Introduction
2024 marked 40 years since Grondin, Deshaies, and Nault's () seminal work on relative age effects in sport. In their article, Trimestres de Naissance et Participation au Hockey et au Volleyball [Birth Trimesters and Participation in Hockey and Volleyball], they analysed the birthdate distribution of competitive youth and professional ice hockey and volleyball cohorts from North America. They revealed that players born in the early months of the selection year were overrepresented, whereas those born later in the year were underrepresented in ice hockey, although this pattern was not observed in their volleyball sample. Unaware of this article, Barnsley, Thompson, and Barnsley () shortly after reaffirmed these results in North American ice hockey, coining the term “relative age effects” (RAEs) to describe the phenomenon. They argued that the age group structures used to band athletes contributed to the loss of potentially talented individuals, as the abilities of relatively younger athletes were not accurately reflected in their performance due to age-related disadvantages. These foundational studies went on to inspire hundreds of relative age investigations worldwide.
Fast forward to today, and despite these early warnings, RAEs have proven remarkably persistent and difficult to mitigate in high-performance sport systems [see (–) for reviews; see (–) for editorials]. Notably, RAEs have been shown to be widespread across both boys' and girls' youth sport, significantly influencing the processes of identification, selection, and development of young athletes (). These effects have, in turn, shaped long-term outcomes related to performance, participation, and personal development in sport (, ). Over the years, the relative age literature has reinforced several other key insights. For example, RAEs have tended to be more pronounced in popular sports such as basketball, soccer, ice hockey, and rugby (), as well as in more competitive contexts as athletes progress into talent development systems ().
The 40th anniversary of the original relative age studies offered a timely opportunity to reflect on developments in both research and practice. It also served as a prompt to look ahead and consider how athlete development systems can be improved to better serve all individuals, regardless of birth month. To help achieve this, we created this research topic as a platform for researchers and practitioners to reflect on RAEs and consider how we can move this area forward. As part of the call for articles, we felt it was critical for the field to adopt methodologies that not only reviewed the extensive body of literature across different sport settings, but also applied theoretical frameworks to deepen our understanding of how RAEs occur. Importantly, to influence practice beyond academic discussion, we believed it was essential to also capture studies that designed, implemented, and evaluated a range of relative age solutions across sporting environments. It was hoped this would encourage the development of targeted, evidence-informed interventions capable of addressing relative age disparities in meaningful, context-sensitive, and sustainable ways. Given that different sports are likely to require bespoke strategies [e.g., age- and size-based banding, birthday-banding, corrective adjustments, and competency-based banding for team, racket, timed, and combat sports, respectively ()], further investigations into the mechanisms behind RAEs from multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary perspectives were also welcomed.
The purpose of this editorial is to summarise our research topic: 40 Years of Relative Age Effects in Sport: Lessons from the Past and Directions for the Future. Based on the articles included, we have focussed on five key areas that emerged: (a) methodological reflections, (b) developmental pathways and career trajectories, (c) relative age and biological age, (d) relative age solutions, and (e) lessons from the past and directions for the future.
Methodological reflections
In total, 85 authors from 14 countries contributed to the 23 articles included in this research topic. Studies were a mixture of quantitative (n = 16), qualitative (n = 2), and mixed method (n = 1) approaches. The majority of submissions were empirical studies (n = 20), with perspectives (n = 2; Grondin; Sweeney et al.) and a reflection (n = 1; Barnsley) also included. Of the empirical studies, 14 used analyses of large datasets to examine the prevalence of RAEs over at least one season, and of those articles, eight tracked RAEs over two seasons or more to examine historical trends. The remaining empirical studies used a mixture of measurement data (n = 2), questionnaire data (n = 1), interview data (n = 1), and some combinations of these approaches (n = 2). These empirical studies included a total of 213,789 participants (or individuals within the sample under investigation if secondary analysis was used), with 91,802 of those being women and girls, and 118,288 being men and boys. The individuals at the focus of the research came primarily from Europe and North America, with the two most represented countries being Germany (n = 4) and Spain (n = 3).
