Supporting Client Transitions Out of UK Football Academies

Abstract

Release from professional football (soccer) academies in the UK can result in experiences of psychological distress for the transitioning individual (i.e., the player) and their support network (e.g., family members). Despite the commonality of such transitions and their potential negative effects, it is surprising that practice insights on supporting the transition out of professional football academies are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to draw on case material to highlight approaches and challenges for sport psychologists supporting a range of clients during transitions out of an academy football club. In closing, we offer key recommendations for stakeholders and those delivering support in practice settings when seeking to support similar transitions.

Keywords:

• Identity
• parent
• player
• release
• soccer
• systems-led

Substantial research has been dedicated to the periods of change that athletes are required to navigate to successfully progress in sport and the other areas of their life (e.g., youth-to-senior transition; Morris et al., 2017). Yet, it has been suggested that approximately 20% of athletes who leave sport experience the retirement transition as a crisis (Stambulova, 2017). In such circumstances, athletes may experience adverse effects such as decreased self-esteem, disorientation in decision-making, and lasting emotional discomfort (Stambulova, 2017). It is surprising, therefore, that less attention has been devoted to these athletes who ineffectively cope, experience a crisis-transition, and who may need support (Stambulova et al., 2021).

Within the sport psychology transition literature, there are numerous intervention approaches to support athletes, such as lifestyle management, life skills training, career planning, identity development, cultural adaptation, crisis-coping, educational, and clinical interventions; all located within a continuum ranging from crisis coping to preventative perspectives (Stambulova & Wylleman, 2014). Preventative interventions aim to provide athletes with resources to facilitate their readiness for prospective transitions. For example, McGlinchey et al. (2022) suggested that to prepare football (soccer) players for release, professional academies could establish support programs that develop psychosocial skills (e.g., help-seeking behaviors). As an alternative, Triggs et al. (2011) used metaphors from song lyrics to help young football players to communicate their thoughts and feelings during the retain or release transition phase. Crisis coping interventions aim to support athletes through distressing transitions. For instance, account-making can involve athletes constructing a narrative about a distressful experience (e.g., retirement from sport) to help them understand their transition and work through to develop new identities (Grove et al., 1998). Notwithstanding these approaches, interventions supporting the transition out of academy football and the possible ending of the football career are sparse. Therefore, in this article, we draw on case material to illustrate approaches and ethical dilemmas when supporting transitions out of football academies and offer recommendations for practitioners.

The context

In this work, we draw on our collective practice experiences. The first author adopted a holistic approach (i.e., support the person through balancing their wellbeing and performance needs) to practice which predominately drew from acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes et al., 2011), with elements of existentialism (Nesti & Ronkainen, 2020), and the utilization of motivational interviewing and counselling skills. The third author adopted a systemic approach to practice underpinned by pluralism, 3^rd wave cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT, e.g., Hayes et al., 2011), with some existentialism. The second author, who is not a practitioner, is the lead supervisor for the first author’s doctoral studies and supported with commenting and editing the manuscript. The second author also has experience researching transitions in dual career athletes and young footballers’ perceptions of the talent development process.

The first author and third author have been employed within English Premier League and Football League Category 1 and 3 Academies primarily providing sport psychology support to players, but also making support available to other stakeholders (i.e., parents) on a need’s basis. These academies can register players aged from under 9 to under 18 years old, and players who fail to meet the expected performance level are released every year. The general aims of the academies are to develop players capable of being awarded professional contracts and for those academy graduates to obtain first team playing minutes but, despite these aims, 90% of youth players do not achieve professional status (Anderson & Miller, 2011) and are instead released from academies. The process of release in UK academies typically involves a contract meeting (“retain/release”; McGlinchey et al., 2022) with the player, their parent or guardian, coaches and/or the academy manager. In the meeting, a coach or academy manager explains the reason behind a player being released before the player’s contract and playing status with the club is terminated. Following the release process, players’ athletic engagement is typically disrupted which can provoke cognitive and emotional instability (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Players can then engage in an appraisal process. That is, players consider the perceived meaning and significance of the release in the context of their career, their existing coping resources, and potential solutions. This cognitive evaluation can lead to strategic decisions on how to respond to and cope with the change-event (e.g., deny it, cope independently, consult with others, or a sport psychologist; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).

