Why youth sports must prioritize kids over profits

The World Cup reignited a familiar debate about American youth sports. At the same time, lawmakers from both parties have introduced legislation aimed at curbing predatory private equity practices, reflecting growing concern over rising costs and shrinking access. Those conversations are connected, and they point to a bigger question: What should youth sports actually be optimized for?

As former NFL players, fathers, and people who have spent our lives around youth athletics, we believe the answer is simple: participation.

We understand why this moment has prompted scrutiny. Youth sports have become more expensive. More complicated. Too often, families feel like they're being asked to spend thousands of dollars before a child has even decided whether they love the game.

Those concerns affect far more than the next generation of athletes and deserve addressing head-on.

But as the national conversation continues, we also believe it's important to distinguish between the practices that deserve criticism and the investments that are helping remove barriers for families. The question isn't simply who is investing in youth sports. It's whether those investments are making it easier or harder for kids to play.

COACH STEVE: Early morning after night game? No problem if you're Ohio's LLWS coach

That's the standard every organization in youth sports should be held to.

Are more kids getting the opportunity to play? Are costs coming down or going up? Is the experience becoming more accessible, or more exclusive?

Some organizations have earned the criticism they're receiving. When families are burdened by escalating fees, pressured into year-round commitments, or made to feel that meaningful participation is only available to those who can afford it, that's a problem.

But it would be a mistake to conclude that every investor, every operator, or every business model shares those incentives.

The reality is that youth sports don't have one problem. They have many.

Rising costs. Volunteer burnout. Aging community infrastructure. Increasing administrative burdens. Pressure to specialize earlier than ever. Families feeling like they have to choose one sport because they simply can't afford two.

Those challenges existed long before private equity entered the conversation, and they won't disappear simply by changing who owns youth sports organizations.

The youth sports debate is missing the bigger issue

What matters are the incentives.

Is investment being used to extract value from families or create more value for them?

Because investment, by itself, isn't inherently good or bad. It depends entirely on what it's trying to accomplish.

Across the country, countless youth leagues are run by volunteers who coach after work, spend weekends organizing schedules, coordinate referees, manage registrations, secure field permits, complete background checks, order uniforms, and answer late-night emails from parents. They're the backbone of youth sports, but they're also under tremendous pressure.

Those community leaders don't necessarily need someone to replace them. They need someone to support them.

If investment provides better technology, lowers administrative burdens, improves safety, creates more consistent experiences, and helps local organizations serve more families at an affordable cost, that's strengthening youth sports, not extracting from it.

REQUIRED READING: LLWS star Kinley Rasmus' next challenge? Playing for the nation's top flag football team

The opposite is true as well. If success is measured by continually asking families to spend more while fewer children can afford to participate, then we've lost sight of what youth sports is supposed to be about.

Because participation should be the scoreboard.

Not tournament revenue.

Not travel miles.

Not the size of the business.

Sports teach lessons that last far longer than any season. They teach resilience after failure. Confidence through preparation. Leadership, accountability, teamwork, discipline, and belonging.

Those lessons aren't reserved for the small percentage of kids who will eventually play in college or professionally.

They're just as important for the child who plays for two seasons and never picks up a ball again.

Every kid deserves the opportunity to experience that.

That's why affordability and accessibility aren't side conversations. They're the foundation.

If families are forced to choose between sports because costs have become prohibitive, or if children are expected to specialize before they've had the chance to simply enjoy competing with friends, everyone loses.

We've both lived this from different perspectives.

As parents, we've watched our own kids discover the joy that comes from being part of a team. We've also experienced the calendar pressures, the travel commitments, and the financial realities that many families are navigating every season.

As former athletes, we know firsthand that playing multiple sports helped shape us, not just as competitors, but as people.

The future of American sports depends on creating more opportunities for kids to play, not fewer.

Whether we're talking about soccer, flag football, basketball, baseball, hockey, volleyball or any other sport, the strongest pipeline isn't built by asking more of the few.

It's built by creating opportunities for the many.

That means supporting the organizations that have earned the trust of their communities—parks and recreation departments, Police Athletic Leagues, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, schools, local volunteers, and professional leagues that are investing in growing participation.

It also means recognizing that thoughtful investment can help those organizations do what they've always wanted to do: reach more kids.

This doesn't have to be a debate between nonprofit versus for-pro...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Yahoo Sports. Open at source →