The Hard Truths Of Youth Sports
A look at the economics, ethics, and equity
By Jamie Sabbach
Human nature makes it difficult to acknowledge deficiencies or inadequacies about what we like or love when it conflicts with what we want to believe. Such is the case with me and youth sports.
Courtesy of 110%
The harsh reality is that, while youth sports are celebrated and considered a must-have in most communities, youth sports also have their downsides. We simply need to keep our eyes and hearts open to the realities, as well as the possibilities and disadvantages.
Among the most consequential issues associated with youth sports today are economic assumptions involving taxpayer investments (subsidies). This is not to suggest that youth sports should not receive any taxpayer support. To the contrary. What is at question is the degree to which investments are made based upon incomplete or inaccurate claims, or based upon social pressure. This has led to youth-sports facility development and program-planning decisions which have, in certain cases, had significant consequences for communities across the country. These include:
Subsidy (taxpayer) investment in youth-sports facility-development projects, presupposing a return on investment that is based on economic-development interests
High subsidies gifted to youth sports in comparison to other types of activities/services that may serve a greater common good
Divisions that have resulted from economic disparities in many communities in terms of who participates in youth sports and who does not.
Economically, we now live in a vastly different day and age than we did just two years ago. Inflation is at a 40-year high with no signs of slowing, and its effects are not limited to individuals and families. Organizations are likely already feeling the effects of inflation, including diminished purchasing power and elevated supply, equipment, and labor costs. That means basic expenses of youth sports, like turf maintenance and trash removal, are or soon will be more costly. In addition, interest rates are increasing, so for every debt assumed, it will cost more to repay. Simply put, if we are not paying cash for that brand-spanking new facility, we should prepare for the debt load and total payment to be higher.
It is time that we ask these fundamental questions regarding youth sports and answer them with both our hearts and our minds.
Are economic-development interests clouding sound judgment?
When is enough, enough?
Who is really benefiting from investments made in youth sports today?
In The Name Of Economic Development
The often-used phrase made popular by the movie Field of Dreams suggests, “If you build it, they will come.” It has become synonymous with the idea that if we invest resources into making a vision a reality, people will flock to it.
There are communities today that see investment in new youth-sports facilities and complexes as a panacea to economic-development interests. Seeking ways to generate more revenue by way of youth sports is a phenomenon that has gained significant traction and support.
The tried-and-true playbook used to pressure towns, cities, counties, and special districts to pony up money for new youth-sports facilities has become the standard—and one needing re-assessment. Economists have warned and continue to warn that paying for youth sports-facilities—especially with public money—has long been a boondoggle.
To camouflage the ultimate liabilities a community assumes on behalf of taxpayers when choosing to build these facilities, youth-sports groups are known to step up to the plate and donate money and/or time to offset the costs of a project. Regardless of whether donations are made in the name of goodwill or are used as a way for a facility to come to life sooner than later, these contributions are often insufficient in relation to the total investment a community will make in constructing and maintaining the asset over its useful life, the infrastructure needed to support these facilities, and the environmental costs (e.g., water). This includes not only the debt current citizens will face, but also the debt the citizens of 2050 will assume as well.
“Decades of academic studies consistently find no discernible positive relationship between sports facilities and local economic development, income growth, or job creation,” authors of a Brookings Institution report wrote in 2016. If local communities were to do the math based upon the total investments made to build and maintain these properties, as well as the adjacent infrastructure required (water, roads, etc.), they would find that these facilities earned nothing close to a reasonable return on the investment of taxpayer dollars.
While examples of park and recreation systems that have chosen to construct youth-sports facilities exist, what is important to note is the regularity with which there is an absence of complete analyses before breaking ground. Further, in cases where economic-development studies are conducted that suggest new youth-sports facilities will generate millions of dollars in return, common missteps include: the analysis is commonly commissioned by those expected to be the greatest beneficiaries of the project, and the calculated costs of these assets are not representative of all costs; therefore, the comparison of real cost to perceived economic benefit is misrepresented.
Considered one of the most prolific activities in the history of the leisure profession, the Olympic Games provides a provocative case study relative to critical errors made based upon perceived economic impact and return on investment.
