Three years after it was authorized, the final report of the group seated by Congress to study the organizations at the center of the Olympic and Paralympic Movement in the United States is now out. It’s big – 277 pages with 348 footnotes, 46 charts, 44 sections and 41 pages of historical background, all of which lead to 14 recommendations that aim to reimagine the way government supports our sport system from the moment a child first slips on a uniform.
The ambition of the Commission on U.S. Olympics and Paralympics is reflected in the report title, “Passing the Torch: Modernizing Olympic, Paralympic & Grassroots Sports in America.” The 13-member group took a home run swing.
It hit a broken-bat double.
Broken bat, because not everything connects.
A double, because it sets up a chance to score.
As part of the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program’s commitment to facilitate public conversation around how sport policy and governance impacts youth, we have analyzed the report, the first since the 1970s to recommend a new structure to develop and protect athletes while serving the needs of public health.
Below are five ideas to build on and five questions that policymakers need to resolve.
Five Ideas to Build On
The Sports Act needs updating
The first attempt by Congress to better organize the disjointed U.S. sport system was in 1978 with the Amateur Sports Act, born from a desire to build a healthier nation and perform better in the Olympics against Eastern Bloc countries. Since then, the U.S. has won more medals than any nation but also seen a sharp drop in physical fitness rates.
The report doubles down on the “common goals of better safety, broader access, stronger accountability, and higher performance” that drive the Olympic and Paralympic Movement. In doing so, it also recognizes the fundamental flaws of the Sports Act, an unfunded mandate that outsourced oversight of sport development across dozens of sports to a private, quasi-government body, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, which until that point had been little more than a travel agency based in New York City.
“When Congress handed USOPC and the (sport-specific National Governing Bodies, or NGBs) a mandate to ‘coordinate and develop’ movement sports at every level without sufficient funding to carry it out, officials chose to focus nearly all their attention and resources on the athletes whose marketing would lead to more revenue generation: the Olympians and – sadly, to a lesser extent – Paralympians most likely to win medals,” the commission concluded.
The report recognizes the need to update the Sports Act, which “cannot meet the movement’s present challenges. The landscape for movement sports has changed, and while Congress has tried to make piecemeal reforms through the framework of that decades-old system, it is the framework itself that must be addressed.”
One recommendation calls for Congress, state governments, the USOPC, NCAA and other stakeholders to “take concrete steps to improve equitable access” to sports. The benefits of greater participation by “Americans of all ages” are highlighted at the top of the report, which calls for urgent action so a new model can begin delivering results by the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics in Los Angeles.
Youth sports needs more investment
The Commission conducted an analysis of spending on grassroots sports, which it notes the USOPC defines as the “actual cost of support for coaching education and development programs in support of the American Development Model” – a set of principles used to promote age-appropriate training and competition. In 2021, the USOPC distributed $5,000 grants to certain NGBs for ADM, plus $92,231 for other grassroots development programs. That’s less than 1% of its annual budget.
The Commission concluded the lack of investment in youth programs and policies led to declines in NGB membership and a “negative impact on our long-term Olympic and Paralympic pipeline.” Citing the evidence-based value of multi-sport play for children, it dinged the USOPC for “abdicating” leadership to unregulated clubs and other providers that promote early sport specialization and disadvantage families that lack the resources to cover their high fees.
“It is difficult to observe national trends in participation and physical activity levels, the fragmentation and commercialization of the American youth-sports landscape, and USOPC’s severe underinvestment in youth- and grassroots-sports development and not make a connection,” the commission wrote.
It's the first time since the Sports Act that any commission connected those dots.
Get Serious about the U.S. Center for SafeSport
Five years after it opened, the quasi-government body set up to root out abuse in sports remains beset with deep challenges: A growing backlog of cases. A lack of investigators trained in sourcing information from victims of trauma. A lack of coordination with the NCAA, and a central disciplinary database missing offenders.
