Differentiating Cost and Value

Operating in an inflated youth sports market requires parents to be savvy consumers

Cover photo credit: Photo by Eyestetix Studio on Unsplash

I recently shared data on annual costs of youth sports participation in the United States based on survey data from 2019. I thought some of the numbers were eye-watering, but in the days that followed there was an avalanche of comments stating that the numbers were out of date and what parents are currently paying is far higher. The message was that costs have spiralled even in a few short years and a number of sports that were not included would now make it onto the leaderboard. These anecdotal reports seem to be supported by the data. The organisation who commissioned the 2019 survey has reported that the most recent findings from 2025 indicate costs have increased 46% over that six year period.

With the experience of the pandemic in recent memory, many families have a newfound appreciation of the role of sport and exercise in supporting kids’ physical and mental health and wellbeing. Those who are able have proven willing to invest significant sums in providing their kids the opportunity and support to participate. Sadly, these good intentions seem to be driving the growing commercialisation and rising costs of youth sport, particularly in North America.

If something is expensive we tend to assume it is good quality and high status. Conversely, an alternative that is relatively inexpensive is perceived as lower quality. This is not a safe assumption. When it comes to youth sports programmes, cost is a not a reliable indicator of value. As costs continue to spiral, the prices being charged are increasingly not reflective of the value provided.

Marketing often preys on parental anxiety, creating the sense that kids will miss out or fall behind if they do not attend or sign up. The particular service is portrayed as vital and a ‘must have’ if parents want their kids to remain competitive. In very few cases is this actually true.

More generally, marketing tends to manipulate perception to inflate the perceived value in order to justify the cost and get parents to part with their hard-earned money. Often this takes the form of talking up the status and acumen of those providing the service. Coaching is perhaps the main area where price is not closely related to quality. In too many cases, the coaches delivering youth sports programmes are professional only in the sense that parents are paying for the service. Parents must look behind the hype and rather use recognised coaching certifications and genuine experience coaching at the development level as more reliable markers of expertise.

Youth sports in North America and the United States in particular might seem like a good business model - at least in the short-term - but it is a horrible talent development model. Pricing out a considerable segment of the population shrinks the available talent pool. Worse, the groups that are excluded are often some of the most likely sources of potential talents. A notable example is soccer in the United States, where the costs of participating have made it a somewhat exclusive sport, despite being the world’s game due to its accessibility on every other continent (with the possible exception of Antarctica). In other words, the inflated costs are creating an unnecessary and somewhat artificial barrier to entry.

There have been some efforts to address the cost barriers and improve access to youth sports in the US, as part of the pledge of the federal government to get 63% of American kid engaged in sport by 2030. There are a number of parallel initiatives from national sports organisations and the commercial sector to fund infrastructure projects, train youth sport coaches and subsidise registration fees. Whilst all this is welcome, it is unlikely to fix the problem of rising costs - and might even encourage further price-gouging.

Fundamentally, the youth sports market is in need of a correction. The only way that will happen is through parents exercising their collective power through their consumer choices. Practically, this means being more selective, finding alternatives and opting out where necessary.

Bottom line, for the most part it is not necessary to invest such sums of money in order to access the benefits of youth sports or to provide what kids need to progress in the sport. Participating in organised youth sports does not need to cost what many parents are paying. Due diligence is required to scrutinise claims and assess quality in a more rigorous way, rather than relying on price as indicator. Whether it is coaching or equipment, the money can often be more wisely spent and parents may get greater return with more modest investment. Collective initiatives at the local level, such as equipment lockers where parents can trade in used equipment once kids grow out of it and get the next size up, are another way to reduce costs.

Curbing the excesses of the youth sports industry and reducing the financial burden on families is an urgent need, both from a talent development perspective and for the greater good. Permitting more kids to access the benefits of youth sport is a worthy goal in itself, but it will also increase the size and strength of the talent pool that sports have to draw on. Everybody has a stake in this, not least national sports organisations, but it is parents on the ground who are best placed to drive the change.