Taylor et al. (2006) compared release from football academies to involuntary career termination because a player’s prospects of a professional football career are significantly hindered and/or ended against their wishes, they have little control over the outcome, and no prospect of returning to the team. Yet, the academy release transition may also be considered a distinct process to career termination as, for example, a 16-year-old released player who may have not fulfilled their full potential from failing to meet the required performance level and an elite senior player who is ending his long-term career due to the loss of a contract may experience different transitions. As such, practitioners should consider the physical, emotional, psychological, and social developmental differences when working among youth athletes (Visek et al., 2009).

Following release, players have documented experiencing psychological distress seven and 21 days later (Blakelock et al., 2016), as well as more enduring psychological difficulties such as identity crises and feelings of anxiety and depression (McGlinchey et al., 2022). Beyond the direct impact on the player, the threat of release can also be a source of stress for the players’ parents (Harwood et al., 2010), as they can be concerned about their child’s potential response to release and the possibility of any negative effects. Parents themselves can also undergo a transition when their child progresses through sport. For example, parents are required to negotiate their shifting role from academy-parent to non-academy-parent (Clarke & Harwood, 2014). Given the negative effects of academy release on the players and their families, interventions and practice insights to help with the transition out of academy football are important.

In the next section, we draw from case material from the authors’ practice experiences of providing sport psychology support to clients who experienced a transition out of academy football: a parent, Jill, and Mischa, a player. In doing so, we have deliberately presented cases that diverge from the typical client group of focus in transitions work, namely, athletes. We hope such examples offered highlight the range of stakeholders who influence, and are influenced by, transitions. Case One is presented using first-person to reflect the individual work that the first author completed with the client. In contrast, Case Two is presented in third-person to reflect the work and ethical dilemmas faced by the ‘system’ and multi-disciplinary team as a collective. That is, a systems-led approach meant that work was done through the system to support Mischa as an end service user. Each client provided informed consent for the support received and had the opportunity to comment on the article.

Case material

Case One: Jill, the academy parent

Case One concerned a white male in his early teens and his mother, Jill (pseudonym). Our work together covered seven online sessions across a three-month period. After the release meeting, Jill said that her son did not want to talk with me (MS), but that she wanted to engage with the support to facilitate with her son’s transition out of the academy. After re-establishing expectations and boundaries with Jill, our initial conversation served as an intake to explore Jill’s world. During this conversation, Jill said that her son was “doing alright” despite leaving the academy, because he had been considering leaving for some time as he had not been enjoying it.

As the first session continued, Jill became very upset and cried when thinking of the positive memories from the academy, such as the relationships she had made with other parents. However, she also questioned if the sacrifices (e.g., long-distance travel) involved in academy football were worthwhile, and suggested that her identity as a football parent had become well established as her week revolved around her son’s football. As this was our first session, my aim was to give Jill space to tell her unique story by using active listening and occasionally reflecting back, probing, and empathizing. This client-led approach seemed to be effective as Jill felt able to express emotion and volunteered much information about how she was experiencing a challenging adaptation to leave the academy, as a result of her disrupted parental engagement (Samuel et al., 2023).

When we next met, Jill described the transition out of the academy as a grieving process and said she was reluctant to leave a WhatsApp group chat with other age group parents, because she did not want to be disconnected from her friends. Yet, Jill also shared that her hesitation in not wanting to leave the group might be seen by other age group parents as a trivial issue. At this point of our relationship, I drew on motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2012) to explore and resolve Jill’s ambivalence. For example, I used open-ended decision balance questions to support Jill in exploring the positives and consequences of staying and leaving the WhatsApp group chat (e.g., “what would happen if you decided to stay or leave this WhatsApp group?”). I then invited Jill to explore potential barriers and solutions to satisfy her need for relatedness with the other parents (e.g., “what can you do to stay in contact with the other parents?”). At the next session, Jill said she was able to leave the WhatsApp group chat. Through identifying new resources (e.g., actions for Jill to keep in touch with the other academy parents, such as a check-in), we suggest that the support provided helped to resolve Jill’s ambivalence, to manage the demands from the transition (Samuel et al., 2023), and to reduce the strength of her academy parent identity. In doing so, this facilitated a motivational change to leave the WhatsApp group; however, Jill still had a list of the academy fixtures on display in her house.

