Key Takeaways

• Playing sports brings real benefits to children and young adults, including higher grades, better mental health, and stronger social ties, especially for boys with adverse childhood experiences.
• The gender gap in youth sports is narrowing, but largely because fewer boys are playing, not because more girls are joining. There has been a downward trend in boys’ sports participation over the past decade.
• Low-income boys are hit hardest: Only 25% of low-income boys play sports, compared to 53% overall.
• Multiple barriers may limit boys’ access to sports, including rising costs, academic eligibility rules, a shortage of quality coaches, and fewer recreational play opportunities.
• We lack data on what works: Most existing research is correlational, not causal. We need more evaluation of policies, from coaching recruitment to the impact of academic eligibility rules.

Youth sports deliver multiple benefits: better health, stronger academics, and a deeper social connection. The good news is that the participation of girls in sports has increased in recent decades. The bad news is that boys’ involvement has stagnated, and in recent years has declined.

The gender gap in youth sports participation is narrowing rapidly, but in part because of the decline for boys. This is not the best way to get to parity.

In this brief, we explore trends in sports participation among boys and girls, especially at the high school level, drawing on a range of different data sources. We also examine differences by class and race, as well as by academic performance. We then consider potential barriers to involvement in sports among boys, especially “no pass, no play” laws, a lack of coaches, and cost barriers. Finally, we describe various initiatives to improve participation and areas for future research.

Fewer boys playing sports

Participation in organized sports has risen in aggregate over the last several decades, but more recent data reveal troubling signs of decline among boys.

• The Sports & Fitness Industry Association surveys, used by the Aspen Institute’s State of Play, report that the percentage of boys regularly engaging in sports dropped by 9 points over the past decade, while the participation rate for girls has stayed relatively steady.
• The High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey also shows a decline from peak boys participation of 64% in 2011 to 60% in 2019, declining further to 52% by 2021.
• The National Survey of Children’s Health also shows a decline, though more modest, with boys’ participation down from 62% in 2016 to 58% by 2022.

Each of these data sources has advantages and disadvantages, but they all reveal the same overall downward trend for boys in sports, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Over the same time periods, girls’ participation has remained more stable, depending on which dataset is analyzed, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

For the last five decades, the focus of policymakers has been on increasing access to sports for girls and young women. This was, and still is, sorely needed: historically, such benefits were limited to boys with sparse opportunities for girls in organized sports. Since the landmark Title IX legislation in 1972, the number of total instances of girls’ participating in sports has increased dramatically—from fewer than 300,000 in 1971 to over 3.4 million today, as Figure 3 shows. (Note that this uses a different data source to Figures 1 and 2). This remarkable growth highlights the powerful impact of effective policies and support systems.

Figure 3

The disruption of the pandemic—both in sports participation and survey collection—highlights the importance of monitoring trends and exploring discrepancies across data sources over the coming years. We need to continue to understand baseline trends as well as general and gender-specific barriers to sports participation.

Both boys and girls like sports

Sports is the most popular extracurricular activity for male high schoolers and the second-most popular among girls (after music and dance), with participation rates of 53% and 41% respectively, according to the High School Longitudinal Survey. Sports are the only extracurricular activity which boys are more likely to take part in than girls, as Figure 4 shows. Because sports play a uniquely central role in boys’ extracurricular engagement, any drop-off in participation may have disproportionate impacts on their overall connection to school.

Figure 4

This pattern holds across racial and socioeconomic groups, as shown in Figure 5. However, low-income students of both genders are significantly less likely to participate in sports overall, suggesting potential financial barriers. Notably, the gender gap is greatest among these students, with only one in four low-income girls involved in sports.

Figure 5

Sports are good

Parents think sports are good for their children: 84% believe sports benefit their child’s physical health and 75% believe that sports benefit their child’s mental health, according to a 2024 survey. They are right: there is good evidence for the benefits of sports participation among children and young adults. As Robert Putnam writes in his book, Our Kids:

“Consistent involvement in extra curricular activities is strongly associated with a variety of positive outcomes during the school year and beyond—even after controlling for family background, cognitive skills and many other potentially confounding variables … Among both men and women, the extracurricular activity most consistently associated with high academic achievement is sports.”

Research consistently shows that sports participation during childhood and adolescence is positively associated with:

• Better physical health: Comprehensive reviews show that youth sports and physical activity is associated with improved weight, cardiovascular, muscle and bone health.
• Better mental health: Studies have found lower rates of drug usage, depression, anxiety, and stress, including among children with adverse childhood experiences (where the association appears larger for boys).
• Better social connection: Youth sports are also a social experience that can shape a child’s social development, including improved teamwork and social responsibility. Young athletes often feel accepted and supported by their peers, especially in team sports. Sports participation is associated with improved social health, leadership development, and higher family, teacher and community support.
• Better academic performance: Youth sports are also linked to academic achievement, including higher test scores, expectations of college attendance, and lower dropout rates. These impacts may be stronger for school-based sports.

Data from the High School Longitudinal Survey shown in Figure 6 highlights this correlation: athletes have high GPAs. As Figure 6 also shows, male athletes have GPA outcomes similar to female non-athletes.

Figure 6

It is important to note that most of the existing research linking sports participation to positive outcomes is correlational, making it difficult to determine causal relationships, especially given selection effects. And there are potential negative impacts, including academic trade-offs, injuries, and stress. But, on balance, the theoretical foundations, existing evidence, and expert assessment for sports participation indicate positive outcomes for both boys and girls. Nonetheless, we need more rigorous research to understand the magnitude of the impacts, variability by gender and other demographics, and the mechanisms.

Why might boys be playing sports less often?

We don’t have definitive answers, but several hypotheses are worth exploring, including but not limited to:

• More competition from screens: Video games and social media compete for time and attention, with 61% of teenage boys playing video games every day.
• Decline of casual play: Fewer low-pressure options and more early specialization may deter kids who just want to play for fun.
• Ongoing covid-impact: Pandemic-related disruptions were substantial and impacts may linger for several years.
• Rising injury concerns: Increased awareness of concussions and overuse injuries may be leading some families to pull back from youth sports, especially contact-heavy ones.
• Coaching shortages: A decline in male teachers, who also serve as coaches, is leaving a growing gap between the classroom and the sports field.
• Academic eligibility policies: “No pass, no play” policies disproportionately impact boys.
• Cost barriers: Equipment, fees, and travel make sports less accessible—especially for low-income families and schools.

Some of these explanations likely affect both genders, but there may also be gender-specific impacts. Here we briefly explore the last three potential barriers.

More coaches needed

Coaches are critical to providing sports opportunities and enriching participants’ experiences. Available data suggest there is a shortage: 81% of coaches report a need for more coaches in their community. About half of school sports coaches are teachers, and among teacher-coaches, men are significantly overrepresented: 31% of male teachers coach compared to 7% of female teachers. A possible factor contributing to the shortage of coaches is therefore the low and declining number of men entering teaching. The number of teacher-coaches is overall down, as seen in Figure 7, driven by a large decline in the number of male coaches.

We need more quality coaches overall—including men and women—and we need to better understand the degree of the current shortage, its implications, and identify the most effective strategies to recruit and retain high-quality coaches.

Figure 7

The National Coaching Survey from the Aspen Institutes and OSU highlights several challenges with recruiting and retaining coaches, including resource constraints, training gaps, and job stressors. But despite these challenges, the vast majority of coaches find great meaning in their roles: 89% indicated they were “somewhat” or “extremely” likely to continue coaching, and 78% described their experiences as “very” or “extremely” satisfying.

Good male coaches may not only help engage boys, boost retention, and provide role models, but also provide an opportunity for men to engage deeply in their community. Programs like the Million Coaches Challenge and Positive Coaching Alliance are potential models, but we need more data on what actually works.

“No pass, no play” rules

In 49 of 50 U.S. states, high school students must meet academic standards—often referred to as “no pass, no play” policies—to be eligible for school sports. While implementation varies, these policies typically require students to pass a certain number of courses, meet attendance thresholds, or maintain a minimum GPA.

These academic eligibility standards likely have a disproportionate impact on boys, who generally have lower academic performance than girls, particularly on metrics like GPA. As shown in Figure 8, boys make up nearly two-thirds of all students with low GPAs. Given their higher overall rates of sports participation, the GPA thresholds therefore affect roughly twice as many boys as girls.

Figure 8

Black and Hispanic boys are especially impacted by these cutoff rules. 55% of Black male students and 47% of Hispanic male students have GPAs under 1.7. For students whose participation in sports is a central and positive aspect of their school experience, losing athletic eligibility due to academic criteria may undermine their motivation to stay in school.

Proponents of these policies argue that they incentivize students to improve academically, yet evidence of the impact is mixed or inconclusive. Without convincing evidence of clear benefits, these policies risk becoming a harmful default—creating administrative burdens for schools, and at worst, punishing the very students most in need of support.

Cost barriers

Youth sports can be prohibitively costly, with 49% of parents reporting they have had difficulty paying for youth sports, running about $1,491 per child. Cost likely contributes to the much lower, and declining, rates of participation for low-income students noted above. As Robert Putnum’s work shows, this gap wasn’t always so severe: in 1970, 86% of students with the highest socioeconomic status (SES) participated in school-based extracurriculars and 77% of the lowest. However, by 2002 while high SES rates stayed steady, among low SES students, they declined to 66%.