Within the articles, 16 focused on athletes and RAEs, two focused on the perceptions of interest holders on RAEs and potential solutions, one focused on the relative age of coaches, and one focused on the perspective of coaches. The most popular sport researched was, unsurprisingly, soccer (n = 11), followed by ice-hockey (n = 3), and handball (n = 2), while under researched sports such as fencing (Bonito et al.), orienteering (Ferriz-Valero et al.), squash (Kelly et al.), and swimming (Difernand et al.) were also examined. Women and girls were the sole focus of four studies, men and boys were the sole focus in eight studies, while another five studies included mixed genders, with the remaining two empirical studies not reporting the gender of participants.
With regard to procedures and analyses, some new and novel approaches were used. For example, Schorer et al. employed a retrospective and a longitudinal method. This approach helps to illuminate changes over time in birth quartile distribution, reiterating the need for relative age research to embrace longitudinal designs. It was also encouraging to see two studies (Kelly et al.; Smith et al.) employ interviews to gain the subjective experiences of those who influence and interact with RAEs. As well, one of the few studies that examined RAEs in the coaches themselves was included in this special issue (see Grondin et al.). This variety of samples and approaches presents a more nuanced and dynamic portrait of the impact of RAEs across multiple sport systems (see Table 1 for a summary of the articles included).
Table 1
| Author(s) | Submission Type | Method(s) | Number of Participants/Sample Under Observation | Role of Participant/Sample | Number of Men/Boys | Number of Women/Girls | Country of Participant/Sample | Sport | Level of Competition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kelly et al. | Qualitative | Interviews | 15 | Coaches | 14 | 1 | England | Squash | Developing |
| Wang et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 10,485 | Athletes | 10,485 | 0 | Mixed | Ice Hockey | Expert |
| Bonito et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 2,791 | Athletes | 1,575 | 1,216 | Mixed | Fencing | Mixed |
| Smith et al. | Qualitative | Interviews and Questionnaire | 15 | Athletes | 0 | 15 | Canada | Soccer | Developing |
| Wenger and Csapo | Quantitative | Measurement | 98 | Athletes | 98 | 0 | Austria | Soccer | Developing |
| Lemoyne et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 4,306 | Athletes | 4,306 | 0 | Mixed | Ice Hockey | Mixed |
| Thieschäfer et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 4,599 | Athletes | 2,340 | 2,259 | Germany | Handball | Developing |
| Kelly et al. | Mixed Method | Delphi | 15 | Researchers and Practitioners | Not Reported | Not Reported | Mixed | Soccer | N/A |
| Ferriz-Valero et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 7,731 | Athletes | 4,318 | 3,109 | Spain | Orienteering | Mixed |
| Morganti et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 1,565 | Athletes | 1,565 | 0 | Mixed | Soccer | Developing |
| Pérez-González et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 1,634 | Athletes | 0 | 1,634 | Mixed | Soccer | Expert |
| Kelly et al. | Qualitative | Questionnaire | 134 | Interest Holders | Not Reported | Not Reported | Mixed | Soccer | N/A |
| Schorer et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 1,015 | Athletes | 542 | 473 | Germany | Handball | Mixed |
| Peña-González et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 1,120 | Athletes | 1,120 | 0 | Spain | Soccer | Developing |
| Barnsley | Opinion | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Difernand et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 160,861 | Athletes | 79,144 | 81,717 | France | Swimming | Mixed |
| Grondin et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 3,380 | Coaches | Not Reported | Not Reported | Canada | Ice Hockey | Mixed |
| Peñín-Grandes et al. | Quantitative | Measurement | 80 | Athletes | 80 | 0 | Spain | Soccer | Expert |
| Sweeney et al. | Perspective | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Smith et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 1,378 | Athletes | 0 | 1,378 | Germany | Soccer | Developing |
| Grondin | Perspective | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Heilmann et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 3,174 | Athletes | 3,174 | 0 | Germany | Soccer | Developing |
| Brustio et al. | Quantitative | Large Dataset Analyses | 9,527 | Athletes | 9,527 | 0 | Mixed | Soccer | Mixed |
Summary of the articles included in this research topic.
Developmental pathways and career trajectories
As expected, there were several studies that examined RAEs across athlete development pathways, particularly in soccer. While some of these used typical approaches to identifying and considering RAEs (e.g., Heilmann et al.; Peña-González et al.), the samples and research questions explored extended our knowledge to new populations. For instance, Pérez-González et al. showed RAEs existed in four of the five top five European women's football leagues, highlighting the knock-on effects of relative age at senior levels. Other studies used untraditional approaches to examine the impact and development of RAEs, such as the use of survival analysis to examine sport dropout in French swimmers by Difernand et al.