According to the article, “Are the Olympic Games a Bad Deal for Host Cities?” in the July 2021 edition of The Economist, calculating the economic impact of mega-events like the Olympics can be tricky. Organizers and critics argue over which costs are actually incurred by the Games, and which are investments that cities would have undertaken anyway. But one near certainty is that the Olympics blow the budget. Alexander Budzier, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Daniel Lunn of Oxford University found that every Olympics since 1960 has overspent by an average of 172 percent in real terms. In 2013, the price-tag for the games was $7.5 billion. By late 2019, the official budget had risen to $12.6 billion, and Japan’s audit board reckoned that the actual cost was twice that for the Tokyo 2021 games.
Rather than tourism and prestige, the Olympic Games have left the citizens of the host cities not much more than high debt, wasteful infrastructure, and onerous maintenance obligations. The financial stressors the Games place on communities are an excellent example of the conflicts that exist between short-term satisfaction and long-term consequences.
Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social-media outlets have become the platform for park and recreation professionals to participate in a game of show-and-tell, as they celebrate new builds such as youth-sports facilities and complexes. On occasion, construction costs are mentioned, but what gets little airtime is where the money will come from to maintain these assets. What we are seeing is a dangerous “arms race” with a hint of, “If they are building, we should, too!” or “If they have one, why can’t we?”
When Is Enough, Enough?
The economic factor does not stop there. Local youth-sports organizations (e.g., Little League, youth soccer associations) that facilitate play in communities across the country, in the majority of cases, do not own the facilities (other properties) required for practice and game play. The local communities do.
These organizations find themselves dependent upon their town, city, county, or special district to provide and maintain the facilities so the activities can exist. All too often, however, there is an expectation that these governmental entities will not only provide the spaces but also maintain them at low or no cost to the youth-sports organization and its participants, while taxpayers assume the burden of cost.
What is almost certainly forgotten is that governmental entities are choosing to subsidize these organizations and the children and families who benefit. While some may suggest these subsidy (taxpayer) investments are good for the community as a whole, it is important to understand what this means in monetary terms in order to either rationalize these investment choices or challenge them. It is not only a matter of whether or not to subsidize, but also the degree to which to subsidize in order to ensure equitable and just investment for the users and the greater community.
For example, a local park and recreation department finds itself subsidizing a local youth-sports organization to more than $250,000 per year—charging just $25 per field rental. This same department may suggest it needs more funding to do a better job of addressing community needs and is having a tough time taking care of its existing infrastructure (a common plight today). Is this $250,000 investment in one youth-sports organization justifiable given the other responsibilities the department has? What if the department chooses to continue to subsidize, if warranted, but to a lesser degree? Imagine what might be accomplished if the department halved the subsidy to $125,000—still a sizeable investment but one that might allow the department to have a greater impact with a different investment choice.
The Economic Divide—Who Is Really Benefiting?
Driving by a youth-sports complex in middle-America usually looks like this…manicured grass that is lush and green, a large scoreboard laced with corporate-sponsor names, and players in color-coded uniforms. Along the fences are team bags with the same color coding. And all of this grandeur can cost a lot of money. The question is, “Who’s paying?”
Data show that the rising cost of organized youth sports has created an economic divide in which children from lower-income homes are increasingly priced out of any game. “Kids from homes earning more than $100,000 are now twice as likely to play a team sport at least once a day as kids from families earning less than $25,000,” says Tom Farrey, the executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Sports and Society Program.
To compound the issues of economic and racial/ethnic divisions nationwide, sports participation rates for white children exceed those of children of color (Aspen Institute) as the barriers to participation, including registration fees, transportation, equipment costs, and access to play spaces, continue to exist.
A common defense used by some towns, cities, counties, and special districts to support the decision to invest taxpayer dollars in youth-sports facility development assumes these facilities are open play spaces accessible to all who may want to use them. However, when a youth-sports facility is groomed early in the day in preparation for formalized team and tournament play or is restricted for a particular use or user group, this naturally does not afford just anyone the opportunity to use the facilities at any time. What results is the select few benefiting while those with little or no access are relegated to the sidelines.
