the federal interest in Congress, and the public’s skepticism, and even the media’s skepticism. We’re not in 1965; we’re in 2015. We think it’s time for a good, full, broad, national discussion on where education fits in the system” (Planos 2015).
The United States of America is basically the only country (with some exceptions, such as a limited system by comparison in Canada and limited educationally based extramural sports opportunities elsewhere) whose primary avenue of sports development and delivery for most of its citizens lies within the structures of primary, secondary, and higher education. On the surface, this may appear to be a mutually beneficial arrangement and even a noble effort to combine the shared aspects and goals of education and sports development. Education, maturity, and growth have consistently been discussed in terms of the effort to foster a sound mind and sound body in developing a total person as part of the educational process. Ostensibly, gaining a valuable education while participating and competing in sports, even at an elite, hypercompetitive level, can seem to be an effective and promising combination. This meshing of sports and education is not unique, in the sense that most educational systems in the world include some type of physical education and sports component. Most young people in countries other than the United States actually get their first exposure to sports in school through broad-based sports participation opportunities, while more specialized and competitive development continues in local and regional sports clubs.3 The main difference between the United States and other countries is in the prominent place sports has in education and the academic eligibility requirements to be able to practice and compete.
Interscholastic and intercollegiate athletic competition in America is not only hugely popular and at times profitable, it is also the primary avenue for mass participation as well as elite sports development and competition. That is where any similarity between the United States and other countries with regard to sports and education begins and ends. As mentioned previously, it is estimated that over 80 percent of sports development and delivery in the United States is done through educational systems. Approximately 65 percent of the US Olympic team at the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games had participated in university-based sports programs (Forde 2015). This does not even include the numerous athletes from foreign countries who come to the United States not only for an education, but also to hone their athletic skills within its higher education system. In the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Brazil, 1,018 athletes, representing many nations, were either current, incoming, or former American college athletes, including the 430 athletes in the US delegation (Martinez 2016). This in itself can cause numerous issues, not the least of which is that the primary American sports development system is providing training opportunities for elite foreign athletes who may take away opportunities from potential US athletes.4 There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it is another reason why more opportunities should be available to all athletes, beyond the education system, to play and participate in sports in America. In countries such as those in Europe that are a primary focus of this book, the major avenue of sports development and delivery is outside the educational system, embedded in separate nonprofit sports club systems. The details, benefits, and weaknesses of this model, when compared to the current educational sports model in America, are discussed in greater depth as the book progresses.
Despite the existence of empirical research and popular discussion regarding issues and problems with the American sports development and sports delivery models, there has been a dearth of discussion regarding potential changes to the status quo. Ironically, very little of the research has discussed the mechanisms, concepts, or theories for change, even though there is almost universal agreement that change must occur. In 2015, an outstanding empirically based book, Sport Development in the United States: High Performance and Mass Participation, by Peter Smolianov, Dwight H. Zakus, and John Gallo, put forth a practical, theory-based process for potential changes to the current US model and began to drive serious discussion about needed changes to the way this country conducts sports and develops athletes.5 Candidly, that book is a primary inspiration for this work, and I strongly feel that both sets of proposals are needed to add to the debate and the body of knowledge regarding future sports development models and changes in the United States. Many of the ideas presented in their work are similar to mine. Although there are significant overlaps and synergies in potential applications, this work is based more on conceptual models of change, including modification of the current educationally based model.
This book analyzes historical aspects of interscholastic and intercollegiate sports development in the United States as well as reasons for the parallel development of the non-education-based model found in European countries. The final chapters discuss the why and how of reviewing, analyzing, and ultimately proposing new models of sports development and delivery for the United States both inside and outside the existing educational system. Some of my proposed changes to the existing American model draw upon the European sports club system as one of the potential templates. The overarching analysis points to the inevitable unsustainability of a primary sports development and sports delivery model being part of all levels of education in the United States. The “why” concerns the challenges to the system via legal and legislative structures, as the NCAA’s Jim Delany mentioned, and also those arising within the system itself. The primary thrust of this work is one of extreme caution or even outright worry. An overwhelming percentage of all participation in sports in the United States, whether elite or mass, is grounded in education, and the potential for loss of many of these opportunities (outside the special cases of football and men’s basketball) within the educational system is very real. There is also very real potential for the continued and worsening loss of external opportunities in a number of sports that are not available or are out of reach for many because of the costs involved. The ability of America to be competitive internationally in many of those sports in the future could also be dramatically impacted. The loss of these opportunities within the American education system is already happening, bearing negatively on public health in the United States due to decreased exercise and sports options. The lack of mass sports participation and physical education opportunities is a significant contributor to the epidemics of poor health and obesity facing America today. If we continue on our current path of chiefly supporting only commercially viable sports that can rake in television, sponsorship, and ticket revenue, opportunities in other sports, and the health benefits that come with them, will eventually be reduced or even evaporate.
My personal sports background, while fairly broad based, was mainly in wrestling. As checkered as my competitive and coaching careers were, my participation and competition in sports was a defining, largely positive element in my life, and one I was fortunate to have access to throughout my formative years. Sadly, sports like wrestling, swimming, gymnastics, and track and field are being downsized at all levels of the US education spectrum, if not outright eliminated, in the face of increased costs, budget reductions, and a desire to field more competitive teams in football, men’s basketball, and other largely male-dominated, entertainment-centric sports. It cannot be discounted that other extracurricular offerings at the scholastic level, such as music programs and other nonathletic options, are also being downsized and eliminated to save costs.6 While these other issues are not within the scope of this book, there are very real dangers to not providing broad-based educational and nonathletic life-skill opportunities for American students. In the critically acclaimed 1995 movie, Mr. Holland’s Opus, starring Richard Dreyfuss as the title character and longtime high school music teacher, Mr. Holland reacts to his music program being eliminated by saying, “The day they cut the football budget in this state, that will be the end of Western civilization as we know it!”
I am not promoting the end of Western civilization by advocating the end of sports as we know them in America. To the contrary, I am actually advocating massive expansion of low-cost sports- and health-related options for all Americans, most notably our youth. We must as a country begin to explore alternatives and determine the best role for sports and physical activity to play within and outside the educational system. Our goal must be to establish options that improve health, physical fitness, access to sports, and competition. It is time, after more than a hundred years of a primarily education-based sports development model, to explore structures that will not only grow sports opportunities for people of all ages, but also keep the
