Comparative success of professional football academies in the top five English leagues during the 2016/17 season

Abstract

The academies run by professional English football clubs are a potential pipeline to the professional game for thousands of boys. It has been estimated that at any one time around 12500 boys and young men between the ages of 8 and 18 play their football within this academy system.

Although many academies undoubtedly provide excellent coaching, facilities, and support to the young people in their care, others have a more chequered history. Several authors document the problems that can emerge when large numbers of children are brought into contact, often at a young age, with a highly competitive, masculine, and results-oriented business such as professional football. These problems range from cases of sexual abuse through to the less extreme, but apparently more frequent cases of psychological damage caused by unthoughtful coaching and management practices. The financial, emotional, and other costs to academy players and their parents are also of concern even when the facilities, coaching and pastoral care provided by an academy are of a good standard.

With so many young people engaged in the professional academy system one might suppose that it would be easy to access data on the strengths and weaknesses of individual academies. Unfortunately, very few useful pieces of data are publicly available to allow an objective assessment. Indeed, the Football Association and football leagues do not even publish a list of academies in all four categories operated by the English leagues, let alone data on how successful these academies have historically been. This means that a young player and their parents have little objective basis on which to judge whether it is in their interests to join a club’s academy, or to form a view about which academy is likely to be better for them if they are fortunate enough to receive attention from more than one.

This report is a preliminary attempt to address this data deficit by retrospectively examining historical data from the 2016/17 football season, published in a variety of publicly-available sources. It addresses the following questions:

1. Which youth system, or systems, did each English player who played in one of the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season pass through before becoming a first team player?

2. Which club academies provided the most, and which provided the fewest, English graduates to play in each of the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season?

3. What percentage of squad membership in the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season was provided by English graduates from Category 1, 2, or 3 academies, or from other club youth training structures?

4. How much time on the pitch in league matches was provided to English players by each club and league?

To provide focus, this report deals only with male players eligible to play for the English national team, and uses data only from domestic league matches.

The results show that there was a wide variation between different clubs, even within the same category of academy, with the most successful academies associated with the production of up to 70 players and the least successful associated with the production of very few players (in one case as few as one player). Category 1 academies were clearly the most successful overall in producing players for the top five leagues, providing more players in 2016/17 than each of Category 2, 3, and 4/other academies for all but the National League. Indeed, Category 1 academies produced more English Premier League players in 2016/17 then all other academy categories put together. The relative success of different academies might be attributed to several different factors, including the quality of a club’s scouting network; the quality of academy coaching; the length of time over which an academy has been established; its location and available pool of players; its recruitment, retention, and release policies; its reputation among, and attractiveness to, potential players and their parents; its tendency to play its own academy players; and its reputation amongst first team coaches from other clubs, who may be prepared to take more of a chance on a young player from a ‘good’ academy. Academy status will also in several cases have changed over the past few years, with some clubs upgrading and others downgrading their provision, so the category of an academy in the 2016/17 season should only be used as an indication of its status in previous years. In addition, the squad size of each academy age group is not publicly available, and this will influence apparent success, with larger squads more likely to produce a larger number of players who go on to play in the top five leagues, if all else remains equal.

Most players in the Premier League in 2016/17 were not English, while most players in the other four leagues were eligible to play for England, with increasing numbers and squad percentages of English players as one moved down through the leagues. Because of the tendency for larger squad sizes in the higher leagues, the number of English players in team squads did not differ between leagues. However, significantly fewer English players actually played in a league match for Premier League teams than was the case for teams in the other four leagues, and significantly fewer appeared for Championship teams than for teams in Leagues 1 and 2 or the National League. English players in the Premier League also played fewer minutes on average than those in the Championship, League 2, and the National League. Players below the age of 25 were more likely to receive fewer minutes on the pitch in all five leagues. These data suggest that it is difficult for many young English players who have successfully graduated from an academy to build upon this foundation by playing a substantial amount of time in league matches. In the 2016/17 season there were fewer opportunities for English players in the two highest leagues, but even in League 1, League 2, and the National League, many young players struggled to play a substantial number of minutes.

It is beyond the remit of this report to speculate about the reasons why specific clubs have performed well or poorly in producing players for the top five English leagues. However, irrespective of any explanations that there might be for the performance of individual academies, some have clearly performed much better than others over the past few years if their main aim is to produce players for the professional leagues and the top level of the non-professional leagues. Without information about relative success rates between academies young players and their parents cannot make an informed choice about whether joining an academy is likely to help them with this ambition.

Attending a football academy involves costs to players and their parents in time, money, lost social opportunities and, for most, at least some emotional strain upon release. For many released players the personal costs can be very high. The lack of publicly available information on individual academy success rates prevents players and their parents from making an informed choice about whether these costs are outweighed by the realistic prospect of a career in football. If past performance is a guide to future success then this report shows that some football academies are clearly much poorer bets than others for a boy who wishes to become a professional player.

Full text

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
i
COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF PROFESSIONAL
FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN THE TOP FIVE
ENGLISH LEAGUES DURING THE 2016/17 SEASON
October 2017
AG-HERA
23 London Street
Faringdon
Oxfordshire
SN7 7AG
UK
Email: mark.crane@ag-hera.com

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
i
Comparative Success of Professional Football Academies in the Top Five
English Leagues During the 2016/17 Season
Mark Crane
AG-HERA, 23 London Street, Faringdon, Oxfordshire, SN7 7AG, UK.
Email: mark.crane@ag-hera.com
Tel: +44 (0)78 33 46 79 76
Acknowledgements: I thank the following for useful comments on an earlier draft: Steve
Clarkson, Clive Woodhouse, Andy Cox, Rob McInnes, and Albania Grosso.
Disclosure statement: No financial interests or benefits have arisen from the direct
applications of this research.
Copyright AG-HERA 2017. This document may be freely disseminated and reproduced.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
i
Comparative Success of Professional Football Academies in the Top Five
English Leagues During the 2016/17 Season
SUMMARY
The academies run by professional English football clubs are a potential pipeline to the
professional game for thousands of boys. It has been estimated that at any one time around
12500 boys and young men between the ages of 8 and 18 play their football within this academy
system.
Although many academies undoubtedly provide excellent coaching, facilities, and support to
the young people in their care, others have a more chequered history. Several authors document
the problems that can emerge when large numbers of children are brought into contact, often
at a young age, with a highly competitive, masculine, and results-oriented business such as
professional football. These problems range from cases of sexual abuse through to the less
extreme, but apparently more frequent cases of psychological damage caused by unthoughtful
coaching and management practices. The financial, emotional, and other costs to academy
players and their parents are also of concern even when the facilities, coaching and pastoral
care provided by an academy are of a good standard.
With so many young people engaged in the professional academy system one might suppose
that it would be easy to access data on the strengths and weaknesses of individual academies.
Unfortunately, very few useful pieces of data are publicly available to allow an objective
assessment. Indeed, the Football Association and football leagues do not even publish a list of
academies in all four categories operated by the English leagues, let alone data on how
successful these academies have historically been. This means that a young player and their
parents have little objective basis on which to judge whether it is in their interests to join a
club’s academy, or to form a view about which academy is likely to be better for them if they
are fortunate enough to receive attention from more than one.
This report is a preliminary attempt to address this data deficit by retrospectively examining
historical data from the 2016/17 football season, published in a variety of publicly-available
sources. It addresses the following questions:
1. Which youth system, or systems, did each English player who played in one of the top five
English leagues in the 2016/17 season pass through before becoming a first team player?