During our latter sessions it became apparent that the father in the family had not been very supportive during the transition and had a strong emotional reaction to the release. As my working relationship with Jill continued, we reflected on what other support options were available to help with the effect that the transition was having on the other family members. After Jill contacted one of the support options, we agreed to terminate our relationship. From Jill’s feedback, I believe that she was satisfied that she could manage the challenges from the transition but, as our work and contact ended after I had signposted Jill to alternative support services, I was unable to evaluate all the support I had provided her.

In my work with Jill, we initially contracted to facilitate her son’s transition out of the academy, but this support shifted to Jill’s transition as an academy parent and, subsequently, to support the family system. This provoked me to reflect on who was primarily being served—the son, Jill, the family, and/or the academy? Conflicting interests may emerge among these stakeholders which require careful navigation and clarification of the sport psychologist’s roles and responsibilities. Aoyagi and Portenga (2010) suggested adopting an approach that attempts to consider the best interests of all clients who may be affected. In doing so, practitioners could follow an ethical decision-making model (e.g., Forester-Miller & Davis, 1995) to, for example, help identify challenges, and map out potential courses of action and the possible consequences. Indeed, sport psychologists would do well to anticipate such challenges and feedback to the relevant stakeholders to proactively address any issues.

Case Two: Mischa, the catch-22 footballer

Mischa moved to England in their late teens when they signed their first professional contract within the club’s academy. Shortly into this 2-year contract, Mischa sustained a serious injury which required surgery and many months of rehabilitation. On their return, Mischa suffered a recurrence of the injury and their rehabilitation process restarted. Mischa would spend 20 months of their 2-year contract categorized as injured due to the change-events. Mischa engaged with support throughout the time of the injury from their Phase Sport Psychologist (the practitioner for their age group team within the club and who provided 1-1 support to players), and this work primarily related to issues of personal development, multidimensional identity beyond their primary identity as a footballer, personal growth, and relationships with teammates and staff. While Mischa had worked hard on the relational elements of this work and had strong connections and friendships across stakeholder groups in the academy, they showed some resistance to proactively engaging with the personal-development and self-exploratory work towards a multidimensional identity. Several months before the end of their contract, the Academy Manager pre-emptively flagged Mischa as a wellbeing concern in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting with the Academy Lead Psychologist (the practitioner responsible for overseeing strategic delivery of psychological services within the Academy and who would coordinate psychology and MDT case discussions). While there was no new presenting issue observed in Mischa in relation to the extended period of injury, it was disclosed at this meeting with staff that it was unlikely that Mischa would be offered a new contract. A multidisciplinary plan was developed which included the Academy Lead Psychologist connecting with the Phase Psychologist, Phase Coach, and key science and medicine staff (i.e., Physiotherapist and Strength and Conditioning Coach) to coordinate the MDT support targeting Mischa’s wellbeing.

With a formulation document available from the Phase Psychologist, it was clear to the Academy Lead Psychologist that a formulation-driven support plan was already in place and aligned with Mischa’s imminent return to play. Mischa had no idea that they may be released at the end of their contract and while Mischa knew this was a possibility—“part of the territory” - the signals had been positive from the Phase Coach about Mischa’s future. Mischa also felt gratitude for the support the club and its staff had provided and was excited to “repay” the club for “looking after” them. Mischa’s goal was to get “fit and play the final 4 or 5 games of the season.” From the MDT’s perspective, it became a psychology team imperative that part of the plan shifted to encourage Mischa to mentalize about the possibility of their contract not being renewed. Hence, one-to-one psychological support with their age-group psychologist at this time included a combination of “what if” planning, experiential acceptance, and cognitive diffusion. These discussions appeared to be somewhat successful and there was a sense that Mischa was cognizant of the possibility they could be released and could engage with and “work-through” some of the emotions Mischa had noticed experiencing when they imagined this possibility. In doing so, this 1-1 support aimed to help avoid an unfavorable transition pathway (i.e., a crisis).

A short time later, formal retain and release decision meetings confirmed that Mischa would be released from the club. At this stage, the psychology team’s role was to support the planning for communication of these outcomes (e.g., priming individuals to ready them, what if planning), advising on the process and format of Decision Day (e.g., discrete, safe spaces, wellbeing support immediately available), and to coordinate follow up support (e.g., an agreed plan for whom and when contact would be made with each player after decisions were communicated). As a team, the Academy lead Psychologist coordinated the transitions strategy, liaising with leaders, while the Phase Psychologist provided the 1-1 therapeutic work with Mischa.