Perhaps most notably were the impressive number of studies examining RAEs from longitudinal and developmental perspectives. Many of these (e.g., Brustio et al.; Lemoyne et al.; Morganti et al.; Schorer et al.) emphasised the need to use longitudinal designs to track changes in athlete populations over the extensive time course of athlete development. As an example, Wang et al. used cohort data over 44 years to assess how time impacts RAEs, helping to better understand the career trajectories of professional ice hockey players. Relatedly, Smith et al. emphasised that RAEs can take multiple forms over a long period, reflecting the reality that what appears to be a very simple and straightforward phenomenon is, in fact, multifaceted and complex with varied influences and implications.
Relative age and biological age
Several papers analysed the role of relative age and biological age. This work emphasised that, while they are both vital to consider during the identification, selection, and development processes in sport (), they are two separate constructs that operate independently (). Out of three studies, two focused on soccer, with one comprised of participants in a Spanish professional academy (Peñín-Grandes et al.), and the other the first examination of relative and biological age constructs in an Austrian soccer context (Wenger and Csapo). The third study investigated the association of maturation and relative age with talent selection in German youth handball players, whereby the authors presented evidence that a unique inter-play may exist between the constructs, as it could be crucial for relatively younger players to mature earlier to increase their selection odds (Thieschäfer et al.).
Research on a range of sports including cricket (), handball (), rugby (), and soccer () has showed “bio-banding” [i.e., a format that groups athletes based on maturity status rather than chronological age ()] to be an effective way at mitigating biological age effects. It is important to emphasise, though, that bio-banding is a potential solution for maturation-related biases, and not for RAEs. Thus, integrating bio-banding alongside relative age solutions, or combining solutions together [e.g., (–)], may be fruitful areas for future research.
Relative age solutions
A persistent call from relative age researchers, including in this research topic, is identifying potential solutions. Although many authors reiterated these sentiments in their articles, only three empirically explored this area, with only one evaluating the implementation of the solution. Building on previous quantitative work on “birthday-banding” (i.e., each individual athlete competes with those of the same chronological age, moving up to the next birthday-band on their birthday), which corresponded with no RAEs exist in the England Squash Talent Pathway (), Kelly et al. explored coaches' perspectives of the approach. They noted how birthday-banding produced fairness for athletes who might have been removed due to their birthday, offering a possible relative age solution for other racket sports.
The Royal Netherlands Football Association (KNVB) relative age solutions project also contributed two studies. First, following a call to action for interest holders to propose relative age solutions to KNVB, almost 200 proposals were categorised into 13 independent approaches (Kelly et al.). Interestingly, whilst no new suggestions outside the existing literature were proposed, only two have been empirically tested in soccer (, ). Second, Kelly et al. evaluated these 13 proposed solutions, using a two-round adapted e-Delphi study with 15 international experts (i.e., researchers and practitioners). Generally, highly rated solutions perceived to effectively moderate RAEs were expected to be more challenging to implement, whereas those more feasible to implement were considered less effective. Results also showed regular disagreement amongst the international experts, highlighting that achieving consensus on possible relative age solutions may be challenging.
Lessons from the past and directions for the future
As part of this research topic, we were fortunate to include four decades worth of reflections from the inaugural researchers of RAEs—Professor Simon Grondin and Professor Roger Barnsley. In his opinion article, Grondin closed by repeating a key takeaway message from his original 1984 paper, emphasising how even after 40 years, many sport systems have still not comprehended this simple message: “It must be remembered that two children born in the same year do not necessarily have the same age” (). Barnsley repeated these sentiments in his perspective article, showcasing that the data they published from the 1983 Western (WHL) and Ontario (OHL) Major Junior A Hockey Leagues () and from the 1989 FIFA U17 and U20 World Cups () remains almost identical, whereby those born in the first three months are overrepresented (cumulative ∼40%) and those born in the last three months of the selection year are underrepresented (cumulative ∼12.5%).
Overall, it is fair to say that whilst our understanding of RAEs has grown considerably over the last four decades, not a lot has changed in practice. Indeed, both Grondin and Barnsley expressed their disappointment with how the applied field has not utilised the comprehensive research knowledge. We call for researchers and practitioners to work closer together to be solution-focused, helping create more developmentally appropriate learning environments for all young athletes to achieve their potential in sport, irrelevant of their birthdate.