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
ii
2. Which club academies provided the most, and which provided the fewest, English
graduates to play in each of the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season?
3. What percentage of squad membership in the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season
was provided by English graduates from Category 1, 2, or 3 academies, or from other club
youth training structures?
4. How much time on the pitch in league matches was provided to English players by each
club and league?
To provide focus, this report deals only with male players eligible to play for the English
national team, and uses data only from domestic league matches.
The results show that there was a wide variation between different clubs, even within the same
category of academy, with the most successful academies associated with the production of up
to 70 players and the least successful associated with the production of very few players (in
one case as few as one player). Category 1 academies were clearly the most successful overall
in producing players for the top five leagues, providing more players in 2016/17 than each of
Category 2, 3, and 4/other academies for all but the National League. Indeed, Category 1
academies produced more English Premier League players in 2016/17 then all other academy
categories put together. The relative success of different academies might be attributed to
several different factors, including the quality of a club’s scouting network; the quality of
academy coaching; the length of time over which an academy has been established; its location
and available pool of players; its recruitment, retention, and release policies; its reputation
among, and attractiveness to, potential players and their parents; its tendency to play its own
academy players; and its reputation amongst first team coaches from other clubs, who may be
prepared to take more of a chance on a young player from a ‘good’ academy. Academy status
will also in several cases have changed over the past few years, with some clubs upgrading and
others downgrading their provision, so the category of an academy in the 2016/17 season
should only be used as an indication of its status in previous years. In addition, the squad size
of each academy age group is not publicly available, and this will influence apparent success,
with larger squads more likely to produce a larger number of players who go on to play in the
top five leagues, if all else remains equal.
Most players in the Premier League in 2016/17 were not English, while most players in the
other four leagues were eligible to play for England, with increasing numbers and squad
percentages of English players as one moved down through the leagues. Because of the

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
iii
tendency for larger squad sizes in the higher leagues, the number of English players in team
squads did not differ between leagues. However, significantly fewer English players actually
played in a league match for Premier League teams than was the case for teams in the other
four leagues, and significantly fewer appeared for Championship teams than for teams in
Leagues 1 and 2 or the National League. English players in the Premier League also played
fewer minutes on average than those in the Championship, League 2, and the National League.
Players below the age of 25 were more likely to receive fewer minutes on the pitch in all five
leagues. These data suggest that it is difficult for many young English players who have
successfully graduated from an academy to build upon this foundation by playing a substantial
amount of time in league matches. In the 2016/17 season there were fewer opportunities for
English players in the two highest leagues, but even in League 1, League 2, and the National
League, many young players struggled to play a substantial number of minutes.
It is beyond the remit of this report to speculate about the reasons why specific clubs have
performed well or poorly in producing players for the top five English leagues. However,
irrespective of any explanations that there might be for the performance of individual
academies, some have clearly performed much better than others over the past few years if
their main aim is to produce players for the professional leagues and the top level of the non-
professional leagues. Without information about relative success rates between academies
young players and their parents cannot make an informed choice about whether joining an
academy is likely to help them with this ambition.
Attending a football academy involves costs to players and their parents in time, money, lost
social opportunities and, for most, at least some emotional strain upon release. For many
released players the personal costs can be very high. The lack of publicly available information
on individual academy success rates prevents players and their parents from making an
informed choice about whether these costs are outweighed by the realistic prospect of a career
in football. If past performance is a guide to future success then this report shows that some
football academies are clearly much poorer bets than others for a boy who wishes to become a
professional player.
Key words: Elite Player Performance Plan; football academy; Premier League; English
Football League; National League

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
iv

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
1
INTRODUCTION
The academies run by professional English football clubs are a potential pipeline to the
professional game for thousands of boys. It has been estimated that at any one time around
12500 boys and young men between the ages of 8 and 18 play their football within this academy
system
1
.
In 1997 Howard Wilkinson produced A Charter for Quality for the English Football
Association (FA), in his role as their first Technical Director. This document, which was largely
implemented by the FA and professional football clubs, placed control of elite youth football
development for children from the age of eight years in the hands of the professional clubs
who, in return, were obliged to comply with certain professional standards
2
.
In 2011 the English Premier and Football Leagues, which cover the top four English leagues,
agreed to build upon the existing academy structures and implement the Elite Player
Performance Plan (EPPP
3
). This introduced several changes to the academy system, including
a grading of the quality of each academy from Category 1 (highest) through to Category 4
(lowest) depending mainly on the amount of training and the extent of facilities on offer.
Academies in Categories 1 to 3 take children from the age of eight, while Category 4 academies
only take those aged 16 or over. In addition to EPPP Category 1 to 4 academies, many clubs in
lower football tiers also operate post-16 training which is similar to the training on offer at
EPPP Category 4 clubs.
Although many academies undoubtedly provide excellent coaching, facilities, and support to
the young people in their care, others have a more chequered history. Several authors document
the problems that can emerge when large numbers of children are brought into contact, often
at a young age, with a highly competitive, masculine, and results-oriented business such as
professional football. These problems range from cases of sexual abuse through to the less
extreme, but apparently more frequent cases of psychological damage caused by unthoughtful
coaching and management practices
4
.
1
Calvin, M. (2017). No hunger in paradise. The players. The journey. The dream. Century: London.
2
Green, C. (2009). Every boy’s dream. Bloomsbury: London.
3
EFL (English Football League) Youth Development. (2016). Charter for academy players and parents. EFL youth development players’
and parents’ guide season 2016/17, Preston, UK.
4
Brackenridge, C. (2007). Child protection and the sports policy agenda. In C. Brackenridge, A. Pitchford, K. Russell, & G. Nutt (Eds.) Child
Welfare in Football: An Exploration of Children’s Welfare in the Modern Game (pp. 21-41). London: Routledge; Calvin, M. (2017). No
hunger in paradise. The players. The journey. The dream. Century: London.; Green, C. (2009). Every boy’s dream. Bloomsbury: London.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
2
The financial, emotional, and other costs to academy players are also of concern even when
the facilities, coaching, and pastoral care provided by an academy are of a good standard
5
.
Parents are expected to transport their child to several training sessions a week and to weekend
matches, which may be a considerable distance. Academy players forgo the potential pleasure
of playing in a team with their friends because they are barred from playing any football other
than for their academy or school, and they may be required to move away from home in their
early teenage years. For players aged 12 or above, parents must sign a contract which ties their
child to the club until it decides to release them, or another club offers a compensation payment.
Most of the players in an academy will in any case be released at some point, with well-
documented effects on the educational achievement, and emotional and mental health of many
of these released players
6
.
These disadvantages to professional academy football suggest that the success of each academy
in providing a pathway into the professional game should be an important criterion for potential
players and their parents to consider. If the success rate for an academy is high then the financial
and possible other costs to players and their parents might be outweighed by the potential
benefits of a career in football. On the other hand, if an academy has a very low success rate in
converting youth players into professional players then one might question the very reason for
its existence. A much-quoted statistic is that an eight-year-old child playing in a professional
football academy has only a 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of becoming a professional player
7
. Other
data suggest better odds for older players who have not been “culled” at an earlier age: if they
are in an academy at age 16 then they have a 50% chance of being in the professional game at
age 18, but only a 25% chance of still being in the game at age 21
8
. If all academies have such
a high failure rate, particularly at younger age groups, then the usefulness of any of them might
5
Dean, S. (2016). How youth players are being left on the scrapheap thanks to exorbitant compensation fees. The Telegraph, 21 December
2016. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/21/youth-players-left-scrapheap-thanks-exorbitant-compensation/
6
Brown, G., & Potrac, P. (2009). ‘You’ve Not Made the Grade, Son’: De‐selection and Identity Disruption in Elite Level Youth Football,
Soccer and Society, 10, 143-159; Bywater, S. (2015). Parents’ warning – football academies – a side of football no one talks about. Parikiaki,
23 August 2015. Available at http://www.parikiaki.com/2015/08/parents-warning-football-academies-a-side-of-football-no-one-talks-about/;
Calvin, M. (2017). No hunger in paradise. The players. The journey. The dream. Century: London; Cushion, C., & Jones, R. (2006). Power,
discourse, and symbolic violence in professional youth football: the case of Albion football club. Sociology of Sport Journal, 23, 142-161;
Cushion, C., & Jones R. (2012). A Bourdieusian analysis of cultural reproduction: socialisation and the ‘hidden curriculum’ in professional
football. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 276-29; Green, C. (2009). Every boy’s dream. Bloomsbury: London; Platts, C. (2012). Education
and welfare in professional football academies and centres of excellence: a sociological study. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chester,
UK. Available at: https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/handle/10034/253657; Platts, C., & Smith, A. (2009). The education, rights and
welfare of young people in professional football in England: some implications of the white paper on sport. International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics, 1, 323-339.
7
Wilson, B. (2015). Premier League uses data to nurture English football talent. BBC News, 27 March 2015. Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32064842
8
Gheerbrant, J. (2014). Premier League: what happens to footballers after being rejected? BBC News, 28 August 2014. Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28950665

