Why is it impossible to do the same as France? The French system is much closer to the Danish system than you might think.
Saying that the French player development model is inspired by an “Asian model” is a misinterpretation.
In France, as in Denmark, player development is first and foremost club-based, complemented by regional structures, and later by national ones. This organization is common across French sport (football, handball, tennis, etc.) and is very likely similar to the way football is structured in Denmark.
The main difference with badminton therefore lies not in the development philosophy, but in the human and financial resources, which are more limited in this sport in DK.
It is also important to point out that many French clubs develop players of very high level up to the age of 18–19, allowing some to transition directly into senior high performance without early centralization. Clubs thus remain highly effective development environments, integrating sporting, educational and personal development.
In practical terms, the best young players are grouped into regional training centers from the age of 13–14, and into a national training center around the age of 16 for a very limited number of athletes.
This is therefore far removed from the Asian model, which is based on very early specialization, centralized training from the age of 8–9, with a big numbers of players and often insufficient protection of educational pathways.
The current success of French badminton is built on a progressive and sustainable development structure, comparable to that of many French sports.
The key issue is not to copy a model, but to optimize the pathways between clubs and federative structures, while taking into account the economic realities specific to each country and each sport.