Most sports facilities tend to be spaces designed for a particular purpose, with rules of specific games and activities in mind. For example, a baseball diamond has a skinned (dirt) infield and base paths, an elevated pitcher’s mound, and an outfield fence. Apply this example to other sports facilities, and we find that specialized play spaces serve a unique purpose, foster exclusive use, and can sit idle for weeks or months at a time, inhibiting their capacity to be of benefit to a broader community.
This helps explain what is happening in various communities across the country. By subsidizing youth-sports programs and facilities to the degree certain park and recreation organizations have, large subsidies are directed to those benefiting from specialized activities serving specialized interests. In the case of today’s youth-sports programs, the beneficiaries are predominantly those who are white and whose families have an ability to pay (Aspen Institute).
In his 2017 book Dream Hoarders, the economist Richard Reeves wrote that economic mobility in the U.S. has been declining in the past few decades in part because of “opportunity hoarding.” For example, rich parents may pull special levers to get their kids into hyper-select schools, or elite internships, or exclusive entry-level jobs. In so doing, they—in effect— snatch precious opportunities away from those who may need them most. Those who can pay have advantages over those who cannot.
Making The Greatest Impact
When we choose to forgo the daily Starbucks run in order to invest that money in our children’s education savings account, we have made the choice to invest where we believe we will have the greatest impact.
Gaping inequality, an aging population, and the enormous maintenance backlogs many park and recreation organizations face due to building when times are good, with little concern for how to pay for maintenance, should be enough for park and recreation professionals to re-think their choices when it comes to investing precious subsidy dollars.
In our work at 110%, working alongside strategic partner Amilia, we analyze, among other things, how local park and recreation organizations are choosing to spend and invest taxpayer dollars, and whether these subsidy investments are justified. This includes, among other things, the amount of the subsidy that park and recreation organizations are investing in maintaining youth-sports fields, how these investments compare and contrast to other services afforded a broader community, like parks and trails, and how organizations may re-think their choices to better serve the common good.
Tables Courtesy of 110%
While leading financial-sustainability efforts for U.S. park and recreation organizations, we compared the investments made by 30 organizations with whom we worked in 2020-21. Table 1 contrasts subsidy investments made in open-access services such as parks, trails, and open spaces, with those made in sports fields and all other services. As noted, the first four organizations listed invest more taxpayer money in youth-sports fields than in parks, trails, and open spaces.
In Table 2, the contrast between the cost-recovery performances for sports fields with all other services paints a more graphic picture of the subsidy-investment choices being made by some park and recreation organizations today.
While both Table 1 and Table 2 provide compelling data and information, what only matters are the actions taken in response to what is learned.
When we consider the value that society places on sports over other types of endeavors in the U.S., perceived social values seem to be enough to justify and rationalize the significant investments we make.
We know youth sports contribute to the social, emotional, and physical development of those who participate. But are there other things that do as well? Where does that leave those who appreciate and value activities outside the lines of sport? Is it fair and just to invest millions of dollars in youth sports at the expense of strengthening the arts, community gardens, parks, and open spaces that are more accessible and serve a greater good? What if we simply expected youth-sports beneficiaries who have the ability to pay to cover more of their costs, freeing up subsidies to be invested differently in order to have a greater impact on today’s communities?
These types of provocative questions are exactly why this complicated issue continues to fly under the radar in communities today. Questioning taxpayer investment in youth sports or any special-interest area presents an opportunity for park and recreation professionals to raise the bar and level of intellectual analysis. Being smart and responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars is paramount.
What is trendy or popular seems to fascinate us and consume our precious time. As humans, we tend to put energy and resources into things that excite us—but, ultimately these fads, trends, and whatever he/she said was important fast become flavors of the day where impacts are likely not that great. All fun stuff but with a dated shelf life. Concerning ourselves with issues like intelligent and considerate investment of taxpayer dollars is where we have the greatest opportunity to make the greatest difference.
While youth sports will always be near and dear to me, I am at a crossroads in terms of what it has become, who benefits, and how we need to think differently about how best to see that they continue. I am hopeful we will keep our eye on the ball so we do what’s right on behalf of those who get to play but all who trust us to do what is just.
Jamie Sabbach has served the public park and recreation industry for more than 30 years as a practitioner, educator, advocate, and consultant. Her current work with 110% focuses on helping park and recreation professionals cultivate financially responsible and sustainable organizations. Reach her at jamie.sabbach@110percent.net.