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
3
be open question. However, overarching statistics such as those cited above are likely to
disguise wide variations between clubs.
With so many young people engaged in the professional academy system one might suppose
that it would be easy to access data on the strengths and weaknesses of individual academies.
Unfortunately, very few useful pieces of data are publicly available to allow an objective
assessment. Indeed, the FA and football leagues do not even publish a list of academies in all
four EPPP Categories, let alone data on how successful these academies have historically been.
This means that a young player and their parents have little objective basis on which to judge
whether it is in their interests to join a club’s academy, or to form a view about which academy
is likely to be better for them if they are fortunate enough to receive attention from more than
one.
This report is a preliminary attempt to address this data deficit by retrospectively examining
historical data from the 2016/17 football season, published in a variety of publicly-available
sources. It addresses the following questions:
1. Which youth system, or systems, did each English player who played in one of the top five
English leagues in the 2016/17 season pass through before becoming a first team player?
The unusual naming of the English leagues requires some explanation to those who are
unfamiliar with the English game. The top five leagues are the Premier League (Tier 1),
Championship (Tier 2), League 1 (Tier 3), League 2 (Tier 4), and National League (Tier
5). Tiers 1 to 4 are the ‘professional’ leagues, and Tier 5 is usually considered to be the
summit of the semi-professional leagues (or so-called ‘non-league’ football), although
several clubs in the National League are fully professional, and the National League is
clearly also a league from which teams can be promoted and relegated.
2. Which club academies provided the most, and which provided the fewest, English
graduates to play in each of the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season?
3. What percentage of squad membership in the top five English leagues in the 2016/17 season
was provided by English graduates from Category 1, 2, or 3 academies, or from other club
training structures?

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
4
4. How much time on the pitch in league matches was provided to English players by each
club and league?
To provide focus, this report deals only with male players eligible to play for the English
national team, and uses data only from domestic league matches.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
5
METHODS
The 2016/17 squad lists were collated for each team in the top five English leagues from the
FootballSquads website (http://www.footballsquads.co.uk). Players who were in a squad at the
end of the season were included for each team.
A list of male English players (i.e. players eligible to play for the England men’s national team)
was then abstracted from these team squads, and their number of appearances plus number of
minutes played in league matches were tabulated for the team for whom they were registered
at the end of the season, based on data from the www.worldfootball.net and
www.transfermarkt.co.uk websites.
Finally, the academy, or academies, attended by each English player who had made at least
one league appearance were collated from information in Wikipedia, club biographies, and
www.transfermarkt.co.uk. An academy, centre of excellence, or other club training structure
was counted as having contributed to a player’s development if he was in attendance there at
any point up to the age of eighteen
9
. Data were also collected separately on where a player was
in attendance between the ages of approximately 16 and 18, because this is the age when a
select few 16-year-olds are awarded scholarships and begin training full-time (most academy
players are released before this age).
Statistical analyses were performed with Analyse-it software (v4.9, Analyse-it Software Ltd,
Leeds, UK).
9
I recognise that academies officially run teams up to the under 23 age group.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
7
RESULTS
Success of academies
Table 1 (see Appendix) shows the number of graduates who attended each Category 1-3
academy at any point before the age of 18 and who then played in one of the top five English
football leagues in 2016/17. There were 24 Category 1, 21 Category 2, and 41 Category 3
academies in the 2016/17 season, and a player may have attended more than one academy
during their development because of release or sale. Table 1 also identifies graduates of
Category 1-3 academies who attended them between the ages of 16 and 18. In the few cases
when a player moved from one academy to another during this period, only the final academy
was counted, so each player is associated in this analysis with just one academy for this period
of their development.
Within each academy category there was a very wide range in the number of graduates who
played in the top five leagues in 2016/17. For example, in Category 1 there were 70 players
who had passed through the Manchester United academy at some point, with 50 of these
attending that academy as scholars after the age of 16. In contrast to this, only two Swansea
City graduates played in the top five leagues. A similar pattern emerged for Category 2 and
Category 3 academies, with between a 7-fold and a 23-fold difference between the most and
least successful academies, when based on the number of graduates playing in the top five
leagues in 2016/17. The performance of the least successful Category 1-3 academies was
substantially worse than that of the best performing Category 4 academies. For example,
Tranmere Rovers, a Category 4 academy with a first team playing in the National League at
Tier 5, produced 26 graduates who played in the top five leagues in 2016/17.
Figure 1 shows the contribution of graduates from Categories 1-3 and Category 4/other club
structures to each of the top five English leagues in 2016/17, based on academy attendance as
scholars between the ages of 16-18. Fifty-seven percent of English Premier League players
attended Category 1 academies at this age, with representatives from Categories 2 and 3
comprising 23% and 11% of Premier League players, respectively. Players from Category 4
academies and other club structures accounted for 8% of Premier League players (percentages
are rounded to the nearest whole number, so do not sum to 100%). There was a similar trend
for players in the Championship in 2016/17, although with a reduced dominance of Category
1 academy graduates. Forty-seven percent of English Championship players attended Category
1 academies, with representatives from Categories 2 and 3 comprising 24% and 17% of

