https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27356477/kids-playing-enough-sports-culprit-cost

It's not the cost of sports, it's stupid video games and participation trophies that are ruining the experience.

I don't want to know how much I spent over a 14 or 15 year period. A small fortune.... mostly in gasoline. 

It's not cost? You don't have kids that play travel ball I take it lol

What is killing kids sports is the fact that parents are ramming one sport down a kids throat all year around and putting to much pressure on kids to compete at a young age.  Just let them have fun and play

posted by kizer permanente

It's not cost? You don't have kids that play travel ball I take it lol

LOL I take it you don't realize that travel ball isn't the only option?

posted by gut

LOL I take it you don't realize that travel ball isn't the only option?

You haven't seen a modern day little league or rec league in a long time I imagine?

Why is this in the politics forum?

And yes, playing sports costs money, especially non-school focused club teams.

I wanted to play club ice hockey when I was like 12-13. I went to a few open practices, discussed the cost and ice time schedules. My parents then told me to find something else I enjoyed. LOL

I know people spending easily 4-5 k in a summer for their kids in travel baseball and travel soccer. I think their kids might get free college it looks like so for some people I can understand the sacrifices they make to pay that kind of money 

I used to think parents were crazy to spend the money they did on sports, but when you look at little league anymore, it's not what it used to be. The worst of the worst play it. So unless your kids is part of the worst, you're doing them a disservice, even if they only want to play in high school. There's no way they make a high school team playing modern day little league or local ymca league stuff. It used to be only elite kids played travel. now average kids do. So even if your kid is just good.. not great... they have to find some travel team to play on. 

posted by kizer permanente

I used to think parents were crazy to spend the money they did on sports, but when you look at little league anymore, it's not what it used to be. The worst of the worst play it. So unless your kids is part of the worst, you're doing them a disservice, even if they only want to play in high school. There's no way they make a high school team playing modern day little league or local ymca league stuff. It used to be only elite kids played travel. now average kids do. So even if your kid is just good.. not great... they have to find some travel team to play on. 

This is so true.

When I was playing little league baseball, (80s to early 90s) the regular little league teams were good. Typically only the top player off each team got "picked" to play travel ball. I was playing travel ball most summers growing up, the only summers I didn't was when I chose to play pee wee football instead (my parents had a 1 sport at a time rule).

Back then the "travel ball" season didn't start until around early June after the regular little league season was over. The tryouts for the team was either by selection (like I said, they would grab the best kid or 2 from each team in the league) or by tryout. So even the "elite" kids played little league as well. 

Now, even the above average kids aren't playing little league at all, they are playing "travel ball" year round. Its ridiculous to be honest. I absolutely love baseball and was darn good at it (played in D1 college until I hurt my shoulder and couldn't throw anymore). But even I would have been burned out by this type of "year round travel ball" that parents put kids through now.

There is no reason for a kid to "specialize" in one sport anytime before high school.

Kids that only play one sport often find themselves injured more. Playing more sports works side muscles and prevents overuse injuries. I know 2 kids who are only freshman and had elbow surgery already 

posted by jmog

This is so true.

 

When I was playing little league baseball, (80s to early 90s) the regular little league teams were good. Typically only the top player off each team got "picked" to play travel ball. I was playing travel ball most summers growing up, the only summers I didn't was when I chose to play pee wee football instead (my parents had a 1 sport at a time rule).

 

Back then the "travel ball" season didn't start until around early June after the regular little league season was over. The tryouts for the team was either by selection (like I said, they would grab the best kid or 2 from each team in the league) or by tryout. So even the "elite" kids played little league as well. 

Now, even the above average kids aren't playing little league at all, they are playing "travel ball" year round. Its ridiculous to be honest. I absolutely love baseball and was darn good at it (played in D1 college until I hurt my shoulder and couldn't throw anymore). But even I would have been burned out by this type of "year round travel ball" that parents put kids through now.

 

There is no reason for a kid to "specialize" in one sport anytime before high school.

Yeah when I was a kid you played a little league season and kids were selected for “Allstars” which was travel ball. Now kids try out for year round travel teams.  

All year around single sport shit  is the worst

posted by kizer permanente

You haven't seen a modern day little league or rec league in a long time I imagine?

That's not the point of the article.  The article claims sports aren't accessible because of cost.  That's demonstrably false, and your points about the quality/competition of local little league are irrelevant. 

The goal of putting your kid in sports really isn't college scholarships.  So the idea that the only option is travel or not playing is ridiculous.

Go on then. Feel free to refute the article...

posted by gut

That's not the point of the article.  The article claims sports aren't accessible because of cost.  That's demonstrably false, and your points about the quality/competition of local little league are irrelevant. 

The goal of putting your kid in sports really isn't college scholarships.  So the idea that the only option is travel or not playing is ridiculous.

