Chelsea F.C. has a big, confusing mess of young talent on its hands.

But it would be journalistically irresponsible for me to continue this column without first disclosing the following information: I am a fan of Chelsea, and have been since 2014. So take everything I say with a grain of salt — like an over-critical parent who just wants to see their child succeed.

I also need to make this clear: Unlike previous columns, this one does not cover just one or two players. It’s about a collection of young players and a phenomenon that demands interrogation.

Just like a 13-year-old playing “FIFA Career Mode” or “Football Manager” for the first time, owner Todd Boehly decided to sign every high-potential player under the age of 23 at the same time.

As a fan, this elicits both excitement and concern. On a player-by-player basis, all of Chelsea’s young new signings could be amazing. But when you compile as many fragile, still-developing players as the London club has in the last two transfer windows, can they all succeed? It seems unlikely. Lineups are a zero-sum game; there are a finite number of minutes to go around.

However, let’s back up a bit.

For those who haven’t followed every post on Fabrizio Romano’s X (formerly known as Twitter) page, here’s the complete list of every player 23 years old or younger Chelsea has signed since Dec. 29: David Datro Fofana, Benoît Badiashile, Andrey Santos, João Félix (on loan, has since joined Barcelona), Mykhaylo Mudryk, Noni Madueke, Malo Gusto, Enzo Fernandez, Nicolas Jackson, Diego Moreira, Angelo Gabriel, Lesley Ugochukwu, Moises Caicedo, Romeo Lavia, Deivid de Souza, Djordje Petrovic and Cole Palmer. And that doesn’t even include Ishe Samuels-Smith, who was signed to the academy squad.

Most clubs go years without accumulating that much pedigree and talent, from Brazil’s top academies to the best U-23s in France to a World Cup winner in Fernandez. And the list above doesn’t even include Christopher Nkunku, Axel Disasi and Robert Sanchez, who are all the “old age” of 25 and signed during this past summer window.

Chelsea fans are rightfully excited about this crop of young players, who can hopefully become future stars. They didn’t come cheap, though. Chelsea spent the gross domestic product of a small island nation in order to attract this collection of players, with the Palmer transfer taking them north of 1 billion euros since Boehly and Clearlake Capital took over the club.

Even as a Chelsea fan and a former “Career Mode” addict, I am uncomfortable with the spending.

By signing this many players, Chelsea has adopted a strategy seemingly in accordance with the law of large numbers. If Chelsea signs enough players, surely some of them will become club legends. If Madueke flops, it doesn’t matter, because Angelo Gabriel will succeed — or so they think.

But by signing this number of players, the club has made it harder for each individual player to reach his ceiling.

It requires resources and attention to develop young players. They need instruction from their coaches on the training pitch. They need time in the gym and with the medical staff. They need advisors and agents who look out for their best interests on and off the pitch. And most importantly, they need to play a lot of minutes in competitive games.

But only 11 players can be on the pitch at any given time. Chelsea could almost play two full starting lineups just with their signings from the previous 12 months. How can that be good for anyone?

Through four Premier League matches, new manager Mauricio Pochettino and his coaching staff have shown which players they prefer, and some players whom Chelsea signed for big money in January have already fallen by the wayside.

Mudryk, for instance, has yet to start a Premier League match in 2023-24, appearing off the bench for a total of 69 minutes — not even a full 90. Chelsea paid 70 million plus future add-ons for the Ukrainian winger in a heated bidding war with Arsenal. Now it’s not clear if Chelsea even values him.

Whether or not Mudryk succeeds at Chelsea is not really the point. Chelsea appears to have no real strategy or succession plan for their players. Back in January, Mudryk’s Champions League performances made him a hot commodity, so the club threw money at Shakhtar Donetsk without any idea of how important Mudryk would be to the club’s current or future managers. The same happened to Madueke, who’s made two appearances from the bench in 2023-24 so far, despite flashing some impressive dribbling ability at the end of the 2022-23 season.

The players who have to go out on loan sometimes suffer an even worse developmental experience. After playing well in Chelsea’s pre-season tour, Andrey Santos went on loan to Nottingham Forest, a solid Premier League side (that just beat Chelsea 1-0), to supposedly play more minutes, only for Forest to sign two midfielders at the end of the transfer window. Now Santos has to spend the season playing for a club that’s not responsible for his long-term development and has made no real investment in him.

For every failure, the club will be able to point to a successful counterpart. Malo Gusto already looks like a great creative right back who’s capably filled in for the oft-injured Reece James.

But I’m not concerned about the inevitable individual successes. I’m concerned about the systemic lack of care for young players who have the pressure of 30-plus million transfer fees weighing on their shoulders. That’s no way to foster talent.

Jack Hallinan is a junior writing about the top wunderkinds in men’s and women’s soccer in his column, “Rising Ballers,” which runs every other Thursday.