FutureFit Explained: Football DNA Interview Part 2
In the first part of our interview with Paul Barry, we explored what the FA's FutureFit changes involve, why 3v3 is being introduced at Under-7 and how smaller formats can give young players more touches and decisions.
In Part 2, Paul addresses some of the more difficult questions surrounding the reforms. We discuss whether 3v3 is too chaotic, clubs registering teams up an age group to avoid the format, the decision to delay 11v11 until Under-14 and whether the changes can overcome resistance within grassroots football.
You can read Part 1 of our FutureFit interview with Football DNA for Paul's answers to the first six questions.
For a complete overview of the age-group changes, see our guide to the new FA youth football formats.
About Paul Barry and Football DNA
Paul Barry
Head of Coaching, Content & Club Support – Football DNA
Paul Barry is Head of Coaching, Content & Club Support. He holds the UEFA A Licence, the FA Advanced Youth Award (U5–11s) and has more than 25 years' experience across grassroots and academy football. During his career he has worked with Southend United, Arsenal and Crystal Palace, where he served as Head of Coaching. He also worked as a Coach and Mentor for The Football Association through the FA Skills Programme.
Is 3v3 Football Too Chaotic for Young Players?
Football Parent asks
One concern from some coaches is that 3v3 is almost too chaotic for very young players, lots of 1v1 situations but fewer opportunities to learn to play as a unit. Is that a fair critique, or does the chaos serve a developmental purpose?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
I think the critique that 3v3 is "too chaotic" is a fair one if you’re looking at it through the lens of traditional, adult-structured football. However, this belief somewhat misses the point of the format. The chaos is not a flaw in the design of the game; rather, it is the key underlying principle of the entire format.
I would advocate the embracing of this deliberate chaos as 3v3 is actively trying to replicate a modern ‘street-football’ approach within a structured environment. Historically, elite players developed their technical abilities and game insight not in fully structured training programmes, but in the chaotic, unstructured environments of cages, parks, and streets.
In a 3v3 game, this chaotic environment serves a clear developmental purpose through non-linear learning (i.e. a complex system that treats learning as a dynamic, unstructured process of trial and error, heavily influenced by the environment):
-Forced Collaboration – In a larger, organised format, players can often rely on a system or a coach's instructions to know where to position themselves, or what decisions to make. In the chaos of 3v3, there isn’t a pre-planned structure. Because the game changes state in a split second, players are forced to communicate and collaborate naturally as a small unit.
-The Interdependent Trio – You cannot have a passive passenger in 3v3. If one player switches off, the opposition are likely to create a chance if not, score a goal. This necessity demands constant, responsive input from all 3 players, teaching them when and how to defend together and how to support each other in attacking phases.
Far from delaying a child's ability to play as a unit, embracing the chaos of 3v3 forces them to discover how to work together effectively. I believe it will build autonomous, adaptable young players who can solve problems under pressure, rather than passive bystanders who only know how to operate in a pre-determined area of the pitch.
Football Parent perspective
Three-versus-three is not intended to look like a smaller version of adult football. From the touchline, the game may appear untidy, but every child is repeatedly having to react, communicate and make decisions without waiting for a coach to organise them.
That distinction matters. A game can look structured to adults while giving some children very little involvement. It can also look chaotic while providing constant opportunities to learn.
Our guide to improving football decision making in young players explores why repeated problem-solving matters.
Why Are Clubs Avoiding 3v3 Football?
Football Parent asks
One pattern already emerging is clubs registering their Under 7s as Under 8s to keep playing 5v5 and avoid the 3v3 format. From a development standpoint, how damaging is that workaround, and what does it say about grassroots football culture in England that clubs are finding ways around a change designed to benefit the players?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
I feel that forcing an U7 child onto a 5v5 pitch via this disregard to adhere to the 3v3 format has the potential to be extremely detrimental. Of course, there may be some physically maturated 7 year olds that can handle the 5v5 format on a bigger pitch, and if that’s the case, an idea conducive with individual development would be to create a 4–6 week plan for that player where they have a hybrid of both 3v3 and 5v5 football in terms of training programme and match-day.
This could be reviewed every 4–6 weeks and continued or adapted, dependent on the child’s level of development and enjoyment.
In terms of an entire age group, I believe that actively denying children the 3v3 programme neglects a key element of learning during the peak window of their motor learning. On a potentially, physically overwhelming 5v5 pitch, less-confident six-year-olds can easily get ‘lost’ and may not touch the ball for prolonged periods of match-time. By introducing the children to rigid positions and overly big pitches, coaches will prioritise structural shape over age-appropriate fun, directly increasing the possible risk of early player frustration and burnout.
