The best-performing sport systems in the world prioritize mass participation and create basic protections for youth athletes. Ecosystems are interconnected from the grassroots to the treetops. Access gaps are identified and incentives are created for stakeholders to close them. These are key findings from Aspen Institute research on the World’s Leading Sport Systems.
The United States is programs-rich and systems-poor. More than 100,000 organizations offer youth sports and families alone spend north of $30 billion a year keeping their kids in the game. But churn rates are high, with many kids quitting sports before middle school. Easily pushed aside are low-income youth and other vulnerable populations. In our comparative global analysis, the U.S. gets a C grade for Youth Sport Participation rate (51% play on a team), and a D for Government Support as judged by youth sports providers.
How to improve those grades? How to help club, school and other sport providers collaborate more effectively? How to help families find programs that will best serve their child? How to balance the competing interests of stakeholders the next time a pandemic, recession, or other crisis hits? How to build a more sustainable model for youth sports, one that unlocks new opportunities to build healthier communities?
The Aspen Institute aims to facilitate public conversation on how to develop better systems at the local, state and national levels. Our contributions include reports, virtual roundtables and the Project Play Summit where in May 2024 we hosted a session on building the nation’s first-ever Youth Sports Policy Agenda. Our assessment: Get it right at the base of our system to reduce abuse and improve health and social outcomes at every level that sits on top, from college to Olympic to pro.
NATIONAL
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy at 2016 Project Play roundtable
In March 2024, the Commission on the State of United States Olympics and Paralympics delivered a report to Congress on its study on the function of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and more than 50 affiliated National Governing Bodies of sports. The review represents the first assessment of sports policy impacting young athletes in a half century, since the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports that led to the creation of what is now called the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act.
“The success of this movement 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,” Commission co-chairs Dionne Koller and Han Xiao announced in September 2023 before its lone public hearing. “America’s athletes at all levels deserve to engage in sports safely and access sports equitably, with the institutions that oversee these sports governed with transparency and accountability.”
Read Aspen’s analysis of the commission’s report, with five ideas to explore and five questions to answer.
Related materials
Olympic and Paralympic reform commission hearing: The 14-member commission was created in response to the Larry Nassar scandal. The commission hosted its lone public hearing on September 6, 2023 on Capitol Hill where U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee CEO Sarah Hirshland, U.S. Center for Safe Sport CEO Ju’Riese Colón, the Aspen Institute’s Tom Farrey and Vince Minjares, US Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart and other speakers offered testimony. Transcript of hearing | CSPAN replay | Aspen Institute recap.
Amateur Sports Act: The original 1978 Act can be found here. The latest amendment to the Act can be found here. A description of the duties of NGBs can be found here.
Legal analysis: In the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, Fordham law professor Mark Conrad proposes a path forward for the Commission and ways to support improved sport governance.
Global comparative analysis: Learn how the U.S. sport system is structured in our two-page summary, and explore how 11 other countries organize their systems to support youth sport participation and elite athlete performance.
Commission survey: On Americans’ perceptions of youth sports and the Olympic and Paralympic movement.
STATES
Some states are now regulating or proposing the regulation of non-school sport programs. Others are allocating new funding to support programs that serve vulnerable populations, and some legislatures have created sports commissions to recruit events and engage with youth sports stakeholders. At the Project Play Summit in May 2024, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore became the first governor to sign on to the Children’s Bill of Rights in Sports, a set of guiding principles that more than 500 athletes, organizations, counties and cities have endorsed.
Related materials
Five leading examples: In recent years, some states have begun providing substantial public resources and setting up guardrails for young children involved in organized athletics. The absence of federal regulation and persistent problems with the youth sports ecosystem — low participation rates in poor communities, an epidemic of overuse injuries, and a lack of systematic training or oversight of coaches — have spurred the changes in state behavior. Colorado, Alabama, California, Minnesota and Massachusetts stand out for their leadership in addressing these oversights. Read Linda Flanagan’s Report
How states can support: States have used five levers to address gaps in safety and equity in youth sports: 1) Legislation and regulation; 2) Funding and support; 3) Partnerships and collaborations; 4) Education and awareness campaigns; and 5) Monitoring and oversight. Download a two-page resource with 20 examples of state actions.
CITIES AND COUNTIES
Even at the local level, youth sports is a messy, siloed space. Club and school coaches don’t communicate well with each other. Programs fight for facilities space. Efforts to reach underserved populations are scattershot. Some municipal and county governments have created boards to work through such issues.
Related materials
Three leading examples: A handful of cities and counties have begun to pay closer attention to how sports in their areas are organized and made available to youth. Some local governments are working to coordinate and rationalize the way sports are offered to children and adolescents in their areas. Others are providing funds to neighborhood youth sports groups. Governments in three communities stand out for their leadership in improving youth sports: Fairfax County, Virginia; Montgomery County, Maryland; and the city of Philadelphia. Read Linda Flanagan’s Report
Five ways cities and counties can support: A two-page resource with five mechanisms local governments can use to increase access and quality in youth sports programs: 1) Collaboration with schools and sports providers; 2) Permitting and regulation; 3) Funding and grants; 4) Facilities management; and 5) Community outreach and engagement. Download the Two-Pager
What ideas do you have to improve sports system design? Write us at sportsandsociety@aspeninstitute.org.
Rewind
Conversations from Project Play Summits and Future of Sports webinars on sports policy and governance:
