Fewer Kids Playing Sports In Their Teen Years

[Unregistered]

People also play less video games as they get older. Interests change, bodies change, it happens. No need to over analyze it and try to come up with some reason it is happening.

[Unregistered]

You responded to my post. I’m not saying that everyone is not competitive or doesn’t want to do their best and win even when playing recreationally. No one likes to lose even in a pickup game and that is healthy. Clearly there are some children who have more fire in them and that can be a great thing when combined with skills and physical ability. What I mean by competition is that when they have reached their teens (puberty) and have gone through training they are ready for competition with other similarly talented teens in the full (11v11) game. This what most in Europe, etc. would consider the beginning of real competition and I want to stress the word “beginning” because at U-15 or 16 you certainly haven’t mastered the sport. They wouldn’t look at a 7v7 or 9v9 game of 9-11 year olds and call that truly “competitive” since the children don’t have the physical strength or experience to play the full game. Making the jump to the teen team at a club and then on to a semi-pro or pro team in Europe is an extremely hard process that few are able to do. It’s not just desire, but having the physical and mental understanding of the game.

The difference is that here more often than not parents and coaches seem to take what should be developmental years far too seriously. The focus on travel and winning, etc. at these ages waters down the training they should be receiving. They put the cart before the horse. I hope your daughter continues to love the game and work on her skills.

Part of the issue is that we have lost a balance on all levels of sports. At the most competitive level the balance between competitive-claw-your-way-to-the-top occurs too early and this is somewhat driven by parents and coaches. Having that drive isn't necessarily bad but needing or being forced to have it everyday has issues. For kids (youth, teens alike) to have all work and no play results in greater burnout.

Every workout guru will express the need for varied intensity during the training from day to day. You can train everyday but there has to be a balance between levels of intensity, both physical and mental. The clubs have the kids for 3 days (should be a minimum) per week and, it seems, that they feel the need to cram in 2 or 3 days of workout into each practice. Perhaps that can be balanced by some other workouts at home on the off days that have a different but complimentary focus?

On the less intense part of society, the options as they get older (teen years) are declining. these kids just want to have fun. At the risk of sounding like a pansy (which I am certainly not), the fun part is slowly disappearing. Maybe we have to blame technology, but parents need to kick the kids out of the house more to get exercise instead of sitting on their ass.

[Unregistered]

Part of the issue is that we have lost a balance on all levels of sports. At the most competitive level the balance between competitive-claw-your-way-to-the-top occurs too early and this is somewhat driven by parents and coaches. Having that drive isn't necessarily bad but needing or being forced to have it everyday has issues. For kids (youth, teens alike) to have all work and no play results in greater burnout.

Every workout guru will express the need for varied intensity during the training from day to day. You can train everyday but there has to be a balance between levels of intensity, both physical and mental. The clubs have the kids for 3 days (should be a minimum) per week and, it seems, that they feel the need to cram in 2 or 3 days of workout into each practice. Perhaps that can be balanced by some other workouts at home on the off days that have a different but complimentary focus?

On the less intense part of society, the options as they get older (teen years) are declining. these kids just want to have fun. At the risk of sounding like a pansy (which I am certainly not), the fun part is slowly disappearing. Maybe we have to blame technology, but parents need to kick the kids out of the house more to get exercise instead of sitting on their ass.

I see this "lack of fun" issue rearing its head most often in high school sports. There seems to be a growing gap between the needs/desires of coaches and the teams' best players vs. those that want to participate, be part of a team, play for their school, get exercise and enjoy their lives. I've seen this across several team sports, but its most glaring in team sports that require real chemistry for success: soccer, field hockey, basketball, lacrosse.

The players most committed to the sport are playing it year-round, and many are looking beyond high school to college careers. Having a few key members of the team being ultra-committed can be annoying, intimidating or simply exhausting to the other members of the team who are approaching the sport more casually. If the coach, AD, etc. don't manage the dynamic carefully, the casual team members have enough other options to simply quit, and the roster ends up being hollowed out.

I think the healthiest environment is one where a school has several multi-sport athletes, for they generally understand the team dynamic, are supportive of teammates that may be more casual in their commitment, and are less likely to put their own personal developmental needs or recruiting needs ahead of the team. While multi-sport athletes may not be optimizing their potential in a single sport, I think it leads to a healthier team environment, which broadens participation. If the goal is broader participation in the teen years (and clearly some ADs are more interested in accumulating championships than high participation numbers) then bridging the gap between "serious" and "casual" athletes is crucial.

[Unregistered]

I see this "lack of fun" issue rearing its head most often in high school sports. There seems to be a growing gap between the needs/desires of coaches and the teams' best players vs. those that want to participate, be part of a team, play for their school, get exercise and enjoy their lives. I've seen this across several team sports, but its most glaring in team sports that require real chemistry for success: soccer, field hockey, basketball, lacrosse.

The players most committed to the sport are playing it year-round, and many are looking beyond high school to college careers. Having a few key members of the team being ultra-committed can be annoying, intimidating or simply exhausting to the other members of the team who are approaching the sport more casually. If the coach, AD, etc. don't manage the dynamic carefully, the casual team members have enough other options to simply quit, and the roster ends up being hollowed out.

I think the healthiest environment is one where a school has several multi-sport athletes, for they generally understand the team dynamic, are supportive of teammates that may be more casual in their commitment, and are less likely to put their own personal developmental needs or recruiting needs ahead of the team. While multi-sport athletes may not be optimizing their potential in a single sport, I think it leads to a healthier team environment, which broadens participation. If the goal is broader participation in the teen years (and clearly some ADs are more interested in accumulating championships than high participation numbers) then bridging the gap between "serious" and "casual" athletes is crucial.

This is why my son doesn’t play high school soccer. He is well aware of this dynamic. His goal stretches beyond high school so he’s had to choose not to play with friends in pursuit of a stretch goal. Hopefully it works out for him.