Photo via Pxhere
***
From June to July, 2026, the United States co-hosted the Men’s FIFA World Cup alongside its continental companions, Mexico and Canada. After the U.S.’s exit in the Round of 16, the search for blame began. Consequently, conversation surrounding the culture of youth soccer in the U.S. ramped up. Critics of the modern system highlight an increased commercialization of the sport as well as the lack of community-level pickup play as major problems preventing soccer’s success and reach. Whatever the reason may be for the loss by the men’s national team, it sparked productive and necessary discourse concerning the industry that youth sports has become in the U.S.
Endless maxims are told about the need for discipline, teamwork, physical activity, and many other intrinsic values instilled by sports and team play. Values that are said to be essential to develop for adult life. Our government and public health organizations regularly join in on the promotion of these values.
In a recent hearing held on December 16, 2025, by the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Kevin Kiley highlighted the “important role” youth sports play in the personal development of children’s personality and skills. Additionally, Kiley takes into account the individual and national loss that may come from non-participation in sports by youths. He suggests that the development of these skills heightens not only children’s individual well-being but also offers a general benefit to the broader nation. From parental precepts to governmental guidance, engagement in youth sports has been pushed as a means of facilitating the development of foundational values and skills in the nation’s children.
However, the state of youth sports in the U.S. continues to be a disjointed system. Children’s involvement is highly affected by their economic status, location, and race. The Aspen Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on social change in the U.S., has taken a special interest in the nation’s youth sports scene. Utilizing the perspectives of leaders in youth sports, outside research, and their own data analysis, the Aspen Institute created a State of Play 2025 report. Based on the research conducted by the Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), Aspen’s report discusses major disparities and disadvantages within the youth sports sector in their section titled “Participation Trends.”
Among several positive trends, the report mentions the impact of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids throughout the country on youths’ ability and desire to participate in sports. The higher rate of scheduling conflicts in Latino families compared to those of non-Latino families is cited as well. Along with the fact that children from households earning $100,000 or more are twice as likely to play travel sports as those from households earning $50,000 or less. Finally, there is a widening gap of 20.9% in youth sports participation between families making $25,000 a year or less and those making $100,000 a year or more, compared to a 13.6% gap in 2012. Children from higher-income families participate more and specialize in sports more than those from lower-income families. The state of youth sports in the United States is severely impacted by prevailing social issues and inequitable opportunities.
These fractures within the spirit and practice of youth sports are worsening due to the over-commercialization of the scene. The rising cost of youth sports has turned them into a $40 billion industry, double the National Football League’s (NFL) annual cash flow. The average spending on a child’s primary sport across families was $1,016 as of 2024, a 46% increase since the year 2019. A trend partly attributed to the willingness of suburban and urban families, in particular, to shoulder this rising financial burden.
However, the more dominant drivers of price increases are private equity firms, as they begin investing in youth sports leagues and infrastructure. A trend was also noted by Kiley in his hearing with the House Education and Workforce Committee.
Recently, the renowned sports-focused boarding and preparatory school, IMG Academy, was acquired by the Swedish private equity firm EQT for a hefty $1.25 billion. Additionally, Eli Manning’s private equity firm, Brand Velocity Group, recently purchased RCX Sports, which holds youth program partnerships with many major league associations. These firms see a potential profit in their patronage, effectively widening the economic gap within the youth sports industry as they build a “pay-to-play” system. This system prices out a certain demographic of children and allows wealth to determine participation, rather than skill. Effectively putting more consideration into a child’s financial means than their ability.
This commercial system is also facilitated by the decline over the past decades of informal, pickup play among children. Since the 1980s, the privatization of youth leagues has shifted the way youth participate in sports from neighborhood recreation to an organized, for-profit framework. This shift could also be attributed to changes in parental strategies, as parents may view time spent on recreational sports as an opportunity to engage in other activities. This is not to discredit a less sports-focused parenting style, but to recognize the importance that more modern parenting places on endeavors outside recreational sports. This transition in participation style is accompanied by other social and economic factors within the youth sports system that are working to build barriers to involvement.
The decline in pickup play has important implications for the inequality within youth sports. Informal, community-level play offers children an opportunity to participate without placing much financial or time burden on families. As these opportunities disappear and private opportunities rise, children without the means are increasingly excluded from sports. Consequently, children are excluded from the social, physical, and educational development that participation may bring. The disappearance of this informal play increases the importance and reliance on private play, further strengthening the relationship between income and access to sports.
These developments in the formality, financial requirements, and access to sports for youths raise important questions about the role of our government in the youth sports sector. Repeatedly, whether it be Rep. Kiley’s hearing or the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s (OASH) National Youth Sports Strategy, the government praises youth sports as being a major public benefit. Offering an avenue to develop personal and social skills as well as to improve the physical and mental health of the youth. If youth sports generate positive social outcomes, then ensuring their equitable accessibility becomes a public concern. The benefits of youth sports cannot be fully realized if a significant portion of the population faces barriers to participation.
There are many actions that can be taken to alleviate and address these disparities. While in the past couple of years there have been efforts at both the state and federal levels, there is still more that needs to be acknowledged and amended. For example, the Youth Sports Facilities Act of 2025 and the Let Kids Play Act are still in their infancy, having not advanced in the legislative process since their introduction in 2025 and 2026, respectively. Although they do recognize major barriers in youth sports, such as over-commercialization, greater efforts are needed. Firstly, there should be promotion of existing programs aimed at expanding access to recreational activities for children, such as NYC Parks’ Kids in Motion program. Investments may also be made into public or community spaces to promote more informal activity and reduce the reliance on private programs. In addition, subsidies and programs may help reduce the cost youth sports impose upon families. While such efforts and policies may not completely eradicate inequality in youth sports, they would help expand access and remove barriers to participation for children.
Some critics may argue that commercialization has benefited youth sports by bringing more facilities, specialized training, and media attention. However, the interests of many of these commercial investors are misguided and not focused on a healthy and inclusive development of youth sports. Instead, their interest lies in profit. As long as private equity and commercial firms continue to prioritize profit over well-being in youth sports, the space will remain fragmented, with participation heavily influenced by socioeconomic factors. The proposed bills in Congress show promise in alleviating the problem. However, further government action is needed to curb the commercialization of youth sports on a large scale. Community-level action, such as the Kids in Motion program that directly targets the affordability and social barriers, can also still play a major role in reducing the effects of commercialization. If youth sports are considered a public good, it is problematic to have a system that offers opportunities only to a select group.
The increasing commercialization of youth sports and the decline in community pickup play have seriously contributed to growing inequalities in participation and athletic development. Access to sports has become tied to financial resources, restricting many children from participating. In such situations, children’s ability to enjoy the social, educational, and physical benefits that sports provide is limited. Since governments regularly promote sports as beneficial to both individuals and society, they have a responsibility to address the disparities. Expanding recreation opportunities, investing in community spaces, and supporting affordable participation can help ensure that the benefits of youth sports are accessible to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
***
This article was edited by Lakshmi Pushparaj and Sofia Alvarez.
Madelyn Marcisz 
Daniel Ukandu 
Campbell Brown