- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,207,949
- Reaction score
- 59
WASHINGTON — What can Congress do?
It’s a question that has become increasingly speculative as Washington has taken a keen interest in youth sports in recent months. First came a December Congressional hearing addressing the rising cost "crisis" confronting families.
Then in May, Democrats introduced The Let Kids Play Act, which seeks to end what it terms "vulture practices" by private equity firms involved in youths sports.
On Tuesday, June 30, bipartisan members of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing to address what it terms private equity’s "vertical integration" that has families paying thousands of dollars to play sports, or keep them from playing altogether.
"When you have budget decisions when hard choices have to be made, for some reason, it's always kids who are the lowest priority," said Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who chairs the committee. "And so, I think that that's something we need to change."
Democratic and Republican Congressmembers repeatedly spoke about the potential threat of private equity privatizing youth sports for profit over the values kids get out of them and pricing out families who can’t afford to pay sometimes thousands of dollars annually per child.
"Investment’s important but it’s when the mission (is) our kids, not investors," said Rep. Burgess Owens, R- Utah, who is a former NFL player who grew up on Pop Warner football. "And we’re seeing too much of this. We’re gonna lose the soul of our nation if we don’t get this right."
The committee heard testimonies from four witnesses, including Katherine Van Dyck, a senior legal fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project who testified at the December hearing and has litigated against Varsity Brands, challenging its monopolization of cheerleading.
Committee members called on Van Dyck and other witnesses to unspool, through expertise and personal narratives, how companies can leverage families for profits but also how private and public entities can work together to give kids a positive experience.
"The concept of private equity and consolidation really seemed to resonate with the committee members," she told USA TODAY Sports. "Most of them were much more focused on the problems of private money in sports, rather than just the broader ‘it’s expensive’ idea."
What did we learn from the hearing, and what might come out of it that alters the future of youth sports?
The committee invited Matt Kakabeeke, executive director of the Kalamazoo Optimist Hockey Association (KOHA), to testify about Black Bear Sports Group. Black Bear is an investment firm-backed company that has consolidated much of youth hockey in the Northeast and Midwest.
Kakabeeke, who says he has been involved with the community hockey association for nearly 50 years as a player, coach, parent and hockey director, became its executive director five years ago.
He testified that Black Bear bought the association’s home rink, then soon after coerced its leaders into conforming with the company’s business model. When KOHA resisted, he said, Black Bear evicted its teams from the rink and replaced them with its own teams.
"What (Black) Bear Sports Group is doing within the ice hockey community, specifically to our club and other clubs in Michigan, is really changing the landscape in a negative way," Kakabeeke told USA TODAY Sports. "They say they're saving rinks, but at the same time, they're unraveling decades (for) nonprofits."
He was describing a process Kiley, addressed at the hearing as vertical integration, which, the committee chair says, "requires participation in the same operator’s leagues, tournaments, camps, and streaming services."
"Varsity monopolized the cheerleading market by controlling events, apparel, and the governing body," Van Dyck testified. "Black Bear Sports Group appears to be doing the same in youth hockey leagues, ice rinks and tournaments.
"We call this model a flywheel, trapping families inside and locking competitors out. The extraction it allows is bad enough, but in an industry meant to serve kids, it is worse. A business built to maximize short-term returns does not focus on its developmental needs. It focuses instead on keeping kids in their leagues, at their tournaments, and in their preferred hotels year-round."
Is it worth it? 10 questions athletes should consider if they play on a travel team
Bryan Finnerty, a third witness, is a former goalie in the National Professional Soccer League. He founded High Velocity Sports in 2001 and operates a 220,000-square-foot campus in Canton, Michigan that, he says, serves more than 800,000 visitors a year across a range of sports and recreational programming.
He detailed how he started playing soccer as an overweight kid whose coach saw potential in the way he could stop balls.
"While everyone else saw a kid who couldn’t run very well, (he) saw a goalkeeper and more importantly, he saw potential where others saw limitations," he says. "That moment changed the direction of my life (and) taught me that youth sports weren’t just about developing better athletes. They were about helping young people discover what they were capable of. That lesson has guided every major decision I’ve made since."
He says he and his wife "leveraged our house, cashed in our savings, and private investors stood with us to take a chance on me. Their investment helped create a community sports center focused first and foremost on serving local families.
"Not all capital behaves the same," he says. "I've seen responsible investments strengthen communities by expanding access, improving facilities, and creating opportunities for children. I've also seen business models that prioritize financial extraction over child development. In my experience, the difference isn’t whether private capital is involved, it’s whether the mission remains centered on children. I don't believe the question is whether private capital belongs in youth sports. I believe the question is whether it remains accountable to the mission of youth sports.