There are several possible contributors to rising costs. In public schools, fees for sports, or “pay to play”, regimes are common. While these fees can help make more sports programs financially sustainable, they can also make it harder for low-income students to participate. The shifting nature of youth sports away from affordable community-based recreational leagues toward more specialized and expensive club or travel teams is another likely contributor. However, research into how these financial barriers specifically affect youth—particularly boys—is limited.

How have policymakers and nonprofits responded?

There is a concerted effort by public health and sports organizations to increase youth participation in the coming years. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through its Healthy People 2030 initiative, set a goal of 63% of children playing sports by 2030.

In 2018, a presidential executive order directed the development of a national strategy to expand youth sports, especially in communities with below-average participation. This led to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services releasing the National Youth Sports Strategy in 2019—the first federal roadmap to increase youth sports participation.

Congress has also introduced legislation to reduce financial barriers. The bipartisan Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Act would allow families to use pre-tax medical accounts or deductions for youth sports expenses (league fees, equipment, gym memberships). It offers up to $1,000 ($2,000 for families) in tax deductions for qualified fitness expenses. The PHIT Act passed the House in 2018 but awaits full enactment. Another proposal, the PLAYS in Youth Sports Act, was reintroduced in Congress in 2023. This bipartisan bill would create a $75 million federal grant program to support nonprofit organizations that use sports for positive youth development.

At the local level, Colorado, Alabama, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts have all recently passed policies to improve youth sports participation. The National Association of Police Athletic Leagues has 300 chapters nationwide to increase sports participation and foster positive relationships between police officers and youth.

A number of civil society organizations aim to increase sports participation by training coaches for youth sports, including the Positive Coaching Alliance, the Million Coaches Challenge, and Up2Us Sports. Let Me Run is one of the few sports initiatives focused specifically on the character development of boys.

Better research to inform better policies

Participation in sports is associated with a wide range of positive outcomes including mental and physical health, academic achievement, and social integration. Yet participation among boys is declining, and while there are several possible explanations, the precise causes remain unclear. While this decline has caught the attention of some, we lack rigorous evidence about the barriers to boys’ participation in sports and the effectiveness of policy proposals to overcome them.

Additional research to improve our understanding and inform policy solutions could include:

• Uncovering causal mechanisms: Current literature predominantly establishes correlational relationships with sports involvement. Quasi-experimental studies, like the one by Betsey Stevenson, could clarify whether sports directly improve outcomes or simply attract already high-achieving youth, and if mechanisms or impacts vary by gender—for example, whether boys benefit uniquely from male coaching relationships.
• Investigating barriers: We have surprisingly little data on key dimensions of sports participation. For example, we don’t fully understand the market shares of school, recreational, elite, or travel sports and how they’ve varied over time and by demographic group, the scale of coaching shortages, the impact of virtual gaming on physical play, or whether declines in participation stem more from reduced demand or constrained supply.
• Evaluation of specific policies: Too little is known about the impact, positive or negative, of particular interventions. Future research could focus, for example, on:
  • Effectiveness of coaching recruitment: Most nonprofit initiatives focus on training new coaches, but there is scant evidence about what works to recruit and retain quality coaches, including teachers.
  • Economic modeling of pay-to-play alternatives: California’s 2013 fee prohibition offers limited evidence for national scaling due to unique constitutional provisions. Critical unknowns include whether schools compensate for lost fee revenue by cutting programs or increasing class sizes. If the PLAY Act is passed by Congress, it could enable research comparing fee structures to participation rates.
  • No pass, no play evaluations: Variations in state or district implementation and potential reforms or removals provide opportunities to assess these requirements.
• Long-term tracking of policy interventions: Better data infrastructure is needed to track longer-term outcomes and better assess policies and programs. For example, a new federal cohort study could link K-12 sports records with earnings data and postsecondary attainment, or state longitudinal data systems could integrate sports participation data.

Addressing these gaps requires coordinated efforts among policymakers, researchers, and nonprofits. Embedding researchers in policy processes and dedicating a portion of youth sports funding to evaluation could also help ensure effective, evidence-based, and gender-sensitive solutions.

Conclusion

Youth sports shouldn’t be another arena where boys quietly fall behind.

We ought to celebrate and continue to support the dramatic rise of girls’ sports participation over the past 50 years. At the same time, we need new research and evaluation to inform innovative policy proposals to reverse the recent decline in boys’ sports participation.

Policymakers must proactively address financial, logistical, and structural barriers. By investing in evidence-based solutions, we can ensure that girls and boys alike reap the lifelong benefits of sports participation.