Why Training and Development Win the Game (lessons learned from men’s soccer)
A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting in a hotel bar watching the U.S.-Haiti Gold Cup soccer match. For most of that match, a small Caribbean nation in the midst of massive social upheaval was not just competing with the U.S., but were outplaying us. The U.S. eventually won 2-1, but how does a country with 28 times fewer people and 1,400 times less GDP match up so evenly on the pitch?
I dug into this a bit and found that it is not an anomaly. Looking at World Cup performance data, population accounts for only about 1% of the variance in international soccer success. GDP does better, explaining roughly 25% of success, but that still leaves three-quarters of elite athletic achievement unexplained by resources alone.
If the relationship between resources and results is this weak in soccer – where talent should theoretically scale with population and training quality – what does this lack of scaling with resources tell us about corporate performance, team effectiveness, and strategic success of large corporations?
I argue that the lessons learned from men’s soccer are directly relevant to corporations. How corporations choose to develop or not develop their employees has direct ramifications on the performance of their teams. The U.S. has failed to invest in the development of younger soccer players, leaving that role to others not directly associated with the national teams. Similarly, American corporations (based on my experience training corporations on critical communication and analytic skills) are highly reluctant to invest in their people; rather, they rely on the skills the employees learned elsewhere and brought to the role.
Let’s look at this analogy in greater detail and the lessons we can take away from it.
Size-Performance Asymmetry
The first lesson challenges how we think about human capital. China, with 1.4 billion people, has never made it past the round of 16 in a World Cup. Meanwhile, Uruguay, with 3.4 million people, has won the tournament twice and Croatia, smaller than most U.S. states, reached the World Cup final in 2018 and semifinal in 2022.
The difference isn't in the talent pool – it's in the development system. Countries that excel at soccer create intentional pathways for nurturing ability. They don't just identify talent; they systematically develop it through coherent programs that begin early and provide continuous training across all levels.
Most organizations develop teams with a similar mentality to the U.S. soccer leadership.
Most organizations approach talent from the opposite direction. They assume that having access to large talent pools, such as prestigious universities and competitive hiring markets, automatically translates to better performance. But like soccer, organizational excellence comes from how you develop people once you have them, not from how many candidates you can choose from, despite the baseline ability those prospects may bring.
The most effective teams invest heavily in systematic skill development, mentorship programs, and long-term capability building. They recognize that developing one person deeply often produces better results than superficially managing ten. Yet, the message I often hear is “we cannot afford to develop our people.” I would argue, “you cannot afford not to develop your people” if you want to win the equivalent of the World Cup.
Intentions Beat Spending
The second insight concerns how resources actually translate to results. When uncertainty and market performance issues arise, rather than attempting to systematically understand these situations, the knee jerk reaction of many corporations is to plow resources into reorganization. I’m sure most of you have experienced a reorganization that accomplished little to nothing. It just burned through time and resources.
Compare this to how elite soccer nations handle performance challenges. Countries that excel on the pitch have consistent ways of processing information (scouting, player evaluation) and communicating expectations (coaching philosophy, tactical preparation). When they face uncertainty or a run of poor results, they don't reorganize - they go deeper into their analytic and communication processes to understand what's actually happening.
In the early 2000s, Spain gravitated toward a style of soccer known as “tiki taka” that emphasized passing and maintaining possession. This proved revolutionary and successful. Yet, over time, as teams began to adapt to the style and counter it, Spain did not abandon it. They initially did not reorganize. Later, through analysis and improved training, Spain flexibly adapted the style to new challenges (strategic flexibility) and, through an intense focus on coaching and training, have continued to adapt the style as their analysis of the competitive landscape changes.
Spain's response to tactical challenges on the field stands in stark contrast to the American corporate instinct to reorganize when facing uncertainty rather than to analyze and to train to the new environment. When facing uncertainty, the most effective response isn't structural change - it's improving the analytic and communication processes that help you understand what's actually happening and to adapt accordingly and strategically.
The Cost of Offensive Bias
Having been a defender during most of my soccer career, for me this is where the soccer analogy is most compelling. The United States men’s national team has produced genuine international stars on offense – players who create goals and generate excitement. But we've historically struggled to develop world-class defenders, with rare exceptions like Alexi Lalas. This isn't coincidence, it is cultural.
American sports culture prioritizes individual achievement, immediate results, and spectacular plays. We celebrate the goal scorer, not the defender who prevented three scoring opportunities. We invest in developing players who can create highlights, not players who can read the game and communicate effectively with teammates.
A perfect example is Paris Saint-Germain. In the early 2020s PSG had a superstar lineup, including Messi, Mbappe, and Neymar. Yet they failed dramatically in the Champions League. In 2023 Luis Enriquez took over as manager and instituted a whole team approach, retraining the team around the midfielders. The stars all departed and in 2025 PSG won the Champions Cup 5-0, the largest margin ever in a Champions League final.
This offensive bias shows up everywhere in American organizations. We overfund sales and marketing (profit centers) while treating analysis, risk management, and loss prevention as cost centers. We reward the executives who land big deals and overpay CEOs by a large margin while undervaluing the analysts whose insights prevent costly mistakes.
But defense wins championships, and organizational resilience comes from a base of strong analytic capability and a culture that prizes effective and open communication. The most successful organizations recognize that their protective and analytical functions aren't overhead, they are competitive advantages that enable sustainable offensive success.
As an example, Toyota's obsession with identifying and preventing defects through analytical processes and continuous communication about process improvements gave them a massive competitive advantage over Detroit automakers who focused primarily on sales volume and marketing. Twenty years later we are still playing catch up. And probably always will, because we don’t adapt and see when a strategy is not effective.
Building Excellence Through Inversion
Elite performance in any domain requires inverting three common assumptions about success:
1. Instead of assuming more people equals better results, focus on developing the people you have more systematically.
2. Instead of assuming that structural change will always fix a problem, make sense of the new landscape and adapt your teams to that through training.
3. Instead of prioritizing functions that generate immediate, visible results, balance offensive capabilities with protective functions that create sustained excellence.
Countries that consistently perform well in international soccer have learned these three lessons. Their success comes not from superior resources, but from superior systems for developing talent, building culture, and maintaining balance between immediate performance and long-term sustainability.
The same principles apply whether you're building an intelligence capability, developing a corporate strategy, or managing any team where individual contributions must combine into collective excellence. Resources matter, but how you develop, organize, and deploy those resources matters more.
In a world where everyone has access to similar technologies and talent pools, the organizations that excel will be those that master the fundamentals of human development, systematic thinking, and balanced investment in both offensive and defensive capabilities.
