Memo to parents: Beware of Long-Term Athletic Development (LTAD). Here’s why.
In 21st-century sports, it’s not just about kids playing—it’s all about practice, skill development, and Long-Term Athletic Development (LTAD). Whether your kid is kicking goals on the soccer field, swinging clubs on the golf course, or tossing a football, LTAD seems like the Holy Grail in sports. You might have encountered its literature or been presented with the prospect of improved results or athletic scholarships. It’s omnipresent.
Yet, amidst all this buzz, here’s the snag—it’s not science; it’s more like an exaggerated sales pitch, a ploy to push stuff you probably don’t need, and it has potentially harmful consequences.
There seems to be a moment in youth sports when your child is about 10 or 11 when the coach lets you know there might be practice this weekend. Don’t make plans; they will get back to you. The underlying issue here is that subconsciously, the coach is conditioning the parents to put sports first, to halt all reason and all other planning, and to enter into a codependent relationship.
Youth sports are often experiments on kids gone wrong, taking us back to the Milgram experiments. As you might recall, in the 1960s, Yale professor Stanley Milgram tested people’s obedience. Like in these experiments, sports organizations are exercising control over parents peddling their bogus development under the guise “you must continue.”
The problem is that no science supports their claims, and this is not an experiment. Instead, it’s the lives of our kids that make the actions of sports organizations extremely troubling.
Codependency and Human Conditioning (see Pavlov) are well-established sciences that you have probably been exposed to at some point in your reading or school. On the other hand, LTAD has its roots dating back to the mid-1950s when Eastern Bloc countries, led by the former Soviet Union, laid the groundwork for sports schools that held sway over international competitions until the early 1970s. Then, in 1995, Istvan Balyi, a sports scientist from British Columbia’s National Coaching Institute, dropped a bombshell–a four-stage training model–FUNdamentals, Training to Train, Training to Compete, and Training to Win. This framework aimed to cater to both sports performance and participation paths.
The fact is that sports science is not science. Instead, they are the guide of science, which has become the fuel to promise a world of self-determination where any blank slate can be molded into the most exquisite athlete, academic or likewise. The problem is that these are shadowy tools that are gateways to codependency. For example, an Athletics Canada publication raises a startling notion: “Kids failing to develop their motor skills by age 12 may never unlock their full athletic potential. The entirety of your child’s sports future could supposedly be sealed by the time they’re barely into puberty—a day lazing on the couch could potentially shatter your sporting aspirations!”
This extreme claim isn’t alone in the ring. Tennis Canada recently championed LTAD, citing a book titled Range by David Epstein as a cornerstone. However, here’s the kicker: Epstein, not precisely an academic titan, delved into an environmental science degree and penned works covering the Alex Rodriguez steroids scandal. Despite being labeled as non-fiction, relying on this book as a guiding light for kids’ athletic futures seems like quite a stretch. So why isn’t it?
When kids are in their teens, many parents have an out-of-control relationship with sports, which has elements of sunk cost, endowment effect, and codependency. Together, they form a quasi-version of Stockholm Syndrome. The problem is that this happens very slowly and purposefully. Parents are asked to anti a little here, throw a couple of compliments, be educated with junk science, and then BOOM!
The other, more practical problem is that parents have no other options. So, what should a parent do?
Our fascination with predictions spans centuries—from biblical prophecies to Nostradamus and today’s obsession with fantasy sports. The catch? We’re atrocious at it. Case in point: 2022’s “March Madness” brackets and everyone took a nosedive by the first Friday. Over 100 million brackets have been used since 2016, and not a single one has come close to perfection. Even Warren Buffett, in 2008, waved a flag at hedge funds, showcasing our inability to foresee the future. His bet against a managed fund easily trounced the competition.
It’s tempting to resonate with the Invictus poem, feeling like the captain of your fate. But let’s get real—life’s more like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’ll get. Despite the sales pitch, no coach or plan holds the crystal ball to predict the next GOAT or foresee winners in any given showdown. Asserting otherwise is simply the work of charlatans.
Research into LTAD’s effectiveness? Surprise, surprise—a glaring absence of research supports their effectiveness. There’s a dearth of solid research supporting LTAD’s claims of success. Critics’ skepticism in academic circles echoes throughout, yet the LTAD juggernaut continues to roll on. Why? Because it’s tightly woven into the fabric of youth sports marketing.
In research with colleagues from Baylor and Ohio State universities, we analyzed data from 4,000 Americans. Our findings show that a negative experience in youth sports had a more significant detrimental impact on a person long-term than not participating in sports. The fact is that the messages we send kids have deep meaning and impact on their lives. The current system likely has more flaws. We just aren’t sure what they are right now.
In athletic development, the blueprint revolves around structured plans, prescribed routines, and vigilant oversight. Yet, upon closer inspection, a striking paradox emerges: This isn’t about developing kids’ excellence; it’s about conditioning parents to spend more money.
Parents have relied on a system that serves them or their kids’ best interests. The problem is that we are all held hostage by this system, which is propagated by junk science and echoed by sports organizations. While this will not change overnight, it deserves our attention and more oversight.
____________________
B.M. Ryan is a retired entrepreneur who plays too much golf and–when struck to do so–writes about a diverse and broad spectrum of ideas.