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
8
Championship players, respectively. Players from Category 4 academies and other club
structures accounted for 12% of Championship players. In League 1 in 2016/17 the declining
dominance of Category 1 academy graduates continued. Thirty-five percent of English League
1 players attended Category 1 academies, with representatives from Categories 2 and 3
comprising 24% and 29% of League 1 players, respectively. Players from Category 4
academies and other club structures accounted for 13% of League 1 players. In League 2 in
2016/17 the different categories of academies contributed relatively equally, with
representatives from Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4/other comprising 28%, 24%, 26%, and 21% of
League 2 players, respectively. Finally, in the National League, Category 4 academies and
other club structures provided most players for the first time, with representatives from
Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4/other comprising 23%, 21%, 22%, and 34% of National League
players, respectively.
Figure 1. Academy category attended at age 16-18 by English players who appeared in
2016/17 league fixtures.
Overall, Category 1, 2, 3, and 4/other academies provided 34%, 23%, 23%, and 20%
respectively of the English players who appeared in the top five English leagues in 2016/17.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
9
Appearances and match time for English players in the top five leagues in 2016/17
Premier League
A total of 885 players were registered to Premier League squads at the end of the 2016/17
season. Of these, 408 (46%) of the players were English, of whom 168 (19% of registered
players) made at least one appearance in a Premier League match. Table 2 (see Appendix)
shows that Bournemouth was the club for which most English players made an appearance in
a Premier League match and Manchester City provided the fewest English appearances, with
Chelsea, Watford, and Manchester City providing the fewest minutes of playing time for
English players. The mean amount of playing time in total for English players was 12006
minutes (STD = 5214 minutes) per club, and 1440 minutes (STD = 358 minutes) per player.
The English players who made an appearance in the Premier League in 2016/17 were trained
in 70 different academy and non-academy structures (60 different structures after the age of
16). The average age of these players on 31st May 2017 was 26 years (standard deviation =
4.68; median = 25.9; range 16.8 - 37.6 years).
Championship
A total of 842 players were registered to Championship squads at the end of the 2016/17 season.
Of these, 455 (54%) of the players were English, of whom 309 (37% of registered players)
made at least one appearance in a Championship league match. Table 3 (see Appendix) shows
that Burton Albion was the club for which most English players made an appearance in a
Championship league match and Leeds United provided the fewest English appearances, with
Aston Villa and Fulham providing the fewest minutes of playing time for English players. The
mean amount of playing time in total for English players was 21712 minutes (STD = 5768
minutes) per club, and 1726 minutes (STD = 338 minutes) per player.
The English players who made an appearance in the Championship in 2016/17 were trained at
youth level in 139 different academy and non-academy structures (99 different structures after
the age of 16). The average age of these players on 31st May 2017 was 25.6 years (standard
deviation = 4.6; median = 24.9; range = 17 – 38.4 years).
League 1
A total of 807 players were registered to League 1 squads at the end of the 2016/17 season. Of
these, 576 (71%) of the players were English, of whom 439 (54% of registered players) made

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
10
at least one appearance in a League 1 match. Table 4 (see Appendix) shows that Bury was the
club for which most English players made an appearance in a League 1 match and Sheffield
United and Walsall provided the fewest English appearances, with Bradford and Oldham
providing the fewest minutes of playing time for English players. The mean amount of playing
time in total for English players was 27744 minutes (STD = 5782 minutes) per club, and 1529
minutes (STD = 251 minutes) per player.
The English players who made an appearance in League 1 in 2016/17 were trained at youth
level in 159 different academy and non-academy structures (123 different structures after the
age of 16). The average age of these players on 31st May 2017 was 25.2 years (standard
deviation = 4.8; median = 24.3; range 17.2 – 40.3 years).
League 2
A total of 756 players were registered to League 2 squads at the end of the 2016/17 season. Of
these, 568 (75%) of the players were English, of whom 439 (58% of registered players) made
at least one appearance in a League 2 match. Table 5 (see Appendix) shows that Hartlepool
was the club for which most English players made an appearance in a League 2 match and
Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Yeovil provided the fewest English appearances, with Yeovil and
Leyton Orient providing the fewest minutes of playing time for English players. The mean
amount of playing time in total for English players was 30368 minutes (STD = 4459 minutes)
per club, and 1675 minutes (STD = 212 minutes) per player.
The English players who made an appearance in League 2 in 2016/17 were trained at youth
level in 187 different academy and non-academy structures (147 different structures after the
age of 16). The average age of these players on 31st May 2017 was 25.3 years (standard
deviation = 4.8; median = 24.6; range 17.3 – 41.8 years).
National League
A total of 693 players were registered to National League squads at the end of the 2016/17
season. Of these, 575 (83%) of the players were English, of whom 486 (70% of registered
players) made at least one appearance in a National League match. Table 6 (see Appendix)
shows that Tranmere Rovers was the club for which most English players made an appearance
in a National League match and Torquay, Wrexham, and Forest Green Rovers provided the
fewest English appearances, with Torquay, Wrexham, and York City providing the fewest
minutes of playing time for English players. The mean amount of playing time in total for