"Every decision should be measured against one simple standard: Will it create more opportunities for children and families in our communities?"
After Finnerty’s testimony, Rep. Michael Rulli (R-Ohio) asked him if he thought small communities would be able to renovate their facilities and support free kids sports programs without the possibility of private investments getting involved.
"I don't think it's an absolute question, but I do believe that it affords multiple communities the opportunity when they have access to that capital," he says. "I think first and foremost, it's about the youth players in that city having a chance at access, then everything else doesn't really matter."
A theme that emerged at the hearing is that there is a role for private investment but we need to monitor how it operates. As a sports parent, do you feel trapped by your organization? Do you feel like there isn’t another option?
A team truly invested in the interests of a kid would want him or her to play where they are most content.
"It’s important to recognize that commercialization in itself is not always the problem," Kiley said at the outset of the hearing. "Private investment has helped address real gaps created by declining local investments in parks and recreation. Many responsible operators have expanded access, improved facilities, and created more opportunities for young athletes. Capital, when invested responsibly, can broaden access and participation. Our concern today is when particular practices reduce competition, drive up costs and limit access for families."
A few Congressmembers mentioned the Let Kids Play Act, the bill introduced in May that seeks to hold private equity companies accountable for their activity within youth sports.
It would ban "vulture practices," which according to the legislation, is "any practice, term, condition, tactic, instrument, method, or act that causes harm or creates long-term risk of harm to an acquired entity in order to extract profit, assets, or other value for the benefit of a covered firm or its affiliates."
But the bill is backed by Democrats and would have to be signed by President Trump. Committee members Tuesday were split on how to address private equity in youth sports.
They offered no insight over whether progress had been made in gaining bipartisan support for the bill.
"It's never gonna be passed until the leadership changes but I'd like to see it refined a little bit," says Linda Flanagan, the fourth witness and author of "Take Back the Game: How Money and Mania Are Ruining Kids’ Sports—and Why It Matters." "I think it's too much of a blunt instrument, and I think those senators are cognizant of that. I think they recognize that was a first draft. And now we're gonna come in and clean it up so that we're not penalizing the companies that are doing good things, that are acting (and) behaving responsibly, helping children.
"We don't want to pass laws that penalize those players, but to really eliminate those who are engaging in these practices, the stay to play, the extra fees, and that's part of it."
A common narrative within the industry, as noted by Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Arizona) at the hearing is that "youth sports are becoming a luxury that public schools can no longer afford to provide and families can no longer reach." But are we doing enough with school sports, particularly with elementary and middle schools?
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) said the federal government is spending about 3 or 4 billion dollars a year through Title IV under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
"It seems like we have the money if we would just make the effort," he said. "It seems to me many for-profit entities would have trouble making much money if there were free or affordable options for families."
"I think that's absolutely right," Van Dyck responded to him. "A lot of people that I talk to, friends, people that I talk to in my professional life, they say they’ve been sucked into it. They feel like they have no other choice. But if there is funding and there are programs at schools, that eliminates a lot of these access problems we are talking about. If there is a school-run team, it is most likely that your child's practice is going to be there, their home games are going to be there, and when they have an away game, they're probably gonna take the school bus there. And so all these barriers that we're talking about in terms of costs and time and travel and facilities go away very quickly."
YOUTH SPORTS SURVIVAL GUIDE Read Coach Steve's new book
Van Dyck said it’s clear to her there’s bipartisan support for making youth sports accessible.
"It's encouraging to hear members on the Republican side of the aisle talk about the needs of lower communities and wanting to build community-based programs," she told USA TODAY Sports. "The question is what they'll do to fix it and bills like the Let Kids Play Act or other potential legislation will get any legs."
Momentum, however, appears to be building for future hearings and Congressional awareness of the cost and access issues that confront parents with youth sports.
"I think today's hearing is really an opportunity for us to try to call for a renewed commitment to broadening access to youth sports for all kids, which means investing at all levels of government and creating those opportunities and the facilities and infrastructure to make them possible," Kiley said.
Borelli, aka Coach Steve, has been an editor and writer with USA TODAY since 1999. He spent 10 years coaching his two sons’ baseball and basketball teams. He and his wife, Colleen, are now sports parents for two high schoolers. His Coach Steve column is posted weekly. For his past columns, click here.
Got a question for Coach Steve you want answered in a column? Email him at [email protected]
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Lawmakers takes another crack at easing privatization of youth sports
Continue reading...
