When Graham Arnold was coaching Sydney FC, his rivals were weakened by Olyroos call-ups, while he famously fielded an aging but dominant squad. In response to criticism, he rejected the notion that the A-League was a development league, insisting instead that it was a “meaningful competition.” The APL will now be hoping he was presenting a false dichotomy. Within just a few years, financial pressures forced them to acknowledge that the A-League is, in fact, a development league.

The uneasy balance between development and competition has long shaped the direction of Australian football. A-League clubs are expected to produce talent for both the national team and international markets, while still delivering results on the pitch. Increasingly, investors view the league’s role as a springboard, with transfer fees offering a valuable source of income. As financial pressures continue to influence decision-making, the league’s focus has gradually shifted—from retaining marquee players to developing prospects with an eye toward the global market.

This transition has not been welcomed by everyone. In a recent article for Code Sports (paywall), Robbie Slater recently asked how to “stop the Exodus” of young stars heading overseas. But is the A-League really an outlier in how many of its young players it exports? And is this truly incompatible with being a “meaningful competition”? Let’s take a closer look.

The A-League has undeniably stepped up its player transfer game in recent years, both in frequency and value. Back when Arnie made his comment, the league sold just five players for a modest €250,000. Fast forward five years, and we’re talking double the number of players sold for nearly triple the price. The upward trend shows no signs of slowing – at least not right now. In the heart of the off-season, I’ve counted 11 players from last season’s A-League that were snapped up either mid-season or at seasons end. Add to that a wave of free transfers, and nearly 100 players - roughly seven per club - have already parted ways with their 2024/25 teams. If past seasons are anything to go by, that number could double before the new season kicks off in October.

This exodus has pushed the A-League to rely more heavily on youth to fill the gaps left by departing talent. A decade ago, players under the age of 21 accounted for around 10 percent of total game time, slightly more than what you would typically see in a top-tier league such as the English Premier League. Today, it is not uncommon to see three or four under-21 players in a starting line-up, reflecting the league’s growing dependence on its rising stars.

How unusual is this level of player turnover in the A-League, where young players are given significant minutes only to see the brightest talents move overseas? To put it into perspective, we can compare the A-League with two of Europe’s top development competitions: the Jupiler League and the Eredivisie. Both leagues experience slightly higher overall turnover than the A-League, with around 15 to 20 players departing each club per season. Much like in Australia, many of these departures are domestic. However, when it comes to international transfers, the Eredivisie is well ahead. On average, its clubs sell twice as many players to foreign clubs as A-League sides do. Like the A-League, both leagues rely heavily on youth to fill the resulting gaps.

According to last year’s PFA season review, the A-League has now caught up to the Jupiler League in terms of the share of minutes given to young players. That is a significant development. However, there is an important caveat: in the A-League, those minutes are spread across a larger pool of players. FotMob data shows that just over a quarter of A-League players with first-team minutes this season were born in 2002 or later. In comparison, the Jupiler League features over one-third of players from the same age group.

So why the difference? In the A-League, it is common for coaches to give young players a few games before deciding they are not ready for senior football and removing them from the lineup. It could be argued that we are paying the price for not having a national youth league. Without one, coaches may not have enough information to properly assess a player's potential before exposing them to top-level competition. In many global development leagues, clubs are supported by both youth teams and reserve sides competing in lower divisions. In Australia, however, a reserve side in the NPL is often seen as a replacement for a youth league, rather than a complement to one.

Having said that, is the A-League a development league or a meaningful competition? It is both, as are most leagues around the world. If it continues along the path of other development leagues, fans can expect even more player turnover, along with more opportunities for young players to break through. This is simply the reality of operating in a global football market. The only real way to avoid it would be to produce players who are not good enough to be bought. Perhaps, at times, that is exactly what we have been doing.