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
11
English players was 33467 minutes (STD = 4962 minutes) per club, and 1688 minutes (STD =
240 minutes) per player.
The English players who made an appearance in the National League in 2016/17 were trained
at youth level in 206 different academy and non-academy structures (169 different structures
after the age of 16). The average age of these players on 31st May 2017 was 25.4 years (standard
deviation = 4.5; median = 24.7; range 16.8 – 39.9 years).
Comparison across leagues
Figure 2 provides a summary across the leagues of the median number of squad members who
were English and the median number of league appearances by English players in 2016/17.
There were no significant differences between leagues in the number of English players in team
squads, but there were significant differences in the number of English players who made an
appearance in a league match (Steel-Dwass-Critchlow-Fligner all pairs comparison test
p<0.0012). Significantly fewer English players appeared for Premier League teams than for
teams in the other four leagues, and significantly fewer appeared for Championship teams than
for teams in Leagues 1 and 2 or the National League.
Figure 2. Median number and interquartile range of English players in team squads and
number of league appearances by English players in 2016/17.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
12
Figure 3 shows the mean number of minutes played by English players in 2016/17 league
matches. There was a significant difference in the mean number of minutes played (ANOVA
F4,111 = 4.36, p = 0.0026) because English players in the Premier League played significantly
fewer minutes than those in the Championship, League 2, and the National League (Tukey
Kramer test, p<0.036).
Figure 3. Mean minutes played (plus standard deviation) by English players in 2016/17
league matches.
Figure 4 shows that in all five leagues there was a trend for players below the age of 25 and
over the age of 35 to receive fewer minutes of playing time.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
13
Premier League
Championship
League 1
League 2
National League
Figure 4. Minutes of playing time in
league matches in 2016/17 for
players of different ages. A second
order polynomial line of best fit is
shown for each league with the line
equation and its r2 value.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
15
DISCUSSION
This analysis of graduates from football academies who played in the top five English leagues
in the 2016/17 season shows that there was a wide variation between different clubs, even
within the same category of academy, with the most successful academies associated with the
production of up to 70 players and the least successful associated with the production of very
few (in one case only one player). This retrospective study included players aged between
approximately 17 and 40 years of age, so the period over which a club academy or other
development structure might have produced a player for the top five leagues spans more than
two decades. Such a wide disparity in success supports the contention of some commentators
that there are too many football academies chasing the available talent
10
, and it is certainly the
case that there are more academies in operation than was originally envisaged by the FA
11
.
Category 1 academies were clearly the most successful overall in producing players for the top
five leagues, providing more players in 2016/17 than each of Category 2, 3, and 4/other
academies for all but the National League. Indeed, Category 1 academies produced more
English Premier League players in 2016/17 then all other academy categories put together.
Leading English clubs are often criticised in the media for not bringing enough English players
through into their first team so that they improve sufficiently to compete internationally for the
England team
12
. Such criticisms may be well-founded, and are supported by the data in Table
2 of this report and from other studies
13
, but this analysis shows that the most successful
Premier League clubs are also the most successful in producing players from their academies
who go on to a career in professional football, although not necessarily for the parent club of
the academy from which they graduate
14
. The relative success of different academies might be
attributed to several different factors, including the quality of a club’s scouting network; the
quality of academy coaching; the length of time over which an academy has been established;
10
Whitehouse, M. (2014). A lesson from Crawley. quality over quantity. The Whitehouse Address, 14 February 2014. Available at
http://whitehouseaddress.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-lesson-from-crawley-quality-over.html#!/2014/02/a-lesson-from-crawley-quality-
over.html
11
Lewis, R. (2007). A review of young player development in professional football. The Football Association, London.
12
Winter H. (2015). We must cut number of foreign players to find more English talent like Harry Kane, says FA chairman. The Telegraph,
23 March 2015. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/11490370/We-must-cut-number-of-foreign-players-to-
find-more-English-talent-like-Harry-Kane-says-FA-chairman.html
13
Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R. (2016). Demographic study of football in Europe. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 12,
February 2016. International Centre for Sports Studies, Neuchâtel, Switzerland; Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R. (2016). Foreign players
in football teams. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 13, March 2016. International Centre for Sports Studies, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
14
Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R. (2015a). Youth training in European football. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 9,
November 2015. International Centre for Sports Studies, Neuchâtel, Switzerland; Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R. (2016a). Demographic
study of football in Europe. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 12, February 2016. International Centre for Sports Studies,
Neuchâtel, Switzerland; Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R. (2017). The demographic stock exchange: a new tool at the service of football.
CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 24, April 2017. International Centre for Sports Studies, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
16
its location and available pool of players; its recruitment, retention, and release policies; its
reputation among, and attractiveness to, potential players and their parents; its tendency to play
its own academy players; and its reputation amongst first team coaches from other clubs, who
may be prepared to take more of a chance on a young player from a ‘good’ academy
15
.
Academy status will also in several cases have changed over the past few years, with some
clubs upgrading and others downgrading their provision, so the category of an academy in the
2016/17 season should only be used as an indication of its status in previous years. In addition,
the squad size of each academy age group is not publicly available, and this will influence
apparent success, with larger squads more likely to produce a larger number of players who go
on to play in the top five leagues, if all else remains equal.
Most players in the Premier League in 2016/17 were not English, while most players in the
other four leagues were eligible to play for England, with increasing numbers and squad
percentages of English players as one moved down through the leagues. Because of the
tendency for larger squad sizes in the higher leagues, the number of English players in team
squads did not differ between leagues. However, significantly fewer English players actually
played in a league match for Premier League teams than was the case for teams in the other
four leagues, and significantly fewer appeared for Championship teams than for teams in
Leagues 1 and 2 or the National League. English players in the Premier League also played
fewer minutes on average than those in the Championship, League 2, and the National League.
Players below the age of 25 were more likely to receive fewer minutes on the pitch in all five
leagues. These data suggest that it is difficult for many young English players who have
successfully graduated from an academy to build upon this foundation by playing a substantial
amount of time in league matches. In the 2016/17 season there were fewer opportunities for
English players in the two highest leagues, but even in League 1, League 2, and the National
League, many young players struggled to play a substantial number of minutes. Poli and co-
workers
16
calculated that between July 2009 and December 2015 Premier League clubs played
English players under the age of 22 for only 4% of the available minutes. This was the lowest
of the 31 European leagues they analysed, with Stoke City providing the lowest value (0.6%)
for any team in these leagues.
15
Carter, M. (2015). Academies: success, selection and birth order. Ministry of Football, November 2015. Available at http://www.ministry-
of-football.com/academies/
16
Poli, R., Ravenel, L., & Besson, R.(2016c). The fielding of young footballers in Europe. CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report 19,
November 2016. International Centre for Sports Studies, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
17
This study could be improved upon and extended in several ways. The quality of the data used
is a potential issue. The English leagues do not produce publicly accessible data for an analysis
of the type performed in this study, so data have been acquired from a variety of secondary
sources. It seems likely that most player biographies in Wikipedia, and data from widely-used
sources such as transfermarkt.co.uk are reasonably accurate. However, it would be preferable
for the leagues or the Football Association to publish audited data that could then be analysed
independently. This study could also be extended to include several seasons, player
appearances in cup matches, and comparisons between English and non-English players in
English leagues who have attended either English or non-English academies. This would then
provide a finer-grained assessment of trends over time and the influence of overseas players
within the academy system on opportunities for English players. A comparison of success rates
across English academies and academies in other countries would also be informative. Finally,
the movement of players between clubs within a season, either permanently or on loan, could
be included in a more sophisticated way in any future study to reflect more accurately all the
minutes played at every club by every player.
It is beyond the remit of this report to speculate about the reasons why specific clubs have
performed well or poorly in producing players for the top five English leagues. However,
irrespective of any explanations that there might be for the performance of individual
academies, some have clearly performed much better than others over the past few years if
their main aim is to produce players for the professional leagues and the top level of the non-
professional leagues. The motives of young players when joining an academy may differ
between individuals, but an important one for most is that signing for a club academy is a
potential route into the professional game
17
. Unfortunately, without information about relative
success rates between academies they and their parents cannot make an informed choice about
whether joining an academy is likely to help them with this ambition. It is remarkably difficult
to obtain detailed information on professional football academies. This even extends to their
Category status. A request to the English Football League for a list of Category 3 and Category
4 academies for this study met with the reply: ‘…we do not publicly produce a list of clubs’
academy status. Instead it is up to each respective club to advertise/divulge this information as
they so wish’ (email from the EFL dated 31st July 2017).
17
Calvin, M. (2017). No hunger in paradise. The players. The journey. The dream. Century: London.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
18
Attending a football academy involves costs to players and their parents in time, money, lost
social opportunities and, for most, at least some emotional strain upon release. For many
released players the personal costs can be very high. The lack of publicly available information
on individual academy success rates prevents players and their parents from making an
informed choice about whether these costs are outweighed by the realistic prospect of a career
in football. If past performance is a guide to future success then this report shows that some
football academies are clearly much poorer bets than others for a boy who wishes to become a
professional player.

