The late management guru W. Edwards Deming once observed, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Forty-five years ago, the United States made its first attempt at organizing its disjointed sport ecosystem in a manner that balanced competing interests and advanced public health. With the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, Congress outsourced that responsibility to the U.S. Olympic Committee, a private, not-for-profit corporation that is now called the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee.
The USOPC, in turn, certifies and oversees 51 National Governing Bodies. Each NGB is charged with coordinating amateur sport activity within their sport and growing participation rates, with a special focus on women and girls, racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities. But it’s an unfunded mandate by Congress, and since the 1990s the USOPC has told Congress it can’t both get Americans off the couch and on to the podium – that it needs to focus on supporting elite athletes.
That model is now under scrutiny by the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics. Formed by Congress in response to the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, the Commission will deliver a report by spring 2024 that includes findings and recommendations on topics including governance, finances, athlete safety and inclusion, and accountability within the ecosystem of the more than 11 million participants, coaches and administrators directly affiliated with NGBs – and the tens of millions more whose experience is shaped by a lack of good sport governance.
In advance of a Sept. 6 public hearing on Capitol Hill, co-chairs Dionne Koller and Han Xiao made clear the commission’s desire to explore systemic change. They wrote, “The success of this [commission] does not only affect America’s high-performance Olympic and Paralympic competitors; it impacts the millions of people, including so many of our nation’s children, who participate or seek to participate in movement sports in communities across the country.”
The first comprehensive study of sport governance at a federal level in nearly a half century, the study will land at a time of great challenge, amid dwindling youth participation rates as we emerge from the pandemic, a growing mental and physical health crisis in the U.S., shortages of coaches and referees, and the continuing struggle of leaders to prevent and process abuse cases.
Many countries face the same problems. Some are better equipped than others to address them. To inform public conversation on the path forward in the U.S., the Aspen Institute studied the governance models and ecosystem results in 11 peer countries, with a focus on youth sport participation rates and elite performance – the grassroots and treetops. Below are the countries studied in our comparative analysis, which drew upon both existing and original research.
| Population | Youth Sport Participation (i) | Government Support (i) | Elite Sport Rank (ii) | Elite Sport Rank Per Capita | |
| United States | 331M | C | D | 1 | 40 |
| Norway | 5M | A- | A- | 11 | 1 |
| Spain | 48M | B+ | C | 17 | 36 |
| Sweden | 10M | B+ | B | 12 | 6 |
| Australia | 26M | B- | C- | 7 | 9 |
| Germany | 83M | B- | B+ | 9 | 32 |
| Japan | 126M | B- | B | 8 | 41 |
| New Zealand | 5M | B- | A | 24 | 4 |
| Canada | 38M | C+ | B- | 5 | 11 |
| France | 68M | C | B | 2 | 26 |
| United Kingdom | 67M | D | B | 4 | 28 |
| China | 1.4B | F | D | 3 | 61 |
(i) Most grades in Youth Sport Participation and Government Support categories are drawn from a 2022 report by the Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance, a not-for-profit comprised of researchers, health professionals and stakeholders who work together to advance physical activity in children and adolescents. Report cards for the countries evaluated are based on a harmonized framework and standardized grading rubric, as reflected in the Global Matrix 4.0. A grade of C, for instance, means a country is “succeeding with about half (47-53%) of children.”
The Government Support grade is given by experts in that country based on “evidence of leadership and commitment” by government “in providing physical activity opportunities or participation of children and adolescents through policy, legislation or regulation.” No grades were offered in the Global Matrix report for Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., so the Aspen Institute consulted experts in each country, using the same criteria. In the U.S., “D” was the weighted grade offered by 90 experts engaged with Project Play, among them youth sport industry leaders surveyed at a recent conference hosted by LeagueApps.
(ii) The Elite Sport Rank and Elite Sport Rank Per Capita categories are drawn from Greatest Sporting Nation, a website that analyzes elite international competition results in Olympic and other sports, not including those that involve animals or cars. The first category is a measure of the total number of athletes and teams in 2022 who performed well in competition, while the latter calculates results relative to a nation’s total population.
The countries studied vary in population, geography, culture and forms of government, but all have found success in either youth sports or elite sports, or both. Click on any nation to read two-page summaries of their sport governance structures or find all summaries in one place here. Over the next year, the Aspen Institute will develop additional resources on sport governance, as we facilitate public conversation on how to build a better sport system at all levels – from the federal to the state to the local.
All sport systems have flaws, and some countries we studied are the size of states. However, among those with the highest grades for Youth Sport Participation, four success factors emerged.
1. Mass Participation is prioritized
National sports policy starts with a recognition of the social and health benefits of mass participation in sport and physical activities, and that high-performance success is built on that foundation. The motto of Sweden’s sport system, for instance, is "as many as possible, for as long as possible." Australia’s mission is to “lead, support, and provide opportunities for all communities to be involved in sport, while growing elite success and representation, inspiring future generations,” followed by measurable objectives around mass participation and high-performance aspirations.
In the 1990s, in response to sub-par Olympic performances, Norway rebuilt its sport system on the foundation of Children’s Rights in Sports, a statement aligned with human rights principles that prioritizes local, low-cost competition and training that is developmentally appropriate for youth. A nation the size of Minnesota (5 million) now tops the medal chart in winter sports and has produced world-class talent in warm-weather sports as well, including soccer, beach volleyball, golf, tennis, and track and field. The official national sports philosophy of Norway is, “The joy of sport for all.”