Few if any countries have any entity with a similar scope, according to Aspen’s research on the World’s Leading Sport Systems. The U.S. is a nation of 330 million people with north of 30 million youth alone engaged in sports, a third of which are registered with organizations that are NGB members. Addressing sexual abuse is the focus of the Center, but Congress also asks it to prevent physical and emotional abuse – and orders the USOPC to provide a fixed $20 million annually to cover its growing costs.
Congress should pay instead, just as it helps underwrite the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the Commission argues. From the report: “If athletes’ safety is as much of a public value as fair competition, SafeSport needs to have public support.” Athletes also may trust the Center more if it’s not funded by the USOPC and NGBs, removing conflicts of interest that discourage the reporting of abuse cases. The Center needs the sort of full independence that anchors USADA, which is trusted and well-respected by Olympians.
Finally, Congress was urged to consider two ways for the Center to operate better at the youth and grassroots level. One idea would be to work with states to create regional centers that conduct investigations and handle resolution of claims within their jurisdiction, with the national office hearing appeals. The second idea is a market-based approach in which the Center would accredit youth sports organizations that meet certain benchmarks, starting with criminal background checks and SafeSport abuse prevention training for coaches and staff.
As a policy program at the Aspen Institute, the Sports & Society Program recognizes the importance of sports policy in building healthy communities through sports. Tom Farrey and Vince Minjares testified at the lone hearing of the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, joining speakers from the USOPC, USADA, U.S. Center for SafeSport, grassroots sport providers, and other organizations. In addition, at the request of the Commission, the Aspen Institute acted as the Commission’s fiscal agent, allowing its members the runway to complete the report as they saw fit. The Institute had no oversight over the content of the report, which is an independent product of the Commission.
Develop a national plan to improve coaching
Vincent Minjares, Aspen’s program manager for coaching and school sports, was among those who testified at the Commission’s lone public hearing on Sept. 6. Many ideas he proposed were embraced in the report, most broadly the notion that well-educated coaches are an essential in building a system that better serves communities. Coaches are the key agents in whether a child develops their human and athletic potential through a sport, yet no national strategy guides efforts to recruit and train them.
“Policymakers and movement stakeholders together should begin a national dialogue on ways to improve coaching at all levels,” the Commission wrote.
For parents volunteering as coaches, the Commission proposed making certain out-of-pocket expenses tax deductible. It called for Congress to launch a national scholarship program providing grants or low-interest loans to help students afford coach education courses. It suggested that universities offer degree or certificate programs in coaching and coaching-related fields by drawing on course offerings that already exist in sports science, sports psychology, nutrition, child development, education, and other fields.
The report recognized that the youth sports industry needs better data on coaching trends, broken down by demographic. It called for a national registry that can help track progress on rates of licensing, retention, and other topics, and for a survey to gauge coaches’ attitudes and needs, all of which could shape coaching plans at each level from rec sports to Team USA.
Create greater transparency and accountability
Since inception of the Sports Act, the USOPC has operated as something of an unregulated monopoly, with the exclusive right to raise money from selling access to the Olympic rings. Congressional oversight has been poor, loosely informed and reactionary, with members mostly paying attention only when major scandals warrant televised hearings.
The Commission calls for more checks and balances. Its solution is greater oversight through an Inspector General’s (IG) office that oversees the USOPC, US Anti-Doping Agency, Center for SafeSport, NGBs, and Team USA Athletes’ Commission, which the Commission proposes making independent from the USOPC. The IG would be a Senate-confirmed appointee “responsible for ensuring the budgetary and operational accountability, transparency, and due-process compliance of entities authorized by Congress to participate in the government and oversight of movement sports in our country.”
The IG would serve as a secure point of contact for stakeholders to report mismanagement or policy violations. Through semi-annual reporting, Congress would gain proactive insights into financial and operational fidelity and the authority to intervene in instances of abuse, fraud, or retaliation against whistleblowers.
Five Questions to Resolve
What’s the appropriate role of a federal office?
The Commission calls on Congress to “allow USOPC to focus on high-performance athletes and create a new federal office to coordinate and develop youth and grassroots sports.” It proposes the formation of an Office of Sports and Fitness (OFS) under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would carry out its mission using competitive-grant programs for state and local governments, the governing bodies, and community-based nonprofit organizations. The office also would set “minimum safety standards and leading practices” as well as publish data on participation and national trends.