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
19
APPENDIX

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
20

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
21
Table 1. Number of graduates from each Category 1-3 academy who played in the top five tiers of English football in the 2016/17
season. Figures outside brackets show the number of players who graduated from the academy when they were
approximately 18 years of age. Figures inside brackets show the number of players who had attended the academy at any
point before the age of 18. Data are ordered by academy category and then by the total number of graduates at age 18.
Club
Academy
category
Tier in which
1st team
played
Number of players from academy who played a league match in 2016/17
Premier
League
Champion
ship
League 1
League 2
National
League
Total
Manchester United
1
1
17 (18)
14 (20)
14 (17)
3 (10)
2 (5)
50 (70)
Tottenham Hotspur
1
1
12 (12)
6 (12)
11 (15)
12 (15)
3 (4)
44 (58)
Chelsea
1
1
6 (6)
8 (9)
11 (14)
10 (16)
7 (13)
42 (58)
Everton
1
1
7 (9)
5 (6)
10 (12)
9 (13)
9 (13)
40 (53)
West Ham
1
1
7 (8)
9 (12)
7 (13)
6 (8)
9 (10)
38 (51)
Arsenal
1
1
5 (9)
9 (13)
8 (14)
6 (10)
10 (20)
38 (66)
Liverpool
1
1
5 (6)
10 (13)
6 (10)
4 (4)
7 (9)
32 (42)
Middlesbrough
1
1
3 (3)
7 (9)
10 (12)
7 (7)
5 (6)
32 (37)
Manchester City
1
1
5 (5)
5 (5)
13 (15)
1 (3)
5 (7)
29 (35)
Aston Villa
1
2
3 (4)
15 (16)
2 (4)
4 (5)
3 (5)
27 (34)
Southampton
1
1
11 (15)
3 (4)
6 (9)
5 (8)
1 (1)
26 (37)
Wolverhampton Wanderers
1
2
1 (2)
10 (12)
7 (9)
5 (7)
2 (5)
25 (35)
Reading
1
2
0 (3)
5 (6)
3 (4)
9 (11)
8 (11)
25 (35)
Leicester City
1
1
1 (3)
4 (6)
6 (7)
4 (4)
8 (9)
23 (31)
Norwich City
1
2
0 (1)
7 (7)
5 (7)
4 (7)
6 (8)
22 (30)
West Bromwich Albion
1
1
4 (4)
2 (5)
7 (8)
6 (6)
2 (3)
21 (26)
Blackburn Rovers
1
2
1 (1)
5 (6)
3 (6)
7 (10)
5 (6)
21 (29)
Newcastle United
1
2
2 (2)
6 (6)
4 (7)
6 (9)
1 (3)
19 (27)
Sunderland
1
1
4 (4)
1 (1)
6 (6)
4 (5)
3 (4)
18 (20)
Derby County
1
2
1 (1)
4 (6)
6 (6)
3 (5)
4 (4)
18 (22)
Stoke City
1
1
0 (0)
2 (3)
3 (5)
4 (4)
5 (5)
14 (17)
Brighton & Hove Albion
1
2
1 (2)
4 (4)
3 (5)
2 (3)
3 (5)
13 (19)
Fulham
1
2
0 (1)
4 (7)
2 (5)
3 (7)
4 (8)
13 (28)
Swansea City
1
1
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (0)
2 (2)
Crewe Alexandra
2
4
2 (2)
4 (5)
6 (7)
17 (18)
7 (7)
36 (39)

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
22
Club
Academy
category
Tier in which
1st team
played
Number of players from academy who played a league match in 2016/17
Premier
League
Champion
ship
League 1
League 2
National
League
Total
Charlton Athletic
2
3
2 (4)
6 (8)
13 (15)
1 (3)
8 (14)
30 (44)
Leeds United
2
2
7 (9)
7 (9)
5 (6)
3 (4)
7 (8)
29 (36)
Sheffield United
2
3
6 (6)
1 (1)
5 (7)
5 (5)
10 (10)
27 (29)
Crystal Palace
2
1
4 (4)
1 (3)
7 (10)
7 (8)
8 (9)
27 (34)
Watford
2
1
5 (6)
2 (2)
2 (5)
10 (10)
6 (7)
25 (30)
Birmingham City
2
2
3 (3)
4 (7)
4 (4)
4 (4)
9 (11)
24 (29)
Hull City
2
1
1 (1)
0 (0)
5 (5)
7 (7)
10 (10)
23 (23)
Bolton Wanderers
2
3
1 (2)
3 (4)
7 (7)
6 (7)
6 (8)
23 (28)
Coventry City
2
3
1 (2)
3 (5)
15 (16)
2 (3)
0 (1)
21 (27)
Ipswich Town
2
2
1 (1)
4 (5)
3 (7)
7 (9)
4 (6)
19 (28)
Millwall
2
3
0 (1)
0 (0)
8 (8)
7 (9)
4 (6)
19 (24)
Barnsley
2
2
2 (2)
4 (4)
2 (2)
3 (3)
7 (10)
18 (21)
Sheffield Wednesday
2
2
0 (1)
8 (8)
3 (4)
4 (5)
3 (4)
18 (22)
Huddersfield Town
2
2
0 (0)
4 (7)
7 (8)
5 (5)
2 (3)
18 (23)
Queens Park Rangers
2
2
0 (2)
4 (4)
5 (7)
2 (3)
5 (5)
16 (21)
Colchester United
2
4
0 (0)
3 (3)
2 (2)
8 (9)
3 (3)
16 (17)
Bristol City
2
2
0 (0)
6 (7)
2 (6)
5 (6)
2 (2)
15 (21)
Nottingham Forest
2
2
2 (4)
8 (9)
2 (3)
0 (1)
0 (2)
12 (19)
Burnley
2
1
2 (2)
0 (0)
1 (3)
3 (3)
2 (2)
8 (10)
Cardiff City
2
2
0 (0)
1 (1)
1 (1)
1 (1)
1 (1)
4 (4)
Leyton Orient
3
4
0 (0)
0 (1)
1 (1)
16 (17)
6 (8)
23 (27)
Plymouth Argyle
3
4
2 (2)
1 (3)
4 (5)
7 (7)
3 (4)
17 (21)
Scunthorpe United
3
3
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (4)
3 (3)
9 (11)
15 (18)
Gillingham
3
3
0 (1)
0 (1)
6 (7)
1 (1)
8 (10)
15 (20)
Wimbledon
3
3
2 (4)
0 (1)
9 (12)
1 (4)
2 (2)
14 (23)
Oldham Athletic
3
3
1 (1)
1 (3)
3 (3)
3 (4)
6 (6)
14 (17)
Portsmouth
3
4
1 (2)
3 (4)
3 (6)
5 (7)
2 (2)
14 (21)
Swindon Town
3
3
0 (1)
2 (3)
7 (8)
3 (4)
2 (2)
14 (18)
Luton Town
3
4
1 (2)
1 (1)
5 (7)
3 (5)
3 (3)
13 (18)
Walsall
3
3
1 (1)
2 (4)
5 (7)
2 (3)
3 (3)
13 (18)

