Youth sports business model hurts kids. New poll shows parents are fed up.
From the WNBA All-Star Game to the British Open Championship, sports fans had ample opportunities to see elite athletes in action this past weekend. Many of those watching are children with dreams of their own athletic success.
Youth sports is a $40 billion a year industry with tens of millions of American kids participating in baseball, basketball, football, golf, soccer and other athletic competitions.
Emphasis on the word 'industry.' There is much more to the competitiveness than participation alone. In recent years, youth sports have attracted unprecedented investments from private equity giants, family foundations and other entities, whether it means buying a baseball camp or building a flag football field.
Youth sports have become a big business
Sky-high investments are creating entire youth leagues from scratch, attracting boys and girls as a rite of passage.
This is not our parents' youth sports system, where local offshoots of Little League Baseball and Pop Warner reigned supreme. It is an entirely new ecosystem, bringing big bucks and forcing many families to pay up. Where kids see a (slim) chance to turn pro one day, there is also (cautious) optimism about a return on investment via college scholarships or name, image and likeness checks.
But the investment itself is not cheap. The average U.S. sports family spends more than $1,000 on a child's primary sport − a 46% increase since 2019. Then there are the second and third sports − more scratches on the lottery ticket.
For growing numbers of parents and kids, the feeling is stress, stress and more stress. According to new research from The Harris Poll, conducted for USA TODAY, parents overwhelmingly want youth sports to promote balance, character and inclusion.
Instead, they're navigating a high-pressure, high-cost system that serves a select few, at the expense of kids who are thrust into high-stakes situations at a young age.
The numbers don't lie. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of parents say their child's sports team travels more than necessary − a burden that hits time-strapped, lower-income families especially hard.
Almost 8 in 10 parents support reducing travel, while 72% want a model with fewer games and more practice.
A similar percentage (73%) say youth sports have lost sight of their original purpose: Fostering fun and teaching teamwork.
Parents are not delusional. Only 8% of parents claim that the goal of youth sports should be a college scholarship, while just 12% say it means preparing for a pro career. Nearly 9 in 10 parents (89%) believe that it is important for their child to enjoy playing sports.
And yet, the youth sports ecosystem − now driven by private equity − often behaves as if celebrity status and monetary gain are the primary goals. Just ask parents, 61% of whom believe that youth sports organizations prioritize profit over purpose. Even more (63%) feel that sports-related costs and time demands undermine the spirit of play.
While most parents are realistic about their kids' long-term prospects in sports, they will continue to make sacrifices for them to participate − from missing work to skipping family vacations. What they need in return is a youth sports ecosystem that better suits their time and budget constraints.
Youth sports puts strains on family life
The ever-growing commercialization of the early specialization in sports has a wide range of consequences, including academic strain and stress on the family unit. Our need to 'keep up with the Joneses' can be a challenge for entire communities navigating a high-stakes environment, as yet another mega-sports complex pops up down the road.
For the sake of kids, parents are calling for a reset. They don't want to see a broken youth sports system. What they want is an ecosystem that prioritizes childhood development, family balance and accessibility at a time when finances are already pulled in too many directions.
The status quo is serving a select few who could one day become WNBA All-Stars or major championship winners in golf.
But what about the rest of America's sports families? The system may not be broken for the few, but it's looking more and more so for most.