When the report was released, the headline in Wall Street Journal was, “Olympic Commission Wants to Put the U.S. Government in Charge of Youth Sports.”
That’s a bit strong, suggesting your local Little League would now be run by Washington. The Commission made clear that it’s not proposing a ministry or department of sports, new federal agency to regulate sports like in nearly all countries. Rather, the OFS would bolster what HHS is already doing to guide stakeholders and elevate best actors in the interests of public health. In 2019, on the order of President Trump, HHS created the National Youth Sports Strategy, which aims to unite U.S. sport culture around a shared vision that all youth have the opportunity to play sports. Since the 1960s, HHS also has been home to the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, an advisory group of athletes and experts that promotes healthy lifestyles in the private sector.
The big new feature would be a competitive-grants program facilitated by OFS that could help states and local governments, NGBs and community-based nonprofit organizations support grassroots sports. The Commission does not propose a funding source or total spend, but grants also could be used for programs, facilities, research, adaptive equipment, and certifications. Criteria could be set that includes minimum safety standards like criminal background checks and training in health and safety for coaches. The program would need to be set up so it does not subsidize affluent families with kids on club teams.
With tweaks, the concept has promise. We know the clearinghouse system for grantmaking works, allowing American ingenuity to flourish by promoting competition aligned with best practices. But running such a program from a new federal office could create bureaucratic challenges. There are 1,118 political appointees at the start of every new administration, and most require Senate confirmation. That means if a new president is elected every four years, the OFS could function without an Assistant Secretary for more than a year.
Additionally, it’s difficult to hire subject-matter experts for civil service positions as the criteria favors career bureaucrats and military veterans. To staff an office with youth sports experts to oversee the grants program, policy and research will be next to impossible unless hiring practices within the government change.
There’s a clear need for greater government support of the base of our sports system, especially with the world’s eyes on the U.S. in the coming years via mega-events such as the Olympics/Paralympics and 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. But policymakers may want to explore a range of options on how best to do that, drawing on learnings from other countries with high youth participation rates.
What happens to the USOPC and NGBs?
Most Americans (54.8%) are aware that the USOPC plays a role in coordinating and developing youth and grassroots sports in the U.S., a Commission survey shows. If that part of its dual mandate is stripped away from the USOPC, policymakers and the public may ask: Do you still need a $300 million annual budget? To support the small number of elite athletes who represent or could represent the nation in the Olympics and Paralympics?
It's easy to overlook the importance of administrators and competitive salaries help recruit talent that can advance opportunities. That’s especially true with the Olympics and Paralympics coming to LA in 2028 and most likely the Winter Games returning to Salt Lake City in 2034. USOPC executives work with a web of stakeholders including the International Olympic Committee, several branches of the U.S. government, sponsors, athletes, vendors and stakeholders in host cities. They also run several training centers.
Still, the USOPC is much larger than other national Olympic committees. In the United Kingdom, where UK Sport trains high performance athletes and the British Olympic Association selects and sends the best of them to the Games, both organizations are smaller than Sport England, a quasi-government agency which oversees the development of mass sport. Sport England works with its NGBs (National Sport and Multi-Sport Organizations), regional coalitions of sport providers and community clubs, investing $317 million a year in grassroots programs that abide best practices.
The model proposed by the Commission absolves the NGBs of any responsibility to develop the grassroots. That’s an even bigger deal than refocusing the USOPC strictly on high-performance athletes, and a fundamental flaw in its plan. Sport-specific NGBs are essential in driving best practices through their pipelines, as envisioned under the Sports Act. Some have done that well, among them USA Hockey which introduced the American Development Model, or ADM, as a framework to grow participation and develop talent.
NGBs, especially smaller ones, need more financial resources and incentives to prioritize the grassroots. Without that, it’s hard to imagine how ADM is “adopted universally as the foundation for coaching in our country,” as the Commission recommends.
