Broken Meritocracy: The Reason for the Decline of Sport Participation

Article written by FSQ’s Director of Sport, Matt Young

Meritocracy – system in which individuals advance based on their talent, effort and achievement, rather than on privilege, wealth or connections.

A truly successful meritocratic system in sport should focus on developing talent at all levels rather than consolidating the best players into a singular, dominant entity that simply extracts talent from regions and then beats those regions down. When ‘an’ organization monopolizes a pathway and hoards talent, it can create an uneven playing field that damages the overall health of the sport, discourages participation at the grassroots level and stifles local development.

Here are key points that show why a meritocratic system shouldn’t operate this way:

1. Balance Between Local Development and Elite Competition: In a thriving meritocracy, the goal should be to build up all regions, not just extract the top players. Local clubs and organizations should have the tools, resources and support to develop their players to compete at higher levels. This approach ensures that regions are not weakened by losing talent, but rather grow collectively stronger, maintaining the competitive integrity across different areas.
2. Pathway Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity: A successful meritocratic system fosters inclusive pathways where opportunities for growth and advancement are accessible to all participants, regardless of geographic or socioeconomic background. If only one pathway extracts top talent to create “super teams” that dominate, it reduces the diversity of competition and weakens the sport’s ecosystem, which thrives on dynamic rivalries and competition at every level.
3. Sustainable Player Development: Rather than monopolizing talent, a strong meritocracy emphasizes developing talent where it is, supporting regional and local systems with the right coaching, facilities and competition levels. The emphasis should be on sustainable development, where regions can retain their top players longer, raising the overall standard of play, rather than being feeder systems for a central entity that strips them of talent.
4. Avoiding Competitive Disparity: Monopolizing pathways often leads to unequal competition. When a single entity extracts the best players from their regions, it creates teams that are far stronger than those left behind, leading to blowouts in competition. This not only damages the competitive experience for participants but also disengages fans and communities, as there is less meaningful competition and local pride in the teams they support.
5. Empowering Local Communities: A successful system empowers local communities by ensuring they can keep their best participants and continue to build strong, local rivalries. Rather than being perpetual underdogs, these communities can take pride in developing players who excel locally and regionally before moving on to national or international stages. This creates a sense of ownership and pride in the process of player development and sport becomes more rooted in the community.
6. Sharing Best Practices: Instead of monopolizing talent, a meritocratic system would share best practices across regions. This could involve providing coaching education, resources and support to all regions to raise the standard of play, so no single entity is hoarding talent or expertise. The system would be structured to create competition within regions, thus ensuring that player development is happening everywhere and raising the standard across the board.
7. Development over Extraction: Monopolizing pathways focus on extracting talent, but a meritocratic system should focus on developing talent. The aim should be to improve the overall infrastructure, giving more players the opportunity to develop to their full potential while staying connected to their local environments for as long as possible. This approach builds depth in the sport and produces a larger pool of skilled participantswho can compete at higher levels without causing talent vacuums in their original regions.

While all sport should ideally operate as a meritocracy, it often falls prey to self-interest and financial motivations. These create monopolized pathways that extract the best talent, emotionally hijack parents through ego and aspiration and sustain a system that’s destined to eventually fail the entire sport. Those who profit justify it through selective success stories, masking the deep inequalities their system perpetuates. The result is a sport landscape that benefits a few while diminishing opportunities for many.

Governing bodies and agencies must take full responsibility for ensuring that sport operates as a true meritocracy. They have the power to create and enforce regulations that prevent monopolization of talent pathways, holding those who prioritize profit over equitable player development accountable. By creating a system where talent is nurtured across all regions, they can break the cycle of self-interest and financial exploitation, ensuring that opportunities are available to all participants, regardless of background. It’s their role to intervene when organizations act in ways that damage the integrity of competition and skew the balance of the sport toward the privileged few.

Local clubs, on the other hand, must stop relying on complaints about losing players and instead take ownership of their development systems. Their solution lies in leveling up—investing in coaching, infrastructure and player development so they can retain talent and compete fairly. By focusing on raising their own standards rather than succumbing to monopolistic pressures, local clubs can help rebuild a more sustainable sporting landscape.

It is time for the adults in the room to realize that the next generation is waiting—waiting for you to stop exploiting their recreation for profit and to hand over control of their experience, where it rightfully belongs: in their own hands