It’s a question that has become increasingly speculative as Washington has taken a keen interest in youth sports in recent months. First came a December Congressional hearing addressing the rising cost "crisis" confronting families.
Then in May, Democrats introduced The Let Kids Play Act, which seeks to end what it terms "vulture practices" by private equity firms involved in youths sports.
On Tuesday, June 30, bipartisan members of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing to address what it terms private equity’s "vertical integration" that has families paying thousands of dollars to play sports, or keep them from playing altogether.
"When you have budget decisions when hard choices have to be made, for some reason, it's always kids who are the lowest priority," said Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who chairs the committee. "And so, I think that that's something we need to change."
Democratic and Republican Congressmembers repeatedly spoke about the potential threat of private equity privatizing youth sports for profit over the values kids get out of them and pricing out families who can’t afford to pay sometimes thousands of dollars annually per child.
"Investment’s important but it’s when the mission (is) our kids, not investors," said Rep. Burgess Owens, R- Utah, who is a former NFL player who grew up on Pop Warner football. "And we’re seeing too much of this. We’re gonna lose the soul of our nation if we don’t get this right."
The committee heard testimonies from four witnesses, including Katherine Van Dyck, a senior legal fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project who testified at the December hearing and has litigated against Varsity Brands, challenging its monopolization of cheerleading.
Committee members called on Van Dyck and other witnesses to unspool, through expertise and personal narratives, how companies can leverage families for profits but also how private and public entities can work together to give kids a positive experience.
"The concept of private equity and consolidation really seemed to resonate with the committee members," she told USA TODAY Sports. "Most of them were much more focused on the problems of private money in sports, rather than just the broader ‘it’s expensive’ idea."
What did we learn from the hearing, and what might come out of it that alters the future of youth sports?
Understanding the 'flywheel' that affects our kids' sports
The committee invited Matt Kakabeeke, executive director of the Kalamazoo Optimist Hockey Association (KOHA), to testify about Black Bear Sports Group. Black Bear is an investment firm-backed company that has consolidated much of youth hockey in the Northeast and Midwest.
You must be registered for see images attach
Kakabeeke, who says he has been involved with the community hockey association for nearly 50 years as a player, coach, parent and hockey director, became its executive director five years ago.
He testified that Black Bear bought the association’s home rink, then soon after coerced its leaders into conforming with the company’s business model. When KOHA resisted, he said, Black Bear evicted its teams from the rink and replaced them with its own teams.
"What (Black) Bear Sports Group is doing within the ice hockey community, specifically to our club and other clubs in Michigan, is really changing the landscape in a negative way," Kakabeeke told USA TODAY Sports. "They say they're saving rinks, but at the same time, they're unraveling decades (for) nonprofits."
He was describing a process Kiley, addressed at the hearing as vertical integration, which, the committee chair says, "requires participation in the same operator’s leagues, tournaments, camps, and streaming services."
"Varsity monopolized the cheerleading market by controlling events, apparel, and the governing body," Van Dyck testified. "Black Bear Sports Group appears to be doing the same in youth hockey leagues, ice rinks and tournaments.
"We call this model a flywheel, trapping families inside and locking competitors out. The extraction it allows is bad enough, but in an industry meant to serve kids, it is worse. A business built to maximize short-term returns does not focus on its developmental needs. It focuses instead on keeping kids in their leagues, at their tournaments, and in their preferred hotels year-round."
Is it worth it? 10 questions athletes should consider if they play on a travel team
'There is a role for private investment' but we need to put kids first, profits second
Bryan Finnerty, a third witness, is a former goalie in the National Professional Soccer League. He founded High Velocity Sports in 2001 and operates a 220,000-square-foot campus in Canton, Michigan that, he says, serves more than 800,000 visitors a year across a range of sports and recreational programming.
He detailed how he started playing soccer as an overweight kid whose coach saw potential in the way he could stop balls.
"While everyone else saw a kid who couldn’t run very well, (he) saw a goalkeeper and more importantly, he saw potential where others saw limitations," he says. "That moment changed the direction of my life (and) taught me that youth sports weren’t just about developing better athletes. They were about helping young people discover what they were capable of. That lesson has guided every major decision I’ve made since."
He says he and his wife "leveraged our house, cashed in our savings, and private investors stood with us to take a chance on me. Their investment helped create a community sports center focused first and foremost on serving local families.
"Not all capital behaves the same," he says. "I've seen responsible investments strengthen communities by expanding access, improving facilities, and creating opportunities for children. I've also seen business models that prioritize financial extraction over child development. In my experience, the difference isn’t whether private capital is involved, it’s whether the mission remains centered on children. I don't believe the question is whether private capital belongs in youth sports. I believe the question is whether it remains accountable to the mission of youth sports.