What about the voices of most athletes?
Elite athletes were represented well on the Commission, whose 13 members included nine former Olympians and Paralympians. And the perspective of elite athletes was represented well in the final report.
The recommendations include calls for greater stipends, health insurance, and other benefits for athletes with podium potential, recognizing that many struggle to cover training costs. They propose taking the $20 million annual payment the USOPC now sends to SafeSport abuse prevention and giving it to NGBs to support high-performance athletes. They call for a fully independent Team USA Athletes’ Commission – a union of sorts – “with the authority to negotiate on behalf of athletes with the USOPC, the governing bodies, SafeSport, and USADA.”
Absent from the report are the voices of the vast majority of the 11 million athletes in the Olympic and Paralympic movement. While there is a strong and consistent callout for the need to better support youth and grassroots sports – indeed, it’s Recommendation #1 – the perspectives of emerging athletes are not reflected in the report. Nor are their rights, beyond a blanket recognition that “American athletes, when participating in movement sports, have certain fundamental rights, including a safe and abuse-free environment …”
That’s a start. But building a better system will require more insights from youth, through surveys, advisory groups and technology that creates feedback loops.
As USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland testified, “We are all part of Team USA.”
Where will the funding come from?
If policymakers can’t figure out this piece, nothing happens. The Commission suggested Congress consider directing the Internal Revenue Service to add a voluntary-donation checkbox to individual tax-filing forms, with revenues earmarked to support youth programs or athletes’ safety and well-being. Other options floated include a federal excise tax on income from legal sports betting, or perhaps a national lottery which many countries use to fund its system.
Policymakers should be motivated. Through its Healthy People 2030 initiative, the federal government has set a youth sport participation target of 63% by the end of the decade (it’s currently at 51%, according to the latest data). Last week, computer modeling experts, working with our Aspen Institute program, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and researchers from five universities, released a peer-reviewed study showing that reaching that target will unlock $80 billion in direct medical costs saved and worker productivity gains due to improved physical and mental health into adulthood, plus another 1.8 million Quality Years of Life lived by today’s 6-to-17-year-olds.
What’s a $1 billion investment in grassroots sports with that kind of social ROI? It’s an opening, as well, to approach big philanthropy, the corporate sector, and perhaps even the Pentagon, given the crisis in recruiting fit soldiers into today’s military and the historical relationship between the Paralympics and injured veterans.
Sport organizations would be wise to rally around the moment. In a Commission survey last July, 69% of American adults said the USOPC and NGBs should help achieve the goal of lifting youth participation to 63%. Asked which institution in our sport ecosystem would benefit most from taxpayer support, 52% said youth and school sports (14% said the Olympics, 7% the Paralympics, 6% college sports, and 5% the professional leagues).
In an election year, everyone is distracted and nothing is certain. Reform efforts in college sports, another institution in the eye of Congress, could help boost the movement.
What about the states?
The final recommendation in the report underscores the largely untapped role that states can play in supporting communities and athletes at all levels. Historically, state governance of sports has been confined to arm’s length relationships that departments of education have with high school athletic federations, which set the rules for interscholastic competition among teams from member schools.
But new opportunities are emerging. New York allocated a cut of mobile sports betting to support youth sports programs for underserved kids, and other states are considering the same. Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland reached into the state budget in recent years. Washington and California passed bills mandating recess for youth, a measure the Commission encouraged more states to do. The Commission imagines states working more closely with HHS on safety protections.
This spring, our Aspen Institute program will produce reports on what measures states are taking – and can take – to balance competing interests and create the youth sport cultures their constituents seek. We will also offer additional guidance on ways that the federal government can better support and coordinate the development of youth sports, in consultation with leaders including those from the Olympic and Paralympic Movement.
Our filter will be the same as it was with our assessment of the Commission report. Which is to say: If you’re going to design a system, do so from the foundation up.
Tom Farrey is executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Sports & Society Program, the signature initiative of which is Project Play. Ashleigh Huffman, PhD, is sports policy consultant to Project Play and a former chief of sport diplomacy for the U.S. Department of State.