system works, who gets to use it, how its assets can best be deployed and services scaled.
Do not marinate in nostalgia. Do not idealize the way we used to do it, because, while for many of us there was much to like about our childhood experiences, there was not much room on playing fields for girls and almost none for kids with disabilities until the ’80s. The next great sport development and delivery system that we embrace will be the first great sport development and delivery system that we have.
Do not forget that most kids do not play sports regularly today.
Scan your network of friends and family, and think about who is left out of our de facto sport system. Picture their faces . . .
The nephew who is slow to grow into his body.
The niece with a chronic condition, like asthma.
The coworker’s kid who is overweight.
The neighbor’s kid who can’t play football anymore because of concussions.
Think about how we can help them, how we need them, to become their best selves. And think too about the role that you know sport can play in that process.
Tom Farrey
Executive Director, Sports & Society Program
The Aspen Institute
Preface
The title of this book may seem radical; frankly, that is by intent. However, it has an important premise and, dare I say, even promise, in proposing needed changes to a long-standing, popular, but ultimately fragmented sports delivery and entertainment system that is in desperate need of change. Proposing that the United States change its deeply imbedded, educationally based sports system is akin to changing the health-care marketplace in America or proposing new gun control measures, and one does not have to look too far to see the challenges both of those issues present. Is it any wonder that this, too, is a difficult proposition? The United States’ primary way of delivering sports while concurrently developing athletes of all skills is under immense pressure as to how it fits within the funding-starved public education system. Yet, educationally based sports in America remain incredibly popular overall, despite this tenuous relationship. School-based competitive sports have long been touted, in many ways correctly, as a source of community pride, an effective strategy for school branding, and a way to develop skilled athletes, while presenting many other intrinsic and tangible values. Still, this does not mean that we as citizens should not look at ways to potentially change the status quo of sports development and delivery, for the potential betterment of the country and our entire sports development system.
There are many direct and indirect comparisons when it comes to attempting to change existing, deeply embedded systems, regardless of what they may be. This applies even if the need for improvement is highly evident, as I feel it is with how we do sports in America. Change is hard for many, especially when money and control are involved. Resistance to change in most any walk of life will always be there, by those who are comfortable and/or fear change for whatever reason. For example, it is arguably critical to the health and economy of the United States to have better access to health care for all, which in turn might increase competition, lower costs, and provide health and wellness benefits. This sounds great in theory and may ultimately be accurate, but it certainly does not mean there will not be resistance to any change in the American health-care system, since the current system does benefit certain segments of society and those populations do not want to abandon the status quo. We see arguments about this subject almost every day in the news.
One can also debate the current state of sports delivery and sports development in the United States, both as it compares to other countries around the world and as to whether the primary education-based model should be revised, if not changed completely. Sports development and sports delivery are broad terms that need to be defined. Essentially, there are several definitions, and in this country there are no standard definitions for overall sports development and sports delivery processes. Empirically, elite sports development has been defined as “the skill development of talented athletes in the continuum of elite athlete ‘production’” (Hogan and Norton 2000, 215–16). Sports development can also be described as a delivery system of sports in a certain context, such as how sports are delivered to and accessed by groups and individual citizens of a certain country. In America, sports development and sports delivery are rather fragmented, in that the United States does not have a centralized national sports policy or a governmental sports ministry to provide a governance framework, as is the case in many other countries. What we have is a mishmash of several organizations that are educational, public, and private, which provide sports and exercise opportunities throughout the country. For the purposes of this book, “sports development” is an umbrella term for all sports delivery options that currently exist in the United States, whether scholastic, public, private, professional, or amateur.
This book proposes various options to potentially assist in creating better and more centralized sports development systems in order to offer more alternatives for athletes, coaches, administrators, and others, beyond the current educationally based system in America. Despite the availability of other options, competitive and recreational sports opportunities in America are still primarily available only in schools. According to the United States Olympic Committee, educationally based athletics encompass over 80 percent of all sports delivery and sports development options in the United States. Access for all participants in sports beyond the schools is often restrictive and limited because of cost and a dearth of offerings. Meanwhile, most schools are focusing more on elite sports development and delivery than on mass participation and exercise. We are becoming a nation mostly of spectators and the systematic development of elite athletes rather than a nation with a system or systems that provide access for all. Sadly, even most of the primary and secondary public schools in the United States are charging additional, often high participation fees for athletes just to play in sports that are ostensibly already funded by public taxes, thus making it even tougher for individuals to participate and exercise in what might be one of the only available sports development options.1
Scholars have debated and analyzed the issues and problems with educationally based sports development for over a century. Somewhat ironically, this is about the same time period that organized sports gained a foothold in our education system. I have been part of this debate for well over a decade, following a long career in intercollegiate athletics as a coach and administrator in which I passionately defended the very system this book proposes to change. I am intensely cognizant of what this book is suggesting, and absolutely understand that dramatic change will not be quick or easy, but that does not negate the need to create, analyze, and modify different approaches that can ultimately provide real and meaningful change before it is too late. These are not short-term options. Any potential solution must present generational changes and proposals, but significant alteration of sports development and sports delivery in America can and should be done.
I do not think it is either quixotic or wishful thinking to propose dramatic changes to the way we do sports in America. There is almost universal agreement among scholars, coaches, university presidents, secondary school teachers, and even athletes themselves that the present commercialized, economic, and academic foundation of educationally based sports is on very shaky ground and its future is certainly in doubt. Thus, many conclude that it is not a question of whether economics, legal challenges, and athlete’s rights movements and other forces will change the current system, but only a matter of when.2 Even some of the most jaded supporters of the education-based model are raising questions and looking toward the future. Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany, one of the most powerful people in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletics, recently said, “Anybody who thinks that we’re in a good place or that what we have is totally sustainable—I would suggest, is not really reading the tea leaves,
