which have no similarities with the players own club. Swansea proved to be a failure of a experience and now he finds himself at Middlesborough. A player with such potential at 16 has not progressed these past four years.

Compare this to players like Wilshere and Cleverly whose loan careers at Bolton and Wigan were successful in terms of playing time and working with coaches who play football in an attacking, technical style. There is no doubt that these players benefited from these experiences. My point is that loan deals are not bad as such, in fact experience and playing time are fundamental to improvement. However it needs to make sense in terms of style and environment.

This is why the “B” team idea has been put forward by certain people. If we take Barcelona as a model then it is clear why they are able to produce players who play the “Barca” way. It is down to consistency. From the youth levels to the senior side all teams play the same way in terms of tactics. All the players therefore know the system inside out by the time they reach the first team. Can the same be said about Mceachran?

The new under-21 league is supposed to be the bridge between the youth and first team and there is clearly a benefit and need for this type of league. Before the ‘reserves’ could be seen as a place for those senior players to come back from injury yet this new format does appear to show an understanding that players under 21 do need to be considered as ‘developing’ still.

A solutions oriented approach

Personally I think players should seek a move to sides to the Championship in order to further their development and receive the opportunities of playing. Tom Ince is a great example of a player who moved to the Championship and whose career has excelled and blossomed because of it. His time at Liverpool surely gave him a good foundation yet playing continually at Blackpool between the ages of 19 and 21 (he has played 85 games for Blackpool) has certainly aided his development.

Would he have got this at Liverpool? Not to this level. At Chelsea or Man City, never.

Moving ‘down’ actually made Ince a better player and my advice to players at Chelsea and City would be to ask for two or three year loans or simply to be transferred to sides like Palace, Blackpool or Charlton in order to develop and fulfil their potential.

The truth is that outside of the Premier League the majority of clubs across Europe are reliant on producing their own players. Unlike the top English sides they simply can’t buy players, which means they have to work hard to make sure they develop good players.

We have seen already that sides like Southampton, Crystal Palace and Crewe have had to develop players these past few years in order to keep competitive in the league and to make profit from them when sold on. Youth development therefore is not a ‘bit of fun’ like Chelsea and Man City appear to treat it yet a key and fundamental aspect to secure the long term future of the club.

Unfortunately the correlation between more money and less players coming through the academy appears worrying for English football. In Germany sides like Dortmund have been forced into using their academy players because of financial difficulties and they are now regarded as one of Europe’s best sides. Their story really is fantastic yet it is all about high quality youth development and importantly giving players between 16-21 a chance to develop. Out of necessity perhaps, yet it has been proven to be successful.  In fact German football as a whole has benefited from an investment into youth development and we are now seeing a prosperous league and national team.

Perhaps the most important part of Germany’s resurgence has been their adoption of the 6+5 rule which FIFA put forward. The most significant change in Germany was insisting that in these new academies at least 12 players in each intake have to be eligible to play for Germany.  In 2003/04 Germany had 44% foreign players playing the Bundesliga, they realised something needed to change. Today it is 38%, which means the Bundesliga has 62% of players playing each week who are able to play for the national team. In England the numbers are reversed.

The key difference between England and Germany is that the 6+5 rule means only players from Germany are eligible to play. In England the rule is any player from any nationality who has been trained and developed in the country is classed as home grown. Cesc Fabregas is a perfect example. This bending of the rule actually forces club to get foreign players younger so they can be registered as 'home grown'. What the German model enables is the home grown youth to play more, enabling more players to gain the necessary experience to improve.

The top clubs and Premier League are doing a disservice to the English game by not creating more opportunities for clubs to develop talent. If every club was forced to play 6 English players weekly then the talent and quality will improve. Through selfish gain the owners and business men have marketed the Premier League to be the best and many have benefitted from the TV deals and high wages, yet it is the fans of the country who have lost out most. Each tournament creates a larger chasm between the best and England.

The Premier League, if they genuinely did care about the development of the national side, would make the teams use the 6+5 rule to play English talent weekly, resulting in a minimum of six English players playing each week. The current rules enable foreign players to be classed as home grown and allows teams like Arsenal to field non-English sides in the Premier League. How is this helping the national game improve? 

I believe in the success of coaching and of development. I do not believe that money solves everything, especially top down projects. The Premier League needs to do more and it is essential to change the 6+5 rule to enable more English players to gain more experience.

Villa pointing the way forward?

