Allonzo Trier and the Insanity Behind "Amateur" Youth Basketball

Allonzo Trier is in 6th grade, and he already has his own shoe.



His mother is already being called by agents and scouts. This is the world that young basketball prodigies inhabit, and it blows my mind. The commercialization of the game at this level seems unreal and reeks of exploitation. Signs of this trend exist elsewhere. Last year, Brandon Jennings, because the NBA now requires players to be at least one year out of college before being draft-eligible, decided to go play basketball professionally in Europe rather than go to college. He is now predicted to be a high pick in this year's draft.

As a parallel though, (and it is undoubtedly a system), consider how things operate in Europe with soccer. David Beckham was 14 when he was signed into the Manchester United youth academy. Most European clubs have these youth academies, and I believe (though couldn't guarantee) that they sign players before they would attend what would be high school. I'm not sure how schooling goes post-signing (whether they keep going but also play for the youth squads), but I could almost guarantee that whatever schooling they got in those years isn't nearly what they would get if they were not in this system. Players can play for the actual club at any age after they have signed. I think Messi was playing for Barca at 16, and Federico Macheda, who is from Italy, now lives in Manchester and has played a few games (and scored this disquentos game-winner) for the first-team.

So now, the question arises, are these systems equally exploitative and (potentially) harmful? Obviously, those who go through the system and succeed in the professional game are not really the concern here. Of concern are the Arthur Agees of the game, players with potential who are encouraged and wooed by promises of wealth only to be discarded with no preparation for the future when players fail to reach the level that is expected of them. My natural inclination is that the basketball system is, but I can't decide if that is simply because it gets more negative press (or, rather, I am exposed to more of the negative press). Is the fact that, in the European system, there is no false pretense of amateurism important? Perhaps. There also may be more troublesome issues of race as well as class in the American system, where it is very often poor blacks that are. However, I couldn't guarantee that class doesn't play a factor in Europe. I think what troubles me most about the US system is that there is very little effort anywhere to really develop talent. The article from the beginning talked about how those Adidas camps and the like basically consist of players hogging the ball to show off their skills for scouts. The youth academies, while more obviously commercial (as they pay the players in the hope that they will develop to play for their first team), actually care about the success of the players. The purpose of these academies is teaching the players how to play the game at the highest level, and while this may be an artificial difference that I'm noting, it seems at least worth thinking about.

Thoughts?