The U.S. wins more at the international level than any nation. However, topping that list is partly a function of population size rather than sport system design; the U.S. ranks 40th in the world in medals per capita. Only 51% of youth ages 6-17 in the U.S. play on a sports team (hence the C grade for youth sports participation) according to federal data, with most youth dropping out before high school. Increasingly, the system is shaped by the chase for roster spots in college, Olympic and professional sports. Access to those pipelines often flows through expensive private clubs whose business models serve higher-income families.
2. Ecosystems are connected
Like in the U.S., local clubs in many countries are led by volunteers or in some cases paid staff who deliver sport programs that members of the community desire. However, these clubs are often more meaningfully connected to state bodies and sport governing bodies upstream.
Germany, for instance, has 91,000 sports clubs, all members of the German Sports Confederation and German Olympic Committee. It’s a federated system of governance that still connects ecosystems from the grassroots to the treetops. Clubs sit alongside the country’s 66 national sport federations, 16 regional sports confederations, and 17 sports associations. That creates opportunities to communicate and address issues of common interest across the network of 27 million members.
The U.S. has no confederation of sport bodies apart from the USOPC, which lacks the authority to play that role effectively and reduced grassroots representation when it shrunk the size of its board more than two decades ago. The Sports Act does not require that sport providers even register with the NBG charged with coordinating activities across their sport, much less abide by best practices in youth or athletic development. It’s a chaotic landscape that lacks protections for young people, leaves providers on their own to survive and thrive, and denies families information they could use to find coaches and programs that might best serve the interests of their child.
3. Government Bodies Provide Support
The above sport confederations are often quasi-government bodies that sit alongside a federal agency that serves as liaison to other government bodies. Sometimes these bodies are housed within the agency, as with Japan where the Japan Sports Agency sits within the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The JSA aims to create a Japanese “society in which people are healthy in body and mind and lead a cultural lifestyle [of sport] throughout their lives.”
Lotteries are often tapped to raise funds for sport development, with eight of the 11 countries we studied drawing on gambling proceeds. Japan designates three-quarters of its lottery sales profits towards diverse sports projects, with the Sports Promotion Lottery channeling $102 million USD annually into community sport. Norway allocates 64% of national gambling and sports betting proceeds to sports, amounting to around $400 million USD annually. These funds fuel various initiatives, including new projects, coach training, equipment upgrades, and facility development. In the U.S, sports betting and gambling are controlled by the states. So far, only one state (Colorado) has allocated lottery proceeds to fund recreation space and only New York uses sports betting to support youth sports.
Several U.S. federal agencies make contributions to informing and shaping the landscape of youth sports. Most notably, the Department of Health & Human Services authored the National Youth Sports Strategy, a resource that stakeholders can consult to develop ideas for growing participation, and houses the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition which advocates for physical fitness. Neither plays a governance role in the sport ecosystem, leaving the U.S. without a clearly defined federal sports strategy or core set of actionable goals.
4. Incentives drive progress
In peer countries, government support is designed to enhance accountability, quality, and inclusivity in sport for the masses. A standout feature is the coupling of funding with compliance measures related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. If sports clubs or non-profit community programs seek funding, they must demonstrate tangible progress toward these objectives.
For instance, Sport England's Code for Sport Governance integrates diversity and inclusion into its certification process. The Code emphasizes that, "Each organization shall publish clear ambitions to ensure it represents and reflects the diversity of the local and/or national community." Failure to provide a diversity and inclusion plan renders organizations ineligible for funding. In Norway, National Sport Federations bear the responsibility for cultivating safe, fair, and inclusive environments for participants, and government funding of sports facilities is reserved for those that meet universal design requirements promoting usability for all, regardless of physical abilities.
The USOPC distributes more than $100 million annually to NGBs based on progress reports they submit, but it’s all about support for high-performance athletes. Like Sport Canada, the sports arm of the government for our northern neighbor, the USOPC has recognized the value of long-term athlete development theory that starts in childhood, packaging it as the American Development Model (ADM). Many NGBs have created sport-specific ADM plans but lack the financial incentives to promote adoption by grassroots sport providers. The lack of incentives also means only certain families can access programs, widening the margin on diversity, inclusion, and equity.
We close with one final observation in our study of world sport systems, on safeguarding.
Abuse in all its forms – sexual, physical and emotional – is a pervasive issue in sport globally. Our review found that many countries are struggling to introduce effective systems to protect children, streamline reporting systems, and weed out perpetrators. The United States is among those that have established a quasi-independent body to lead on these matters, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which, on the orders of Congress, gets $20 million annually from the USOPC and NGBs but remains underfunded. Other countries with such bodies include Australia, Canada and England.
Government agencies often provide oversight of the safeguarding system as part of a larger set of responsibilities related to fairness and safety in sports, including anti-doping, competition integrity, sports betting, and good governance. England also implemented a Duty of Care law that holds coaches and sport leaders to the same safeguarding standards as teachers, as both work with children. They can be held liable for physical or mental injuries if they act negligently.
Which ideas from around the world work best for the U.S. as the Commission, policymakers and sport leaders consider ways to better guide the development of Olympic and grassroots sport? We hope our research – summaries of peer nations – offers inspiration, and the motivation to improve upon government support and youth participation rates in the United States.
We can do better.
Dr. Ashleigh Huffman, the lead researcher on this project, is former chief of sport diplomacy at the U.S. State Department. Tom Farrey, who edited the series, is executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Sports & Society Program, the backbone organization for Project Play.