Perhaps the best example in the Premier League has been Aston Villa. In the past few seasons Aston Villa have sought to bring down costs and become more sustainable in how they run the club. Several years of overspending incurred huge debts and losses for the club without anything back. A period of austerity was required and this season under Paul Lambert the club has sought to use players from the clubs youth academy as a way to be more economical and sustainable. It has been a risky strategy and the season has been difficult. Yet the experience and opportunity afforded to these young players will be invaluable.

The Villa model reflect that seen in Germany with Borussia Dortmund. Out of necessity the club was forced to be stringent and use their youth academy to help the senior side. The result has seen Dortmund win back to back German titles and qualify for the semi finals of the Champions League. Their story is impressive and it shows the value that youth players can offer when given the opportunity to develop.

Aston Villa won the NextGen series and yet this success is not what makes their work impressive. Their ability to produce players for their first team is the most important part. They have proved that not only do they have a talented academy, but they are willing to provide players with opportunities to become a professional.

Villa’s captain in the competition Samir Carruthers joined Villa from Arsenal when he was 16 years old because he saw a route to playing in the first team, which has already happened for him. Villa prove that their academy is not just a showpiece to highlight their ability to develop winning teams yet is a necessity to produce players for their first team.

The problem with sides like City and Chelsea, and other across Europe like Madrid and PSG is that these clubs have the means to buy in the best talent and thus don’t need a youth academy. The irony however is that they are good developers of young players because they can afford the best facilities and coaching. However if they cannot offer these players a route to the professional game between 17-21 then they are doing a disservice to their players.

It would be better that they allow these players to leave the club and let them sign for sides who will give them the valuable opportunities needed to take their game to the next level.

English football cannot have more Josh Mceachran’s or John Bostock’s whose careers are wasted by the big clubs.

Agent issues?

It would be foolish and naïve to write an article on youth development without discussing the issue of agents. Unfortunately because of the vast wealth in the English game players are being treated like commodities in order for agents to make big money. The interests of the player (football wise) are neglected over financial gain.

Let us look at Chelsea once again. Ruben Loftus has been at Chelsea's academy since he was an Under-8. Now 17-years-old the midfielder has become a very bright prospect and has attracted interest from Manchester rivals United and City. He is one the ­hottest young talents in English football. But listen to the size of the ­contract Chelsea have promised him. Chelsea are willing to ensure ­Loftus-Cheek gained millionaire ­status ­before his 20th birthday. Without even breaking into the first team, Loftus-Cheek would bank more than £1.7m.

His basic salary over the two-and-half years of his deal was worth £912,000. Chelsea also agreed to pay him a signing-on fee of £375,000, in three instalments, while three loyalty bonuses would have totalled a further £350,000. Donkor, the agent, was scheduled to be paid £1million by Chelsea for arranging the contract. The other £300,000 in his claim is down to his commission on the player’s contract, a potential boot sponsorship deal and legal fees plus interest.

When David Pleat heard this he was amazed; “The whole thing is crazy. The ­scramble for the best schoolboys, fuelled by agents, leads to wholly inflated earning figures. It gives the youngsters a false sense of ­perspective – both about football and about life. It is madness. I remember when there used to be a cap on what you earned until you played your first professional game. Nowadays a kid won’t sign on as an apprentice for a club until he is ­guaranteed ‘x’ amount of money. There should be a limit on what clubs ­offer.”

Pleat is absolutely correct. These players are becoming rich before they even make the senior side, they are not being treated like players who need ‘development’ but as players who are already there. Yet they have done nothing to earn these wages except play for a club where the value of money means little. What will happen to players like Ruben Loftus? Well what usually happens to teenage millionaires; a loss of focus and determination to improve because the club have effectively taken away his motivation.

Perhaps these players worked very hard to get where they are, yet even at 16, 17, 18 they still have more to learn and improve. By rewarding these players for doing very little when there is more to come once again highlights the issues of having too much money and not enough need to actually use young talent.

Go to a club lower down though and you see wages which reflect the league and age of the player. What will these players do? Work harder to improve. Unfortunately clubs like Chelsea and Man City are devaluing work rate by paying players wages they don’t deserve or need and then price them out of the market of clubs who could actually use them and develop them further. It is madness.

I have no idea why clubs like City and Chelsea feel the need to ‘hoard’ players. Perhaps they want to show off their impressive youth teams or they don’t want others to get these players. Yet why take in youth players if there is no intention of playing them in the senior team? It is a disservice to the players and English football that genuine talent is being wasted. Although these players may be financially secure, how will English football benefit from these players who are wasting away when they need the chance and opportunity to develop?

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address

Your thoughts and feedback are always welcome