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
23
Club
Academy
category
Tier in which
1st team
played
Number of players from academy who played a league match in 2016/17
Premier
League
Champion
ship
League 1
League 2
National
League
Total
Exeter City
3
4
1 (1)
1 (2)
3 (3)
8 (9)
0 (0)
13 (15)
Rochdale
3
3
0 (0)
3 (3)
6 (6)
1 (1)
3 (3)
13 (13)
Southend United
3
3
0 (0)
1 (5)
4 (8)
1 (1)
6 (7)
12 (21)
Barnet
3
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (10)
4 (5)
12 (15)
Bury
3
3
0 (0)
2 (3)
4 (5)
2 (2)
4 (4)
12 (14)
Northampton Town
3
3
0 (0)
3 (3)
4 (4)
1 (2)
4 (4)
12 (14)
Peterborough United
3
3
0 (0)
1 (1)
6 (6)
3 (7)
2 (2)
12 (16)
Wigan Athletic
3
2
1 (1)
2 (3)
2 (2)
3 (3)
3 (4)
11 (13)
Cambridge United
3
4
0 (0)
3 (3)
1 (4)
3 (4)
4 (6)
11 (17)
Hartlepool United
3
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (1)
8 (8)
2 (2)
11 (11)
Notts County
3
4
0 (1)
1 (1)
1 (1)
7 (8)
2 (3)
11 (14)
Port Vale
3
3
0 (0)
1 (1)
7 (7)
2 (2)
1 (1)
11 (11)
MK Dons
3
3
2 (2)
1 (1)
7 (7)
0 (0)
0 (3)
10 (13)
Doncaster Rovers
3
4
1 (1)
0 (1)
0 (0)
5 (5)
4 (6)
10 (13)
Chesterfield
3
3
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (8)
1 (1)
1 (1)
10 (10)
Bournemouth
3
1
2 (3)
1 (1)
1 (2)
2 (2)
3 (4)
9 (12)
Blackpool
3
4
0 (0)
2 (2)
3 (4)
2 (2)
2 (2)
9 (10)
Rotherham United
3
2
0 (0)
3 (3)
2 (3)
2 (3)
2 (2)
9 (11)
Bradford City
3
3
2 (4)
0 (0)
5 (5)
0 (1)
1 (1)
8 (11)
Shrewsbury Town
3
3
1 (1)
3 (3)
2 (2)
0 (1)
2 (2)
8 (9)
Carlisle United
3
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (2)
3 (3)
3 (3)
8 (8)
Oxford United
3
3
0 (0)
2 (2)
3 (3)
0 (0)
3 (3)
8 (8)
Preston North End
3
2
0 (0)
2 (4)
4 (4)
1 (2)
1 (2)
8 (12)
Bristol Rovers
3
3
1 (1)
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
0 (0)
7 (7)
Burton Albion
3
2
0 (0)
5 (5)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (6)
Grimsby Town
3
4
0 (0)
1 (2)
0 (0)
1 (1)
2 (2)
4 (5)
Accrington Stanley
3
4
0 (0)
0 (1)
1 (1)
2 (2)
0 (0)
3 (4)
Fleetwood Town
3
3
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (2)
2 (2)
Yeovil Town
3
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (1)
1 (1)
2 (2)
Stevenage
3
4
0 (0)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (2)
1 (1)
2 (5)

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
24
Club
Academy
category
Tier in which
1st team
played
Number of players from academy who played a league match in 2016/17
Premier
League
Champion
ship
League 1
League 2
National
League
Total
Cheltenham Town
3
4
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (1)

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
25
Table 2. Appearances by English players in Premier League matches in the 2016/17 season. Data are ordered by number of
appearances and then by total minutes played by English players.
Team
English players in
squad
League appearances
by English players
Total minutes for
English players
Average minutes
played (+ standard
deviation [STD)
Most minutes played
Fewest minutes
played
Bournemouth
28
17
25328
1490 (1113)
3420
12
Burnley
15
12
19451
1621 (1287)
3240
22
Manchester United
18
12
10731
894 (685)
1702
2
Southampton
31
11
15259
1387 (1148)
3420
63
Everton
27
11
14341
1304 (1095)
2908
12
Crystal Palace
15
10
15664
1566 (1285)
3418
23
Middlesbrough
22
9
16305
1812 (1189)
3420
63
Hull City
18
9
13091
1455 (1070)
3190
176
Tottenham Hotspur
13
8
13919
1740 (1251)
3045
17
Swansea City
10
8
12165
1521 (991)
2718
77
Liverpool
14
8
11905
1488 (1411)
3324
6
Sunderland
20
8
11722
1465 (1171
3323
123
Arsenal
22
7
5829
833 (707)
1924
1
Leicester City
30
6
12417
2070 (963)
2990
694
Stoke City
19
6
10130
1688 (1048)
3150
450
West Ham
25
6
9869
1645 (820)
2440
353
West Bromwich Albion
22
6
8633
1439 (1541)
3420
110
Watford
11
6
4620
770 (1199)
2941
23
Chelsea
28
5
4001
800 (1408)
3296
23
Manchester City
20
3
4749
1583 (1208)
2517
219