The cost absolutely doesn’t allow inner city kids to play baseball. The cost to maintain the field and lack of fields is bad too. This is why most kids play basketball. Easily the cheapest sport. Lots of kids who are economically disadvantaged if they are really   Good and the team wants to win will often have a “sponsor” which is usually the team booster club or a rich parent of another player. I have seen this happen in football and baseball in my coaching days 

posted by Spock

All year around single sport shit  is the worst

Do you encourage distance running all year round, and participating in 5Ks, etc?  Just playing devil's advocate.  I hate year round sports.

I don't think the time and money commitment to travel ball, be it soccer, baseball, basketball, etc is as much a reason as being made here.  Sure, it does take time and money, but it isn't a deal breaker in most cases.

IMO, the real culprit is that kids stay in the house more and don't congregate in the summer at the baseball fields, basketball courts and just play!  Be it due to kids being at a daycare as both parents (if there are 2 in the home) are working, not allowing the kids to run their neighborhood or just staying in the house playing video games.  I truly think this is why participation in sports is down.

Sports are accessible to play....all of the schools that I know of have baseball fields, basketball courts and greenspace that kids can congregate on.  No need to have sponsors, schedules or team booster clubs..just kids who want to play.

Why does it have to be one or the other?  I think it's a mixture of everything brought up in this thread. 

Last year was my daughter's first year of "rec / travel" league.  She's 12 and plays volleyball.  It has been very eye opening to me how the whole thing works.  Basically, you cannot take the attitude of "well I'll try different sports each season" or "maybe I'll try out for volleyball when I get to high school to supplement my other activities".  You have to specialize at least by middle school if you want any chance to play in high school.  Unless you are an unusually good athlete, a coach will not look closely at someone who hasn't shown the commitment to a sport by playing it year round long before high school. 

My daughter is not aiming for an athletic scholarship either.  Her goal is to just be on the team in high school.  And apparently this is what it takes.  It's unbelievable.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Last year was my daughter's first year of "rec / travel" league.  She's 12 and plays volleyball.  It has been very eye opening to me how the whole thing works.  Basically, you cannot take the attitude of "well I'll try different sports each season" or "maybe I'll try out for volleyball when I get to high school to supplement my other activities".  You have to specialize at least by middle school if you want any chance to play in high school.  Unless you are an unusually good athlete, a coach will not look closely at someone who hasn't shown the commitment to a sport by playing it year round long before high school. 

My daughter is not aiming for an athletic scholarship either.  Her goal is to just be on the team in high school.  And apparently this is what it takes.  It's unbelievable.  

Coaches are 100% the problem. They absolutely punish kids for playing other sports for their own self gain 

This is dumb.

Are SOME sports more expensive than others?  Sure.  If you're cycling or playing golf, you need a bicycle or set of clubs, respectively.

And are some traveling sports more costly?  Sure.  Traveling sports certainly add up.

But basketball?  Sure, you might have to replace the shoes every few years, but they don't have to be some ridiculously expensive pair.  Other than that, it's ... what ... proper undergarments and socks?

And baseball?  New pair of cleats every few years, which don't have to be some absurdly expensive pair.  New glove maybe two or three times before adulthood (assuming they start out playing teeball), and again, it doesn't have to be an exorbitant one.  Other than that, maybe socks and tape.  Pine tar, if you're feeling magnanimous, but our team always had it.

Football?  Cleats that will last most of their school career (I used one pair from 7th to 12th grade ... still have them), one to three pairs of gloves over the course of their school career, proper undergarments, and a mouth guard.  And whatever joint braces you need after a few years of playing since, you know, it's football.

This is a bad use of data.  The chart shows how much parents DO spend on sports.  It doesn't show how much is necessary for the child to play sports.  The difference there could be huge, but it's not taken into account to establish whether or not the bare minimum cost is prohibitive (and it isn't).

Also, I get that gas to games and such costs money, but those are technically not prohibitive expenses.  What kind of asshole parent would keep their kid from playing a sport if they weren't able to afford the gas to go see the games?

posted by geeblock

Coaches are 100% the problem. They absolutely punish kids for playing other sports for their own self gain 

Not me.  A kid needs to be well rounded, and support their SCHOOL by playing and participating in as many things as possible.  I had an argument with the VB coach (I coach Basketball) about club volleyball.  I asked her if she openly encourages basketball players to play club volleyball during basketball season.  She said, "Yes!  I want to be a competitive vball team in league, and they have to play year round!"  I about lost it.  I want kids to succeed in VB, CC, FB... then move on to Basketball, wrestling, band, play, whatever... then move on to spring sports and succeed as well.  