This blatant evasion of the rules exposes a deeply worrying flaw in English grassroots culture, where adult competitive biases and egos routinely override governing body research and experience. Because many volunteer coaches and parents measure development by how closely a match mirrors the adult game, they may view the chaos of 3v3 as a glorified training session rather than a tool for building confident and competent technicians and decision makers.
This workaround highlights an unhealthy obsession with establishing fixed positions and winning early, despite U7 football being strictly non-competitive. Ultimately, it reveals a damning irony in the grassroots game: while the FA builds frameworks to maximise a child’s long-term technical capability, the biggest obstacle to player development remains the adults who find it difficult to relinquish control.
Football Parent perspective
There is an important difference between allowing an individual child to play up because it suits their development and registering an entire team up to avoid the new format.
Paul's suggestion for an individual player involves a temporary, reviewed plan based on that child's development and enjoyment. Moving a whole group into 5v5 is a club-level decision that may not suit every child in the squad, particularly those who are smaller, less confident or newer to football. Our guide to whether you child should play up an age group covers this in greater depth.
Why Is 11v11 Football Being Delayed Until U14?
Football Parent asks
The format shift also delays 11v11 to U14. What's the developmental logic behind that end of the spectrum? What have we been getting wrong by putting children into 11-a-side too early?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
The decision to delay 11v11 until U14s is based on creating an environment that better suits children's stage of development rather than simply introducing the adult game as early as possible. Too often in the past, children have been exposed to 11v11 before they are physically, biologically and psychologically ready. Full-size pitches demand high levels of aerobic capacity, speed and physical maturity that many children have not yet developed, while full-size goals can be disproportionate to the capabilities of young goalkeepers.
As a result, the game often becomes stretched, with greater emphasis placed on physical attributes rather than technical quality, decision-making and game insight. I’m of the opinion that the Foundation Phase, traditionally U9s–U12s, should extend to U14s with an early, mid and late stage to the age groups within the phase. In this way, we allow players to progress at an age-specific rate as they advance through the age groups and don’t just treat 13 and 14 year olds as ‘mini-adults’ by placing them into a training and match-day environment that replicates the senior game too closely.
From a player development perspective, introducing 11v11 too early also reduces the number of meaningful learning opportunities available to every child. On larger pitches with more players, individuals typically receive less touches of the ball, complete fewer technical actions, make a reduced number of decisions and have restricted opportunities to solve problems in realistic game situations. They are also exposed to tactical principles and team structures that are often beyond their cognitive and developmental stage.
By delaying this transition to 11v11, players can spend longer in formats that provide more ball interactions, a higher number of repeated actions, more decisions and a greater level of age-appropriate tactical challenges. This in turn will help to create a stronger base of technical, tactical and physical foundation before progressing to the full game when they reach U14s.
Football Parent perspective
Moving to a larger format changes more than the number of players on the pitch. It increases the physical distances children must cover and can reduce how often each player becomes directly involved.
That can favour children who are already physically mature, while smaller or later-developing players may spend longer on the edge of the game. Delaying 11v11 gives players another season to develop in a format where they are likely to receive more frequent technical and decision-making opportunities.
Do Small-Sided Games Produce Better Footballers?
Football Parent asks
Countries like Spain, Germany and the Netherlands have used smaller formats at youth level for years. Is there evidence from those nations that it translates into better technical players at senior level, or is the link more complicated than that?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
Having looked at the evidence from these countries, it is clear to see that it is more nuanced than simply saying smaller formats automatically produce better players. However, there is a clear pattern across countries like Spain, Germany and the Netherlands. These nations have traditionally employed age-appropriate small-sided formats in youth football to maximise involvement, ensuring players complete more actions and experience a higher proportion of key game actions.
Research consistently shows that reducing player numbers increases technical engagement and tactical interaction, while better matching the physical demands of the game to children’s developmental stage. Players such as Andrés Iniesta, Xavi Hernández, Pedri, Jamal Musiala, Frenkie de Jong and Virgil van Dijk all developed within systems where these principles were embedded, although their progression is also the result of wider factors such as coaching quality, academy structure and training environment rather than format alone.
What I’ve noticed is consistent across these federations is the shared developmental philosophy rather than any single format. The German Football Association (DFB) has increasingly emphasised small-sided games because they create more actions, more engagement and better learning opportunities for young players, with former leadership figures stressing the need to design football around the child rather than the adult game. As DFB Vice-President Ronny Zimmermann explained, "We need to think like children, not like adults."
The Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) has similarly highlighted that adjusting pitch size and player numbers improves technical and tactical learning by keeping the game representative but more accessible for developing players.
In Spain, academies such as La Masia have long prioritised small-sided environments where players are constantly on the ball, solving problems and developing technique under multiple pressures. The key takeaway is that the success of these nations comes from creating environments where children are more involved, make more decisions and develop stronger technical foundations before transitioning into the full 11v11 game.
Football Parent perspective
Smaller formats should not be treated as a guarantee that a country will produce better players. They create more opportunities for children to become involved, but what happens within those opportunities still depends on coaching quality, the wider environment and how mistakes are treated.
The format is one part of the development system rather than a replacement for good coaching. Our guide to what makes a good football development environment covers the other factors parents can look for.
Why FutureFit Needs to Be Implemented Properly
Football Parent asks
FutureFit has had some pushback from parents and club officials who worry about disruption, extra pitches needed, and the logistics. From a purely player-development standpoint, how important is it that the game follows through on this rather than watering it down?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
Looking at it through a purely player-development lens, I feel it is critical that the model is implemented as intended rather than diluted to fit the convenience of adults. The purpose of formats like FutureFit is to better align the game with children’s physical, technical and cognitive development. If the structure is compromised too heavily, the very benefits it is designed to create are significantly reduced, and players are effectively returned to the same limitations seen in traditional formats in the past.
I also believe that the logistical challenges are real ones, but they are solvable with coordinated planning rather than compromise. Clubs can work closely with their local FA for guidance and support, particularly around implementation and resources. Recruitment of additional volunteers can help manage increased organisational demands, while clear pre-match communication between teams ensures match-day operations are structured and efficient.
When fixtures are planned properly in advance and responsibilities are shared, the model becomes not only achievable but sustainable, allowing the focus to remain on what matters most, which is creating the best possible development environment for our young players.
What Will FutureFit Change for Young Players?
Football Parent asks
If FutureFit works as intended, what does a 10-year-old grassroots footballer look like in 2032 compared to one coming through the system today — what's the tangible difference Football DNA would expect to see?
Paul Barry • Football DNA
If FutureFit is implemented as intended, I would hope that a 10-year-old player in 2032 should look noticeably different in terms of how they play the game.
Compared to today, we would expect to see players who are technically more efficient and comfortable in possession, braver in 1v1 situations, and more physically literate in how they move, balance, accelerate and recover. Just as importantly, they should demonstrate stronger game insight at an earlier age, showing better decision-making, improved problem-solving and a more natural ability to read and adapt to game situations rather than simply reacting to them through coaches’ direct instructions.
From a Football DNA perspective, this shift should be driven by a change in how practice is designed and delivered. Sessions should increasingly stretch players across all 4 corners of development: Technical, Tactical, Psychological and Social, ensuring they are consistently challenged in ways that are meaningful and age appropriate.
Alongside this, there should be a positive knock-on effect for coach development, with coaches gaining a deeper understanding of how young players think, behave and learn. This should ultimately lead to more effective practice design, where learning is not only more engaging in the short term but also more impactful and sustainable over the long term.
Football Parent perspective
The success of FutureFit will not be determined by whether every 10-year-old develops in the same way.
A more realistic measure will be whether more children are comfortable receiving the ball, willing to take on opponents, able to solve problems and less dependent on instructions from adults. Those changes may be harder to measure than match results, but they are central to the type of player the reforms are intended to develop.
Final Thoughts
Across both parts of this interview, Paul's argument is that FutureFit should be understood as more than a change to pitch sizes and team numbers.
Three-versus-three is designed to increase each child's involvement and give players more responsibility for solving the game themselves. Delaying 11v11 is intended to keep players in age-appropriate formats for longer, rather than moving them into a version of the adult game before many are physically or psychologically ready.
There are legitimate logistical challenges for clubs, coaches and leagues. There will also be debate about how well the reforms work once they are introduced across grassroots football. However, bypassing the changes before they have been properly implemented risks judging them according to what adults find familiar rather than what gives children the best opportunity to play, enjoy and develop.
To learn more about Paul's coaching work, courses and session resources, visit Football DNA.
Editor's Note
The views expressed in this interview are those of Paul Barry and Football DNA. Football Parent regularly interviews coaches and experts to present a range of evidence-informed perspectives on youth football.