Around this time, the Academy Manager notified the Phase Coach that a decision higher up the organizational hierarchy had been made to not offer Mischa another contract; after two serious injuries, a further contract offer, it was said, was “too risky.” A “Catch-22” then developed, whereby in order for the club to sell Mischa’s contract, Mischa needed to play to demonstrate their successful rehabilitation. The apparent “risk” to allow Mischa to play games for the club or go out on loan was rationalized by leaders because the club would be burdened with the responsibility to support Mischa’s rehabilitation should they be injured again, meaning a contract extension, but little likelihood of playing time. That Misha was now fit but obstructed from their own club from demonstrating to potential suitors that they were performing at the required level and injury free, presented an ethical dilemma for staff. This ethical dilemma related to the psychology team and coaches being aware that Mischa could play, but was denied playing time in light of risk of further injury. The resulting situation was a stalemate, where the club said they would “do everything” they could to support Mischa to find another club except allow them to play “in the shop window.” In reality, this involved the Academy Manager calling contacts to advocate for Mischa as a prospective signing, but in the absence of game footage from the last two seasons, this advocacy did not lead to any offers. MDT staff were charged with getting Mischa primed for another club to buy them and the furtive “system” goal was to give Mischa the best exit transition possible. Hence, during the period from Decision Day to Mischa’s exit from the club, 1-1 psychological support included identity work (i.e., seeking non-football-based things Mischa was interested in), included elements of existential reasoning (i.e., freedom with responsibility and choice) as well as elements of ACT (i.e., cognitive diffusion). Mischa became a Free Agent on their release.

Practice recommendations

Sport psychology practitioners may have a key role before (e.g., prime individuals, what if planning), during (e.g., support planning to communicate the retain/release outcomes, advise on the process of decision day with wellbeing support immediately available), and after (e.g., coordinate follow-up support) the release process from football academies. In so doing, there is an ethical requirement for practitioners to outline the responsibilities and expectations (i.e., who the client is) associated with each of these services to key stakeholders from the outset. The cases of Jill and Mischa showcase how non-athlete stakeholders influence, and are influenced by transitions. Using this case material, we offer recommendations for stakeholders within sports organizations and those delivering support in practice settings when priming clients for transitions and supporting them thereafter. It is our hope that such recommendations will stimulate practitioners to reflect on the support process and ethical challenges when seeking to assist clients to make similar transitions.

Readying clients for the transition from a sports team

In the Meta-model of Adaption in Sport (MAS model; Samuel et al., 2023), athletic identity (along with perceived support resources and perceived control) is proposed to influence how performers adapt to prolonged transitional change events, such as release from football academies. That is, narrow identities of self, as shown in the parent and player case material, can lead to change events being perceived as more significant and may require assistance (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b). As such, clubs could empower young people to explore who they are off the pitch to prevent narrow identities being formed and facilitate holistic development. For example, academies can engage players in local community initiatives or life skills sessions that support young people to develop skills (e.g., communication, leadership, resilience) to be successful in other life domains.

Coaches and parents would also do well to encourage re-framing what constitutes success in sport journeys to set and manage expectations in a healthy and workable manner. For example, coaches and parents could be explicit about the percentage of players who do not successfully transition to play professional level sport to set realistic player expectations on their entry to the organization and at regular points of contact during their time in the academy. These stakeholders could highlight that success in academy football is not defined by whether or not a player receives a professional contract, and instead promote the holistic development that can be facilitated through engaging in the academy journey. Communication to prime clients for a potential transition should be aligned across stakeholders, as inconsistent messaging, particularly where well intentioned to avoid someone feeling unhappy, only serves for a greater fall later. Implementation of these suggestions may effectively prime adolescents to prepare for a possible transition by enhancing their readiness. Yet, in order to best align messages and support individuals, it may be necessary for a wider group of stakeholders to be aware of and help plan for transition processes before a player is notified. Such communication requires sensitivity, trust, and confidentiality given the potential ethical issues that such concealment might trigger.