"Every decision should be measured against one simple standard: Will it create more opportunities for children and families in our communities?"
After Finnerty’s testimony, Rep. Michael Rulli (R-Ohio) asked him if he thought small communities would be able to renovate their facilities and support free kids sports programs without the possibility of private investments getting involved.
"I don't think it's an absolute question, but I do believe that it affords multiple communities the opportunity when they have access to that capital," he says. "I think first and foremost, it's about the youth players in that city having a chance at access, then everything else doesn't really matter."
A theme that emerged at the hearing is that there is a role for private investment but we need to monitor how it operates. As a sports parent, do you feel trapped by your organization? Do you feel like there isn’t another option?
A team truly invested in the interests of a kid would want him or her to play where they are most content.
"It’s important to recognize that commercialization in itself is not always the problem," Kiley said at the outset of the hearing. "Private investment has helped address real gaps created by declining local investments in parks and recreation. Many responsible operators have expanded access, improved facilities, and created more opportunities for young athletes. Capital, when invested responsibly, can broaden access and participation. Our concern today is when particular practices reduce competition, drive up costs and limit access for families."
There is bipartisan support but no concrete plan (yet)
A few Congressmembers mentioned the Let Kids Play Act, the bill introduced in May that seeks to hold private equity companies accountable for their activity within youth sports.
It would ban "vulture practices," which according to the legislation, is "any practice, term, condition, tactic, instrument, method, or act that causes harm or creates long-term risk of harm to an acquired entity in order to extract profit, assets, or other value for the benefit of a covered firm or its affiliates."
But the bill is backed by Democrats and would have to be signed by President Trump. Committee members Tuesday were split on how to address private equity in youth sports.
They offered no insight over whether progress had been made in gaining bipartisan support for the bill.
"It's never gonna be passed until the leadership changes but I'd like to see it refined a little bit," says Linda Flanagan, the fourth witness and author of "Take Back the Game: How Money and Mania Are Ruining Kids’ Sports—and Why It Matters." "I think it's too much of a blunt instrument, and I think those senators are cognizant of that. I think they recognize that was a first draft. And now we're gonna come in and clean it up so that we're not penalizing the companies that are doing good things, that are acting (and) behaving responsibly, helping children.
"We don't want to pass laws that penalize those players, but to really eliminate those who are engaging in these practices, the stay to play, the extra fees, and that's part of it."
Is there government money available to affect change in youth sports
A common narrative within the industry, as noted by Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Arizona) at the hearing is that "youth sports are becoming a luxury that public schools can no longer afford to provide and families can no longer reach." But are we doing enough with school sports, particularly with elementary and middle schools?
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) said the federal government is spending about 3 or 4 billion dollars a year through Title IV under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
"It seems like we have the money if we would just make the effort," he said. "It seems to me many for-profit entities would have trouble making much money if there were free or affordable options for families."
"I think that's absolutely right," Van Dyck responded to him. "A lot of people that I talk to, friends, people that I talk to in my professional life, they say they’ve been sucked into it. They feel like they have no other choice. But if there is funding and there are programs at schools, that eliminates a lot of these access problems we are talking about. If there is a school-run team, it is most likely that your child's practice is going to be there, their home games are going to be there, and when they have an away game, they're probably gonna take the school bus there. And so all these barriers that we're talking about in terms of costs and time and travel and facilities go away very quickly."
YOUTH SPORTS SURVIVAL GUIDE Read Coach Steve's new book
What is the next step?
Van Dyck said it’s clear to her there’s bipartisan support for making youth sports accessible.
"It's encouraging to hear members on the Republican side of the aisle talk about the needs of lower communities and wanting to build community-based programs," she told USA TODAY Sports. "The question is what they'll do to fix it and bills like the Let Kids Play Act or other potential legislation will get any legs."
Momentum, however, appears to be building for future hearings and Congressional awareness of the cost and access issues that confront parents with youth sports.
"I think today's hearing is really an opportunity for us to try to call for a renewed commitment to broadening access to youth sports for all kids, which means investing at all levels of government and creating those opportunities and the facilities and infrastructure to make them possible," Kiley said.
Borelli, aka Coach Steve, has been an editor and writer with USA TODAY since 1999. He spent 10 years coaching his two sons’ baseball and basketball teams. He and his wife, Colleen, are now sports parents for two high schoolers. His Coach Steve column is posted weekly. For his past columns, click here.
Got a question for Coach Steve you want answered in a column? Email him at [email protected]
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Lawmakers takes another crack at easing privatization of youth sports
Continue reading...