Will Johnson serves as CEO at The Harris Poll.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
7 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Here's why Trump's proposed 401k executive order may be very bad news for your retirement
BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 7:11 Amidst the other recent headlines about his signature, you may have missed the news that Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order in the coming days that will allow defined-contribution plans like your 401k to include private market investments. If you're not the sort of person who views a mutual fund prospectus as light beach reading, this may sound like the kind of boring story that only your crypto-obsessed brother-in-law might care about. But this is serious business that could have repercussions on your retirement —especially if you're not paying attention. This proposed policy could be sending us down the same bumpy road that knocked the tires off of company-sponsored pension plans, dramatically increasing retirement insecurity for most American workers. Here's what you need to know. What's in the executive order? The specific details of the forthcoming executive order (EO) remain hazy. But most experts agree that the president will probably use the EO as an opportunity to formalize the 2020 Pantheon Ventures/Partners Group opinion letter from the Department of Labor. This letter, issued during Trump's first administration, suggests that private equity investment options could be included in defined-benefit plans (i.e., 401k and 403b plans and the like) as part of a target-dated fund or other managed fund. The letter also emphasizes that plan participants should not be able to directly access private equity investments. It's likely this letter may serve as a blueprint for the EO that crosses Trump's desk in the near future. What's private equity? Private equity is an investment in a privately traded company by an accredited investor or group of investors who take on a controlling interest in the organization. Though typically lucrative, private equity investing is often characterized by a long time horizon and a lack of liquidity. Private equity firms often charge high fees and expenses, and they may not disclose conflicts of interest. Let's look at these specific characteristics: Private trading Private equity is an investment class that is not available to the general public. This is unlike shares in publicly traded companies that anyone can purchase on the open market. Accredited investors An individual may be considered an accredited investor if they have earned $200,000 (or $300,000 with a spouse) for each of the past two years, or if they have a net worth of over $1 million excluding their primary residence. This means you're only allowed to invest in private equity if you can be relatively sure you won't be completely wiped out if you make a single bad investment. Controlling interest Typically, private equity investors take a controlling interest in the company and work to actively manage the business in order to increase its value. Illiquidity Private equity investment requires a long time horizon and most private equity funds will impose limits on when an investor can withdraw their funds. These limits will often last years. Fee structure Private equity funds come with fees and expenses that can be confusing, opaque, or just plain undisclosed. Conflicts of interest Private equity firms can and do have interests that conflict with those of their investors and the funds they manage. Though the SEC has proposed stronger rules for Private Fund advisers, and the commission does enforce what it can, investors must remain vigilant for the possibility of conflicts of interest. So what's the problem with private equity? There are some very good reasons why defined-benefit plans have always been closed to private equity. At its best, private equity is an effective tool that can help companies restructure and position themselves for future growth. This is what Dell did in 2013. But too often, private equity functions more like the 'Bust Out' episode of The Sopranos, where Tony drives his friend Davey's sporting goods store into bankruptcy by maxing out debt to purchase inventory the mobsters peddle for a profit. Sears and Toys 'R' Us are two examples of companies that didn't survive their private equity adventures. Those two bankruptcies eliminated 70,000 jobs, and company pension plans were eventually frozen or terminated. Why add private equity to 401k plans? There are $12.2 trillion worth of assets in U.S. defined contribution retirement plans. Private equity would appreciate getting a foothold in an investment sector that has traditionally been cut off from non-accredited investors. Proponents of the idea claim that allowing 401k investors to include private equity in their defined contribution plans will give them the opportunity to enjoy the higher returns that are typically restricted to accredited investors. But detractors worry that private equity is too risky and illiquid an investment class to have in a workplace retirement plan—which is where an employee would take a hardship withdrawal during a tough economic time. Critics like Elizabeth Warren have called private equity predatory and demanded stronger regulations. Why not just ignore it? If investing in private equity isn't your cup of tea, it may seem reasonable to simply put the matter out of your mind. You just won't invest in any of the private equity target-dated funds and your 401k will continue chugging along. The only issue with this plan is the fact that opening the door to private equity in our defined contribution plans will also make the employers sponsoring those plans more vulnerable. Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), employers have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the investment options in your 401k are prudent and that any fees are not onerous. Plan sponsors have traditionally been leery of private equity in 401k retirement plans because of their illiquidity, complexity, opacity, and high fees, which leaves them open to ERISA lawsuits. Considering the fact that ERISA lawsuits against excessive 401k fees have risen to a near record high in the past year, employers have good reason to be worried. Yes, this does mean that everything is working as planned. Employers are supposed to take fiduciary responsibility for their employees' retirement plans, and when they don't, the workers can file ERISA lawsuits against them–and win. So far, so good. But the creation of ERISA 50 years ago, including the much-vaunted litigation portion of the law, may have contributed to the decline of pension plans. If it ain't broke . . . Placing even more complex fiduciary responsibility on the shoulders of employers could have similar unintended consequences that we can't yet see. Average 401k savings rates and balances have recently been at record highs. As pensions have declined, and more Americans are feeling nervous about the future of Social Security, do we really want to open up defined contribution retirement plans to a new class of under-regulated, risky investments? The average retirement investor simply has no need of private equity in their 401k. The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is this Friday, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The daughter of a financial planner, Emily Guy Birken never stood a chance: Try as she might to avoid her destiny (undergraduate degree in English with a focus on creative writing at Kenyon, MEd from The Ohio State University, teaching, motherhood), her innate fascination with money turned her into one of the most compelling and relatable writers on personal finance.. Based in Milwaukee and a regular guest on Wisconsin Public Radio, she has written for The Washington Post, USA Today, and many other publications and websites. In her "What to Expect When You're Investing" series for Fast Company, she has offered tips on getting your kids through college without going broke as well as advice on what to do if you run out of money in retirement. Whether explicating the hidden money lessons in the movie Groundhog Day or explaining why "spaving" is probably not a wise financial strategy for most of us, Emily offers data-driven insights with heaping portions of common sense and humor. More
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Elizabeth Shackelford: Burning down America's best tool for peace and prosperity
On July 11, the U.S. State Department imposed sweeping layoffs as part of a large-scale reorganization. Why should this matter to you? Violence is surging across the globe — 2024 saw the highest number of state-based armed conflicts in over 70 years. In our globalized world, instability affects us whether we like it or not. This means now is a very bad time to undermine our diplomatic capabilities, which is exactly what this will do. Diplomacy is our least expensive and least risky foreign policy tool, and the State Department leads it. Much like preventative health care, the more effectively we invest in it early on, the fewer costly and dangerous crises we face later. If we don't, we'll have to rely on riskier and costlier tools to defend our national security interests, such as economic coercion or military intervention. Because it's less visible, diplomacy is often underrated and overlooked. It's hard to take credit for the crises we avoid. But American diplomacy — backed up by our military might — is what kept us out of a hot war with the Soviet Union, has prevented war between China and Taiwan, and ended conflict between Egypt and Israel, to name a few. I've seen diplomacy mitigate conflict in places such as Kenya, Burundi and Somalia. As a former U.S. diplomat, I know that these sloppy cuts at State will cost us a lot. As the world moves undoubtedly into a more conflict-ridden future, we are undermining our own ability to navigate that world safely. Our military leaders have long understood this. As Gen. James Mattis said during testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2013, 'If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.' Effective diplomacy requires skilled diplomats and regional and subject matter experts. It relies on investment in the long game, building strong relationships and addressing underlying causes of conflict and instability. This administration is tossing that all aside with little concern for the consequences. No career civil servant would deny that the State Department could use serious, thoughtful reform. But this is not that. Like the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts that came before, the State Department 'reorganization' has been conducted with little appreciation or understanding of what it does, how it works and why it matters. This is no surprise given who was put in charge of it. Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old former DOGE staffer with no prior experience with the State Department or diplomacy, has taken the lead. He was promoted this month to undersecretary, the department's third-highest ranking. He's been assisted by Lew Olowski, an entry-level Foreign Service officer who was recently tapped to lead the human resources department, a position typically held by a long-serving member of the Senior Foreign Service. Their qualifying criteria apparently consist of being loyal to the administration of President Donald Trump and willing to break things. The result is costly and dangerous. Delaware Sen. Chris Coons highlighted some of the most egregious outcomes during a recent Senate hearing. While grilling the deputy secretary of state for management, Coons pointed out, 'You literally just fired department experts on nuclear proliferation, including experts with decades of expertise on Iran's nuclear weapons program, (on) ending Russia's invasion of Ukraine.' Other casualties included key parts of the counterterrorism bureau; the entire office for countering violent extremism; half of State's cybersecurity bureau (which had a leading role in countering China's cyberattacks); most of the office focused on science, technology cooperation and critical technologies, including artificial intelligence; much of the office addressing fraud prevention for visas and passports; and the offices focused on drug trafficking and energy diplomacy, both areas that the administration had specifically indicated were top priorities. Widespread cuts to the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) were met with shock, since it serves Americans directly and is self-funded through service fees. CA issues passports and visas and is responsible for the welfare of Americans abroad. The Office of Casualty Assistance, for example, assists victims of crime and terrorist attacks and helps repatriate bodies of Americans who die overseas. It was eliminated. I've made those heartbreaking calls to families to tell them a loved one has died. I've helped them navigate hospitals, criminal investigations, repatriation and grief — with critical support from Washington. You'll feel these cuts if you find yourself in trouble in a foreign country. I also know many people who were let go: experts with extensive language skills, knowledge and relationships cultivated over decades. These are taxpayer-funded investments that cannot be rebuilt overnight. Not that this administration intends to try. It ultimately plans to slash the State Department budget by almost half, to $28 billion. For comparison, Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' increased military spending to over $1 trillion, which is $156 billion more than the Department of Defense asked for. This means the U.S. military got a tip nearly six times the entire planned State Department budget. If you don't mind a future with more war, we can just keep buying more ammunition. But if you want a safer world, tell your government to invest in the tools of peace.
Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Getting ready for Indy's next big bash
Indianapolis has experienced an impressive run of major events over the past 18 months, with Taylor Swift concerts, total solar eclipses, NBA Finals games and, most recently, WNBA All-Star Weekend. But as the dust settles, so will some of the global attention, at least for a little bit. Why it matters: These moments are not just opportunities for tourists. They draw residents downtown and help them fall in love with the Circle City all over again. "Whether it is something that is of particular interest to them, the sheer volume of people that come into this city and are out and about exploring Indy adds such an element of vibrancy," Visit Indy's Morgan Snyder told Axios. "For residents to come downtown, see an activated convention center and downtown core and restaurants busy with visitors, there should be an immense pride in that. Because people coming into our city, loving on our city and spending dollars in Indianapolis makes it a better place to live." State of play: For Downtown Indy Inc. president and CEO Taylor Schaffer, the next big thing to put all eyes on Indianapolis will be the 2026 NCAA men's Final Four on April 4-6. It will be the fourth time Lucas Oil Stadium has hosted the event, but the most recent time was in 2021, when the pandemic led to the entire men's tournament taking place in a "bubble" in Indianapolis and cardboard cutouts of fans filling the stands. What she's saying:"The last time that we actually held a Final Four, really, was 2015. And I just think the event has grown and changed so much," she said. "I think that it's going to look different and feel different for our basketball-loving state than what it felt like 10 years ago." The intrigue: The 2025 Men's Final Four in San Antonio featured events including a three-day music festival, a week of tailgate tip-off parties, a floating pep rally down the San Antonio River Walk and more. The semifinals and championship game had a combined attendance of more than 132,000. Yes, but: Indy is hosting other big events before then — they just don't generate as much outside attention because they're yearly occurrences and often have more contained (or closed to the public) programming. The latest: Next weekend marks the return of Gen Con and the Indiana State Fair, events estimated to bring in attendance of about 70,000 and 100,000 people, respectively. Snyder said the tabletop gaming convention had an economic impact of $77 million last year, breaking an attendance record with its first sellout. It's already approaching another potential sellout this summer. Zoom in: More than 25 events, driving an estimated total attendance of nearly 700,000 people to Central Indiana, are scheduled between August and Jan. 1. 🥁 Drum Corps International: Aug. 7-9, 30,000 people ⛳ LIV Golf Tournament: Aug. 15-17, 45,000 🏈 Circle City Classic: Sept. 27, 20,000 🍜 World Food Championships: Oct. 16-19, 15,000 🧑🌾 FFA 2025: Oct. 29 – Nov. 1, 70,000 🏆 Big Ten Football Championship: Dec. 6, 70,000