Summary
Although a large body of research has documented the presence of RAEs across various sporting contexts, and despite the ongoing recommendations from researchers and practitioners, efforts to design, implement, and evaluate effective and feasible solutions have been limited. Moreover, while several theoretical explanations have been proposed and greater clarity provided on the differences between biological and relative age, there remains a lack of empirical studies that clearly identify the underlying causes of RAEs in sport. Such studies would be invaluable in guiding the development of context-sensitive interventions (). In addition to the continuously growing number of relative age studies across a variety of sport environments, an important next step will be to systematically review the literature, using meta-analyses, in widely researched sports. This will aid the development of sport-specific consensus on RAEs and outline next steps.
Finally, we call for researchers and practitioners to focus their efforts not only on replicating relative age research in different contexts, but also ensuring each study meaningfully adds new knowledge to the field. Researchers should use relative age studies as an opportunity to examine multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary features that contribute towards RAEs, as well as explore the direct and indirect effects of relative age to help explain how they occur. Doing so will inform strategies that are effective and feasible for sport-specific contexts, helping to create youth sport environments that foster long-term performance, participation, and personal development outcomes for every young person, regardless of when they are born.
It was a pleasure to assemble this research topic. We hope the reader finds the articles useful in helping to advance their own research and practice. Thanks to the authors, reviewers, and participants for their support—without their efforts, advancing our knowledge of RAEs would not have been possible.
Statements
Author contributions
AK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KJ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
GrondinSDeshaiesPNaultL. Trimestres de naissance et participation au hockey et au volleyball. La Revue Quebecoise de L’Activite Physique. (1984) 2:97–103.
2.
BarnsleyRHThompsonAHBarnsleyPE. Hockey success and birthdate: the relative age effect. CAHPER J. (1985) 51(8):23–8.
3.
CobleySBakerJWattieNMcKennaJ. Annual age-grouping and athlete development: a meta-analytical review of relative age effects in sport. Sports Med. (2009) 39(3):235–56. 10.2165/00007256-200939030-00005
4.
MuschJGrondinS. Unequal competition as an impediment to personal development: a review of the relative age effect in sport. Dev Rev. (2001) 21(2):147–67. 10.1006/drev.2000.0516
5.
SmithKLWeirPLTillKRomannMCobleyS. Relative age effects across and within female sport contexts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. (2018) 48(6):1451–78. 10.1007/s40279-018-0890-8
6.
WebdaleKBakerJSchorerJWattieN. Solving sport’s ‘relative age’ problem: a systematic review of proposed solutions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. (2020) 13(1):187–204. 10.1080/1750984x.2019.1675083
7.
DixonJHortonSChittleLBakerJ (Eds.). Relative Age Effects in Sport: International Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge (2020).
8.
KellyALCôtéJHancockDJTurnnidgeJ. Editorial: birth advantages and relative age effects. Front Sports Act Living. (2021) 3:721704. 10.3389/fspor.2021.721704
9.
KellyACôtéJJeffreysMTurnnidgeJ (Eds.). Birth Advantages and Relative Age Effects in Sport: Exploring Organizational Structures and Creating Appropriate Settings. New York, NY: Routledge (2021).
10.
McAuleyABTBakerJJohnstonKDoncasterGKellyAL. Selection and re-selection throughout a national talent pathway: exploring longitudinal relative age effects in northern Ireland male soccer. High Ability Studies. (2024) 35(2):231–47. 10.1080/13598139.2024.2404410
11.
KellyALBrownTReedRCôtéJTurnnidgeJ. Relative age effects in male cricket: a personal assets approach to explain immediate, short-term, and long-term developmental outcomes. Sports. (2022) 10(3):39. 10.3390/sports10030039
12.
KellyALWilsonMRGoughLAKnapmanHMorganPColeMet alA longitudinal investigation into the relative age effect in an English professional football club: exploring the ‘underdog hypothesis’. Sci Med Footb. (2020) 4(2):111–8. 10.1080/24733938.2019.1694169
13.
RomannMRüegerEHintermannMKernRFaudeO. Origins of relative age effects in youth football—a nationwide analysis. Front Sports Act Living. (2020) 2:591072. 10.3389/fspor.2020.591072
14.
UlbrichtAFernandez-FernandezJMendez-VillanuevaAFerrautiA. The relative age effect and physical fitness characteristics in German male tennis players. J Sports Sci Med. (2015) 14(3):634–42.