Don't get me wrong.  I love for a kid to WANT to play AAU basketball.  But not at the expense of another school sport.  Consider me in the minority, I guess. 

posted by O-Trap

This is dumb.

Are SOME sports more expensive than others?  Sure.  If you're cycling or playing golf, you need a bicycle or set of clubs, respectively.

And are some traveling sports more costly?  Sure.  Traveling sports certainly add up.

But basketball?  Sure, you might have to replace the shoes every few years, but they don't have to be some ridiculously expensive pair.  Other than that, it's ... what ... proper undergarments and socks?

And baseball?  New pair of cleats every few years, which don't have to be some absurdly expensive pair.  New glove maybe two or three times before adulthood (assuming they start out playing teeball), and again, it doesn't have to be an exorbitant one.  Other than that, maybe socks and tape.  Pine tar, if you're feeling magnanimous, but our team always had it.

Football?  Cleats that will last most of their school career (I used one pair from 7th to 12th grade ... still have them), one to three pairs of gloves over the course of their school career, proper undergarments, and a mouth guard.  And whatever joint braces you need after a few years of playing since, you know, it's football.

This is a bad use of data.  The chart shows how much parents DO spend on sports.  It doesn't show how much is necessary for the child to play sports.  The difference there could be huge, but it's not taken into account to establish whether or not the bare minimum cost is prohibitive (and it isn't).

Also, I get that gas to games and such costs money, but those are technically not prohibitive expenses.  What kind of asshole parent would keep their kid from playing a sport if they weren't able to afford the gas to go see the games?

Respectfully this seems like a take from 1985. Or some really small town. Sure if you want to play in the park or in your back yard with your friends all you need is some equipment. I don’t think anyone was saying equipment was the problem. I’m retired from coaching now but I coached for 20 years and it’s not like it used to be. (Speaking from the Columbus, Oh experience). Now if you go back to my hometown in Cambridge oh, you can still play little league, babe Ruth and Legion ball at a reasonable and affordable price for almost anyone. 

posted by geeblock

Respectfully this seems like a take from 1985. Or some really small town. Sure if you want to play in the park or in your back yard with your friends all you need is some equipment. I don’t think anyone was saying equipment was the problem. I’m retired from coaching now but I coached for 20 years and it’s not like it used to be. (Speaking from the Columbus, Oh experience). Now if you go back to my hometown in Cambridge oh, you can still play little league, babe Ruth and Legion ball at a reasonable and affordable price for almost anyone. 

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a different required level of commitment, though that is absurd as well, and I'd agree that this is, in no small part, the result of coaches seemingly trying to monopolize athletes.

I do, however, stand by the equipment costs not being a legitimate minimum entry requirement.  If a kid is good, a fresh pair of Js  every year isn't going to actually make him better.

To your point, I am from a small town originally (though if you've been coaching for 20 years, you're older than I am), but I live in a larger city now, and I've been involved some with the local high school's football team, and I know for a fact that many of them are not having anything close to the above spent on them.  The actual amount they're spending and the kinds of things they're spending it on isn't really that different from about 18 years ago.

But it doesn't really matter because, again, my point is that this is a misuse of data.  Asking how much your average parents DO spend per child in a given sport's season isn't the same as asking how much your average parent HAS TO spend per child in a given sport's season.

So even if we assume that these numbers are an adequate cross-section of parents across America, the numbers are still faulty for attributing the drop in sports turnout to cost for two reasons:

1. You're still taking the average spent, which is functionally never the minimum cost of entry
2. The costs taken into account include both (a) necessities to play the sport and (b) luxuries to play the sport.

If I'm dumb enough to get my kid a pair of BBB ZO2 shoes (why?), I'm counting that cost toward how much we're spending on him playing basketball, but let's not pretend he needs that $200 pair of shoes to play at a higher level, and let's not pretend he needs a new pair every year, either.  That's not being old (again, I think I'm younger than you).  That's just being fiscally responsible.

I'm not saying you don't replace something when it breaks or gets worn out, and I'm not saying spending as little as humanly possible should be the only goal.  I'm saying a lot of what is paid for in sports for 12th grade and under isn't necessary for the kid to be able to play.  Not having those things doesn't bar entry into the sport.

That being the case, the premise of the article is flawed.

posted by geeblock

The cost absolutely doesn’t allow inner city kids to play baseball.

You guys realize baseball is not the only sport, and the article is not only about baseball?

And you guys are making a completely different argument than the article suggests.  The article said kids aren't playing because sports are too expensive, not that they're just giving up because they can't hope to play highschool sports if they can't afford travel ball.

If a kid wants to play and have fun, there are plenty of affordable options.  I can't afford travel balls seems like a really, really dumb reason for your kid not to play sports.

And if the explanation is kids playing one sport year round, than that article is bad at statistics and making a totally erroneous argument.