Annual age-grouping is a common organizational strategy in sport. However, such a strategy appears to promote relative age effects (RAEs). RAEs refer both to the immediate participation and long-term attainment constraints in sport, occurring as a result of chronological age and associated physical (e.g. height) differences as well as selection practices in annual age-grouped cohorts. This article represents the first meta-analytical review of RAEs, aimed to collectively determine (i) the overall prevalence and strength of RAEs across and within sports, and (ii) identify moderator variables. A total of 38 studies, spanning 1984-2007, containing 253 independent samples across 14 sports and 16 countries were re-examined and included in a single analysis using odds ratios and random effects procedures for combining study estimates. Overall results identified consistent prevalence of RAEs, but with small effect sizes. Effect size increased linearly with relative age differences. Follow-up analyses identified age category, skill level and sport context as moderators of RAE magnitude. Sports context involving adolescent (aged 15-18 years) males, at the representative (i.e. regional and national) level in highly popular sports appear most at risk to RAE inequalities. Researchers need to understand the mechanisms by which RAEs magnify and subside, as well as confirm whether RAEs exist in female and more culturally diverse contexts. To reduce and eliminate this social inequality from influencing athletes' experiences, especially within developmental periods, direct policy, organizational and practitioner intervention is required.

The policies that dictate the participation structure of many youth sport systems involve the use of a set selection date (e.g. 31 December), which invariably produces relative age differences between those within the selection year (e.g. 1 January to 31 December). Those born early in the selection year (e.g. January) are relatively older—by as much as 12 months minus 1 day—than those born later in the selection year (e.g. December). Research in the area of sport has identified a number of significant developmental effects associated with such relative age differences. However, a theoretical framework that describes the breadth and complexity of relative age effects (RAEs) in sport does not exist in the literature. This paper reviews and summarizes the existing literature on relative age in sport, and proposes a constraints-based developmental systems model for RAEs in sport.

Findings from this review highlight how little is known about TID in elite sport and emphasize the need for greater diversity in TID research.

When athletes are placed into annual age groups to organize and coordinate sport participation, certain (dis)advantages occur as a result of the subtle age differences within these groups. These differences, termed "relative age effects", have been consistently related to youth and adult sport attainment. However, there has been a lack of consistency in the terminology used in this area of research. In this paper, we consider the operational terms used in relative age research, discuss appropriate applications of terminology, and suggest directions for future research. Importantly, we argue for a unified understanding of what "relative age" means, stressing the need for clarity in directing future advances in the field.

Relative age effects (RAEs), reflecting observed inequalities in participation and attainment as a result of annual age‐grouping policies in youth sport, are common in most team sports. The aims of this study were to determine if and when RAEs become apparent in Rugby League, determine how influential variables (e.g., gender) lead and clarify whether player retention at junior representative levels can explain persistent RAEs. Player data were collected for the male and female community games ranging from Under 7s to Senior (N=15 060) levels, junior representative selections (i.e., Regional) and professional players (N=298). Chi‐square analyses found significant (P<0.05) uneven birth date distributions beginning at the earliest stages of the game and throughout into senior professionals. In junior representative selections, 47.0% of Regional and 55.7% of National representative players were born in Quartile 1, with RAE risk increasing with performance level. Gender and nationality were also found to moderate RAE risk. When tracking representative juniors, over 50% were retained for similar competition the following season. Findings clearly demonstrate that RAEs exist throughout Rugby League with early selection, performance level and retention processes, appearing to be key contributing factors responsible for RAE persistence.