Rebuilding the Village: Why Youth Sport Has Become One of Our Last Social Institutions....and Why That Matters

/

For much of the twentieth century, youth sport functioned as a village. Not a romanticised utopia, but a loosely held social system where children were seen, known, corrected, supported, and carried by more than one adult voice. Coaches, volunteers, parents, referees, and older players collectively shaped young people’s sporting experiences, transmitting norms about effort, fairness, belonging, and responsibility (Putnam, 2000). As other community institutions have weakened, youth sport has quietly become one of the last remaining places where this kind of social learning still occurs. What happens when that village begins to fragment?

In contemporary youth sport, participation increasingly occurs inside professionalised, performance-oriented systems that prize efficiency, outcomes, and progression (Collins et al., 2019). While these structures promise opportunity, they often narrow social relationships, concentrate authority, and reduce the number of adults who meaningfully influence a young person’s sporting life. The village shrinks, replaced by pathways, hierarchies, and metrics. If sport is no longer a shared social space, what kind of development can it realistically support?

Sociologically, this shift mirrors broader patterns of declining social capital. Putnam’s (2000) work showed that communal engagement has steadily eroded across Western societies, with fewer shared rituals, weaker intergenerational ties, and reduced trust in institutions. Youth sport, rather than being immune to these trends, increasingly reflects them. Clubs become service providers, parents become consumers, and coaches become performance technicians. When relationships are transactional, how is belonging sustained?

The loss of the village is not merely structural; it is experiential. Young athletes today often move between teams, programs, and competitions with little continuity of relationships. Coaches change frequently, peer groups are reshuffled through selection and deselection, and seasons end before social bonds can deepen. While mobility is framed as opportunity, it also fragments identity and attachment (Arnett, 2014). Can young people feel anchored in systems that rarely allow them to settle?

This fragmentation matters most during adolescence. Developmental psychology consistently shows that adolescents require stable relational environments to explore identity safely, manage uncertainty, and construct coherent narratives about who they are becoming (Siegel, 2012). Sport has the potential to be such an environment….but only when it prioritises relationships over rankings. When belonging becomes conditional on performance, what developmental work is left undone?

From a motivation perspective, the village matters because motivation is social before it is individual. Self-Determination Theory emphasises relatedness as a foundational psychological need, alongside autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Environments that foster shared identity, mutual care, and psychological safety sustain engagement far more effectively than those driven solely by outcomes. If belonging is central to motivation, why do so many youth sport structures treat it as incidental?

Narrative identity theory adds another layer. Adolescents build their sense of self through stories; stories about effort, failure, contribution, and recognition (McAdams, 2013). The village provides multiple storytellers who reflect different versions of the self back to the young person. When sport collapses storytelling authority into a single voice….usually the coach or selector… identity narrows. Whose stories are young athletes allowed to hear about themselves?

Importantly, rebuilding the village does not mean rejecting performance or ambition. Rather, it requires re-embedding performance within a broader social purpose. Research on effective talent development environments consistently shows that strong relational cultures coexist with high standards when development is understood as a long-term, human process rather than a sorting exercise (Güllich & Emrich, 2014). Why do we continue to frame belonging and excellence as opposites?

One of the most overlooked functions of the village is buffering. In communal systems, setbacks are absorbed collectively; disappointment is contextualised; failure is shared. In individualised pathways, failure becomes personal, visible, and often final (Gustafsson et al., 2011). Without social buffers, young athletes are more vulnerable to burnout, withdrawal, and identity foreclosure. Who carries the emotional load when the village disappears?

The erosion of the village also amplifies inequality. When relational support is scarce, those with greater cultural, social, or economic capital are better equipped to navigate complex systems (Bourdieu, 1986). Parents who understand pathways, advocate effectively, or provide supplementary resources help their children remain visible. Others quietly fade. If sport reproduces social advantage rather than redistributing it, what moral claim does it retain?

Rebuilding the village begins with environment design rather than individual blame. Clubs and academies can intentionally widen circles of care by valuing assistant coaches, mentors, older athletes, and community volunteers as developmental assets rather than logistical extras (Côté et al., 2009). Stable age-group cohorts, shared rituals, and longer coach-athlete relationships all strengthen social fabric. What if development pathways were designed for continuity rather than churn?

Coaching practice also plays a central role. Autonomy-supportive coaching, characterised by listening, explanation, and shared decision-making; reinforces agency while preserving connection (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). When athletes feel heard, they remain invested even during periods of limited opportunity. Could relational competence be treated as a core coaching skill rather than a personality trait?

At a system level, rebuilding the village requires reframing success. Retention, re-entry, and long-term engagement should be valued alongside progression metrics. Research increasingly suggests that youth sport’s primary societal contribution lies in social connection and identity development, with physical outcomes secondary for most participants (Eime et al., 2013). If sport is one of our last villages, should its success be judged solely by who makes it through?

Ultimately, rebuilding the village is an ethical project. It asks sport systems to decide whether they exist primarily to produce performers or to develop people. The two are not mutually exclusive…..but the order matters. When young people feel known, valued, and connected, performance becomes something they pursue, not something they fear losing. Are we willing to design youth sport around humans rather than outcomes?

References:

  • Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

  • Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., & Cruickshank, A. (2019). Research and practice in talent identification and development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(12), 1311–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1556635

  • Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600636391

  • Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-135

  • Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2014). Considering long-term sustainability in the development of world class success. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(Suppl 1), S383–S397. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.706320

  • Gustafsson, H., Kenttä, G., & Hassmén, P. (2011). Athlete burnout: An integrated model. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2010.541927

  • Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374

  • McAdams, D. P. (2013). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by (Rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

  • Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.