Supporting clients’ transition from a sports team

Unexpected change events (i.e., academy release) can potentially be problematic for how performers adapt and cope (Samuel et al., 2023). Players and parents may experience crises symptoms such as enduring negative affect (i.e., shock, grief, frustration) after being released. As such, when a client transitions from a sports team, a sport psychology practitioner may prioritize gauging their mental state to assess potential risk of harm. Thereafter, consideration is required for the timing of when to offer and formulate support as practitioners may want to first ask clients about their readiness for such a conversation. If a player and/or their parents express a willingness for support, those working in practice settings can subsequently gather information to assess clients’ needs, identify possible interventions (e.g., to manage transition related crises symptoms, help enter a new transition or negotiate their identity and behaviors if terminating their football career), contract any work that will be carried out, and set agreed goals.

When supporting contradictory goals for different stakeholders such as those of the Academy Manager and Mischa, there is a requirement to work “a part, but apart from” the system, and in a nested, chameleon-like way (see Collins & Cruickshank, 2015). That is, a sport psychologist may look to operate at multiple levels of practice (i.e., with various stakeholders) to map actions depending on short-, medium-, and long-term goals. Nevertheless, when such contradictory goals in football academies exist, there may be a requirement to balance the needs of varying stakeholders and provide a “best fit” decision to ensure the individual has the healthiest possible transition in the circumstances. As seen in Mischa’s case, the complexity of club decision-making can create obstacles (i.e., system versus individual client needs) to optimized transitional support, raising ethical issues for practitioners and a need to proactively plan transition support. As part of this plan, sport psychologists should clarify what their role is to whom within their context (e.g., expectations of the individual client and the organization), the boundaries of their role, how they approach their way of working, and their ethical commitment to a Code of Ethics (e.g., Quartiroli et al., 2021). In doing so, practitioners might consider the influence of power (i.e., whose needs are being prioritized in the system?); how power is managed throughout the transition process and mitigating against well-intentioned, but ultimately harmful uses - or even misuses - of power (e.g., what difficult conversations are being avoided or manipulated?), and prioritizing a duty towards service users (e.g., who has the least “voice” in the transition?).

Mischa’s case also highlights how having a team-level view with an Academy Lead Psychologist coordinating transitions can be instrumental in the transition process and aligns with recent recommendations for psychologists in sport organizations (Wagstaff & Quartiroli, 2023). That is, through a systems-led approach, the case of Mischa shows how in helping a client to enter a new transition (for another possible team), a sport psychologist can help enhance a player’s readiness to play “in the shop window” via MDT support. Further, through collaboration with key decision makers (e.g., a coach or academy manager), a consistent approach to supporting the client can be achieved with responsibilities coordinated across stakeholders (e.g., sport psychologist, player care or performance lifestyle practitioner, coach, parent, physiotherapist, strength and conditioning coach). In doing so, the provision that each stakeholder delivers can be contracted in an agreed, bespoke transition support plan to ensure role clarity, a shared understanding, and collective responsibility. Further, a sport psychologist or player care practitioner may be well placed to monitor the agreed support actions.¹ In the present case, the psychology team experienced several ethical dilemmas during their work with Mischa, and ethical working practices must remain a central consideration within systems-led transitions work.

An approach that was highlighted in Jill’s case was the use of motivational interviewing to assist the client with crisis-related transition symptoms following a change event. In the career-counselling literature, Stoltz and Young (2013) suggested that motivational interviewing can help clients to explore the dilemmas and opportunities associated with a transition. For example, practitioners could highlight discrepancies between where a client is and where they would like to be to raise an individual’s awareness and explore internal conflicts. Further, motivational interviewing can assist the exploration of barriers and resources to assess how a client may cope with a transition-related change event (Samuel et al., 2023). Therefore, when seeking to support similar sporting transitions in the future, psychology practitioners may consider employing this collaborative and non-confrontational approach to work through client resistance or ambivalence.

Conclusion

In this manuscript we have drawn on case material to highlight approaches for, and ethical dilemmas when, supporting clients to transition out of a professional football academy. By offering these accounts and forwarding practical recommendations, we hope to support practitioners to navigate these dilemmas with care when supporting clients through similar transitions. Football academies can provide a unique set of challenges. We therefore remind practitioners that not every relationship or context will present like the case material in this article, and that they should critically consider the application of the practice insights from the approaches used herein when seeking to support similar transitions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For further guidance on working in a systems-led way, readers might find useful Wagstaff and Quartiroli’s (2023) recommendations on the use and roles of multiple psychologists within a sport system to advance psychologically informed environments.