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
26
Table 3. Appearances by English players in Championship in the 2016/17 season. Data are ordered by number of appearances and
then by total minutes played by English players.
Team
English players in
squad
League appearances
by English players
Total minutes for
English players
Average minutes
played (STD)
Most minutes played
Fewest minutes
played
Burton Albion
21
20
30921
1546 (1215)
3454
4
Wigan Athletic
26
19
29437
1549 (1349)
4031
17
Rotherham United
22
17
29988
1764 (1131)
3468
15
Barnsley
25
17
29336
1726 (1484)
3517
4
Ipswich Town
27
17
22320
1313 (1311)
4140
133
Bristol City
19
16
33030
2064 (1021)
4140
248
Queens Park Rangers
18
15
24320
1621 (1350)
4140
21
Wolverhampton Wanderers
27
15
18708
1247 (1062)
3510
14
Sheffield Wednesday
17
14
21339
1524 (1197)
3281
13
Aston Villa
17
14
12453
896 (850)
2547
3
Blackburn Rovers
25
13
23079
1775 (1262)
3843
3
Birmingham City
14
12
23893
1991 (1380)
3826
40
Cardiff City
13
12
23698
1975 (1081)
3896
10
Preston North End
14
12
23694
1975 (1115)
3689
533
Huddersfield Town
14
12
15119
1260 (979)
3626
383
Derby County
28
11
20806
1891 (1438)
4140
23
Nottingham Forest
14
11
17916
1629 (1001)
4009
200
Brighton & Hove Albion
21
10
21261
2126 (1441)
4050
178
Reading
26
10
16090
1609 (1301)
3545
97
Brentford
11
9
19168
2130 (1654)
4050
3
Newcastle United
10
9
16709
1857 (1466)
3674
10
Norwich City
24
9
16329
1814 (1203)
3242
13
Leeds United
14
8
19415
2427 (1558)
4140
152
Fulham
8
7
12052
1722 (1284)
3600
1

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
27
Table 4. Appearances by English players in League 1 in the 2016/17 season. Data are ordered by number of appearances and then
by total minutes played by English players.
Team
English players in
squad
League appearances
by English players
Total minutes for
English players
Average minutes
played (STD)
Most minutes played
Fewest minutes
played
Bury
29
26
34908
1396 (1118)
4045
55
Wimbledon
30
24
39743
1656 (1339)
4140
18
Coventry City
29
23
29978
1303 (997)
3172
3
Swindon Town
25
22
28886
1313 (890)
2993
9
Bolton Wanderers
25
21
36173
1723 (1298)
4042
71
Oxford United
25
20
37907
1895 (1291)
4140
7
Charlton Athletic
23
20
23926
1196 (1012)
3420
4
Chesterfield
23
20
22265
1113 (1056)
3150
3
MK Dons
26
19
34128
1796 (1219)
3489
90
Gillingham
25
19
29550
1555 (1243)
3635
9
Rochdale
25
19
25521
1343 (1115)
3421
4
Scunthorpe United
24
18
30972
1721 (1098)
3887
15
Southend United
26
18
25261
1403 (1222)
3850
51
Northampton Town
18
18
24840
1380 (1211)
3808
1
Peterborough United
22
18
24594
1366 (1343)
3600
32
Fleetwood Town
28
17
33357
1962 (1290)
3755
132
Port Vale
22
17
23131
1361 (1123)
4104
73
Shrewsbury Town
21
16
22562
1410 (1147)
3837
6
Millwall
23
15
25097
1673 (1261)
3960
2
Bristol Rovers
21
15
24829
1655 (1154)
3709
108
Oldham Athletic
17
15
21728
1449 (1263)
4140
224
Bradford City
22
14
17352
1239 (1259)
3780
1
Sheffield United
24
13
26165
2013 (1520)
3897
91
Walsall
23
13
22990
1768 (1535)
4140
18

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
28
Table 5. Appearances by English players in League 2 in the 2016/17 season. Data are ordered by number of appearances and then
by total minutes played by English players.
Team
English players in
squad
League appearances
by English players
Total minutes for
English players
Average minutes
played (STD)
Most minutes played
Fewest minutes
played
Hartlepool
29
23
30242
1315 (1194)
3757
21
Colchester United
33
22
36338
1652 (1271)
4140
18
Cambridge United
25
21
40224
1915 (1256)
4050
90
Newport County
24
21
29940
1426 (1089)
3996
90
Mansfield Town
29
20
35869
1793 (1197)
4140
168
Carlisle United
24
20
34239
1712 (1357)
4140
8
Exeter City
26
20
29128
1456 (1314)
3732
1
Barnet
29
20
27665
1383 (1327)
4140
5
Leyton Orient
27
20
24336
1217 (1083)
3488
83
Doncaster Rovers
28
19
35648
1876 (1530)
4046
19
Stevenage
22
19
35424
1864 (1296)
3621
82
Morecambe
20
19
33190
1747 (1281)
3870
2
Notts County
24
19
26217
1380 (1279)
3870
20
Blackpool
22
18
32872
1826 (1165)
3960
19
Crewe Alexandra
21
18
32467
1804 (1348)
4140
18
Luton Town
30
18
30349
1686 (993)
3312
94
Grimsby Town
22
18
27339
1519 (970)
4096
113
Wycombe Wanderers
19
17
32319
1901 (990)
3780
404
Cheltenham Town
22
16
26775
1673 (1059)
3637
90
Crawley Town
15
15
25744
1716 (1440)
4070
13
Accrington Stanley
19
15
25132
1687 (1426)
3792
1
Plymouth Argyle
19
14
27075
1934 (1230)
4140
114
Portsmouth
22
14
26641
1903 (1395)
3901
89
Yeovil Town
17
13
23653
1819 (1169)
3419
137

COMPARATIVE SUCCESS OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL ACADEMIES IN 2016/17
29
Table 6. Appearances by English players in the National League in the 2016/17 season. Data are ordered by number of
appearances and then by total minutes played by English players.
Team
English players in
squad
League appearances
by English players
Total minutes for
English players
Average minutes
played (STD)
Most minutes
played
Fewest minutes
played
Tranmere Rovers
35
30
36169
1247 (1198)
4050
26
Lincoln City
35
25
41303
1652 (1495)
3981
7
Guiseley
27
25
38329
1533 (1218)
3720
1
Braintree Town
27
25
37064
1483 (1258)
4140
25
Barrow
24
23
37191
1617 (1369)
3867
1
Dagenham & Redbridge
30
23
36651
1594 (1373)
4028
1
Solihull Moors
31
23
34014
1479 (1066)
3502
17
Dover Athletic
28
22
42234
1920 (1125)
3524
53
Chester City
24
22
40936
1861 (1372)
4095
5
North Ferriby United
23
22
36644
1666 (1285)
3452
1
Macclesfield Town
25
22
33677
1531 (1352)
3667
1
Eastleigh
24
21
28007
1334 (933)
3376
14
Sutton United
21
20
31555
1578 (1220)
3870
2
York City
20
19
25999
1368 (1227)
3898
22
Gateshead
22
18
33764
1876 (1435)
3960
6
Maidstone United
26
18
31907
1773 (1276)
3932
28
Woking
20
18
29691
1650 (1156)
3350
47
Boreham Wood
22
17
33822
1990 (1533)
4140
9
Bromley
24
17
30367
1786 (1095)
3721
37
Southport
20
17
27839
1638 (1193)
3448
1
Aldershot Town
16
16
34415
2151 (1389)
3916
123
Forest Green Rovers
17
15
31536
2182 (1345)
4140
17
Wrexham
18
15
25270
1685 (1037)
3853
91
Torquay United
15
13
24826
1910 (1218)
4121
13