Should young player awards keep going to the same footballer every year?

What has actually been reported?

A thread on Reddit's r/soccer forum says that Lamine Yamal has won a young player of the year award. The source does not say which award it was, who presented it, which season it covers or how the winner was chosen. Those details are not known here, so this article does not guess at them. That is less of a problem than it sounds, because the argument below does not depend on which trophy it was. Several organisations give awards limited to young players, and most of them work in similar ways. The question is about how those awards are designed, not about any one player. Whatever this award turns out to be, it raises a familiar design problem.

What is a young player award meant to do?

A young player award exists alongside the main individual honours. It shines a light on footballers who would otherwise be overlooked next to established stars. The age limit is the whole point. It creates a separate competition for players still early in their careers, and it tells people to watch them. A good youth award should therefore do two things. It should recognise the outstanding young player of a given period, and it should spread recognition across a generation, so that more than one talent gets the attention, commercial interest and confidence that come with winning. When the same name keeps winning, the first aim may be met but the second one fails.

How do eligibility rules usually work?

Most youth awards set an upper age limit, checked against a cut-off date, and anyone under it can be considered. Some limit eligibility to a particular league or country, and others are open to players worldwide. The important detail is that the limit is usually the only rule controlling who can enter. As long as a player stays under the age, they can be nominated again every season. Because of that, a player who breaks through very young can stay eligible for several cycles in a row. The rule was written to keep older players out, not to stop younger ones from staying in.

Why does an early breakthrough matter so much?

Footballers break through at different ages. A player who becomes a regular in a top side as a teenager builds up a level of exposure that older players in the same age group cannot quickly match. Voters see that player more often, in bigger matches and with more coverage. That head start can last as long as the player stays eligible. None of this says anything about whether a particular winner deserved it. It describes how a fixed age limit interacts with careers that start at different times. The earlier someone arrives, the longer they can hold off everyone else, and a rule that looks neutral ends up giving the earliest starter a bigger share of the awards.

Who votes, and does that matter?

Voting varies. Some awards are decided by panels of journalists, others by former players, coaches or club captains, and some include a public vote. Each method has its own weaknesses. Panels tend to favour players they have already rewarded, partly because reputation shapes what voters notice. Public votes tend to favour players with the biggest clubs and the most social media following. Whichever method is used, a player who has won before goes into the next vote with an advantage that has nothing to do with the season being judged. Repeat wins are not proof of a fault in the voting. Still, the system is built in a way that makes repeat wins more likely than talent alone would.

Is there a case for letting the best player keep winning?

Yes, and it deserves to be taken seriously. If an award claims to name the best young player, refusing it to the obvious candidate would make the result less believable. A trophy given to a runner-up because the leader was barred can feel second-best, and the winner might see it that way too. There is also a simple fairness point: a player should not lose out because they developed quickly. Supporters of the current rules say that being exceptional is the whole point, and that an award should report what happened rather than share prizes around. That position holds together. It just sees the award as a ranking, not as a way of drawing attention to young players.

Why does the spreading argument win?

A youth award is not the main individual honour, and it does not need to act like one. A player good enough to win a youth award every year is usually also in the running for the main honours, which are where the best overall performer is already recognised. The youth award adds value where it reaches players the main awards miss. Each extra win by the same player says less, because everyone already knows who that player is. A one-win limit would keep the trophy meaningful for every winner. It would also create a clear progression: win the youth award once, then compete for the main honours from then on.

What would a sensible reform look like?

There are several ways to do it. The simplest is that previous winners cannot win again but are still named in a separate list of honours. A gentler option is to keep repeat winners eligible but require a higher threshold, such as a clear majority of the vote. A third is to narrow the age band so that eligibility naturally runs out sooner. Each option has drawbacks. A ban on previous winners can produce a year when the strongest candidate is missing. Higher thresholds make voting harder to follow. Narrower age bands push out players who develop later, which is the opposite of what a youth award should do. On balance, the ban on previous winners is the clearest and the easiest to explain.

Would it change how clubs and players are valued?

Indirectly, yes. Individual awards feed into how a player is promoted, how sponsors see them and how they are presented to supporters. A youth trophy is an independent endorsement that a club can point to, and spreading those trophies more widely spreads that endorsement too. Clubs in smaller leagues, whose young players get less international coverage, would gain the most, because a broader range of winners would make it more likely that their players are recognised. The effect should not be exaggerated, since one trophy rarely decides a career. Even so, an award that circulates does more for the wider game than one that keeps confirming what everyone already knows.

What should readers take from this award?

Whatever award the Reddit thread refers to, the result fits a common pattern: an exceptionally early breakthrough meeting rules that were written with only an age limit in mind. That is not a criticism of the winner or of the voters. It is a criticism of a design that never considered what happens when one player stays eligible and dominant for a long time. Organisations that run youth awards could fix this without much difficulty. If they do not, their awards will keep telling audiences what they already know, when they could be introducing them to someone new.

Sources and further reading

• Reddit r/soccer: the community thread reporting the award, with no further details given
• Award organisers' published regulations: the usual source for eligibility, age cut-offs and voting rules
• Governing body and league award guidance: background on how official individual honours are structured
• Specialist football journalism on award voting: general discussion of panel and public voting methods