15.
KellyALTurnnidgeJ. Group banding strategies in children’s organised sport: looking beyond fixed chronological age. In: TomsMRJeanesR, editors. Handbook of Coaching Children in Sport. New York, NY: Routledge (2023). p. 303–14.
16.
KellyALWilliamsCA. Physical characteristics and the talent identification and development processes in youth soccer: a narrative review. Strength Cond J. (2020) 42(6):15–34. 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000576
17.
RadnorJMOliverJLDobbsIWongMBrownTWLloydRSet alSelection into youth cricket academies: the influence of relative age and maturity status. J Sports Sci. (2023) 41(3):272–9. 10.1080/02640414.2023.2208924
18.
WaltersSRenshawIWhatmanCZoellnerAHarrisonCSpencerKet alMaturity status, relative age and bio-banding in youth cricket. New Zealand Cricket Rep. (2021) 48:66–75.
19.
de la RubiaALorenzo-CalvoJRojas-ValverdeDMon-LópezDRadnorJKellyAL. Bio-banding in handball: academy players’ perceptions based on maturity status and gender. Int J Sports Med. (2023) 44(12):871–81. 10.1055/a-2145-6454
20.
McAuleyABTRadnorJMGraingerAFitzgeraldFPountneyBBakerJet al‘I feel more comfortable in contact with similar-sized players’: male youth rugby union players’ perceptions of bio-banded training. Ann Hum Biol. (2025) 52(1):2573406. 10.1080/03014460.2025.2573406
21.
BradleyBJohnsonDHillMMcGeeDKana-ahASharpinCet alBio-banding in academy football: player’s perceptions of a maturity matched tournament. Ann Hum Biol. (2019) 46(5):400–8. 10.1080/03014460.2019.1640284
22.
CummingSPLloydRSOliverJLEisenmannJCMalinaRM. Bio-banding in sport: applications to competition, talent identification, and strength and conditioning of youth athletes. Strength Cond J. (2017) 39(2):34–47. 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000281
23.
AbbottSMouldsKSalterJRomannMEdwardsLCobleyS. Testing the application of corrective adjustment procedures for removal of relative age effects in female youth swimming. J Sports Sci. (2020) 38(10):1077–84. 10.1080/02640414.2020.1741956
24.
HelsenWFThomisMStarkesJLVrijensSOomsGMacMasterCet alLeveling the playing field: a new proposed method to address relative age- and maturity-related bias in soccer. Front Sports Act Living. (2021) 3:635379. 10.3389/fspor.2021.635379
25.
HoganCAbbottSHalakiMTorres CastiglioniMYamauchiGMitchellLet alMaturation-based corrective adjustment procedures (Mat-CAPs) in youth swimming: evidence for restricted age-group application in females. PLoS One. (2022) 17(10):e0275797. 10.1371/journal.pone.0275797
26.
SedeaudADifernandADe LarochelambertQIridYFouillotCdu SelNPet alTalent identification: time to move forward on estimation of potentials? Proposed explanations and promising methods. Sports Med. (2025) 55(3):551–68. 10.1007/s40279-024-02171-5
27.
KellyALJacksonDTTaylorJJJeffreysMATurnnidgeJ. “Birthday-Banding” as a strategy to moderate the relative age effect: a case study into the England squash talent pathway. Front Sports Act Living. (2020) 2:573890. 10.3389/fspor.2020.573890
28.
MannDLvan GinnekenPJMA. Age-ordered shirt numbering reduces the selection bias associated with the relative age effect. J Sports Sci. (2017) 35(8):784–90. 10.1080/02640414.2016.1189588
29.
BarnsleyRHThompsonAHLegaultP. Family planning: football style. The relative age effect in football. Int Rev Sociol Sport. (1992) 27(1):77–87. 10.1177/101269029202700105
Summary
Keywords
talent identification, talent development, athlete development, youth sport, RAE
Citation
Kelly AL, Johnston K, McAuley ABT and Baker J (2025) Editorial: 40 years of relative age effects in sport: lessons from the past and directions for the future. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1745607. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1745607
Received
13 November 2025
Accepted
18 November 2025
Published
04 December 2025
Volume
7 - 2025
Edited and reviewed by
Olivier Girard, University of Western Australia, Australia
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Kelly, Johnston, McAuley and Baker.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Adam L. Kelly adam.kelly@bcu.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.