Of all the issues challenging the youth hockey ecosystem today, stay-to-play tournaments ranks near the top of the list when it comes to media attention and backlash from families. There’s a lot that goes into the stay-to-play business model in youth sports, so I thought I’d break down as much as I’ve learned and experienced so families can get a well-versed perspective on the topic.
What is stay-to-play?
It’s a business practice that many youth sport tournament organizers use to streamline the travel experience for families participating in their events. Organizers work with hotels to set aside blocks of rooms for teams participating in their events, and these teams are typically required to purchase those rooms or face some sort of penalty.
This system sounds great in theory as booking travel in groups typically lowers costs and streamlines processes for tournament logistics. But as we’ll show, many of the practices implemented have been called into question.
How does it work?
Some event companies have employees on their staff solely responsible for hotel and accommodation partnerships. Some companies hire third-party operators that have experience and relationships in this space.
When you sign up for a tournament with stay-to-play mandates, you are beholden to the rates and dates provided by the company. Many of these companies are clear that if you don’t abide by the policies set, a team will be disqualified from the event or face a financial penalty.
While some companies have waivers where you can request a different experience, from what I am told they are very rarely accommodated. And it makes sense as when a company gives an exception to one group, they will get flooded with requests from everyone else.
The typical business practice for generating revenue is that these tournament companies will get kickbacks from each room sold. Room rates are set (potentially with added fees and upcharges) and then a specific dollar amount or percentage will go to the organizers. It’s a win-win financially for both groups and can be extremely lucrative.
To be fair it actually could be a win-win-win (hello Michael Scott), where it’s a value-add for traveling families if done right. However, what we’re seeing across multiple sports is that “doing it right” isn’t always implemented.
What are families’ biggest issues with Stay-to-Play?
In an ideal world, stay-to-play practices could be very helpful for families traveling to youth tournaments. Finding hotels with the amenities a team needs, with the number of rooms, in a location that fits where the games are being played, can be a daunting task for a team manager or coach.
Going to tournament with stay-to-play policies can take a lot of that legwork away from volunteers who are already strapped for time and create an efficient one-stop-shop type of experience.
However, there are a few really big complaints I hear from parents when talking about stay-to-play.
1. The markups are ridiculous
Families are catching on to stay-to-play shenanigans, and they are starting to do their research. And when parents see a normal room rate, at the same hotel they’re staying at, on the same days, and those rates are significantly lower than the rate they’re paying to stay there…it’s not flying.
Group rates typically REDUCE the cost of rooms, like we pay at weddings. Buying in bulk in general typically means lower prices (hello Costco).
When families see significant markups on their group rates, they’re getting pissed off. I had a conversation with a hockey director the other day that told me it’s getting out of control, saying most of their stay-to-play rates were above $200. Wild.
2. Mandated stay nights
More often than not, a team is not only given a rate, but they’re given the days they need to pay to stay at the hotel as well. And then what we see is tournament organizers scheduling early morning games for out-of-town teams on the first day of the event.
Let’s say you’re a team that resides a couple hours away from the event. It would be nice for the tournament to schedule the first game in the afternoon or at night so the kids could go to school on a Friday, and the families wouldn’t have to pay for an extra night at the hotel.
But at many stay-to-play tournaments and showcases, you’ll see a lot of games early on the first day and mandates for being at the hotel the night before so they get the revenue for that extra day.
3. Driving distances
When I was coaching at the midget level years ago, there was a tournament we played at in Boston where our mandated hotel was 30-40 minutes away from the main rink we played at, and we played at multiple rinks throughout the weekend. It was a logistical nightmare and really inconvenient for our families. But we HAD TO stay at their hotels rather than find our own closer to the rinks we were playing at.
4. An often-unforgiving mandate
Another complaint I get from a lot of families is not having any say in the matter, especially for parents that drive RVs, have hotel points, served in the military and can get military discounts, have family in the area and don’t need to stay at hotels…
Even when it’s unnecessary for them to do so, a family may have to put up hundreds of dollars that they really didn’t have to spend.
5. The stay-to-play rates are on top of a tournament fee
While we are talking about stay-to-play fees that parents are mandated to spend, it’s important to know that these costs are on top of tournament fees that the teams pay to play in an event. These tournament fees also seem to be going up every year. It makes parents wonder where all their money is going – shouldn’t the large fees for each team to enter a tournament cover all the things necessary to put on a good event?
Some broader context – Let’s talk about “Youth Sports Tourism” for a second
Youth sports tourism…what the heck is that?
Turns out, it’s a BOOMING industry. With the talent pyramid being narrowed younger and younger and the continual rise of “elite” youth sports – teams say they feel the need to have to travel all over the country to get good, competitive games. This notion seems to be on steroids right now…and it’s not just a hockey problem. It’s a youth sports problem.
Smart businesspeople see that and smell opportunity. So what you’re seeing are these big companies (some private equity, some not) partnering financially with towns and municipalities and investing into these mega facilities to hold big tournaments and showcases all over the country with the hope of generating revenue from visiting families. And these investments are hardly just for the facility – oftentimes they involve the building of hotels, restaurants, and other entertainment entities to generate revenue from families participating in these tournaments associated with the facility.
There’s a newsletter I subscribe to “Buying Sandlot” that does a great job of writing about these types of partnerships. I encourage anyone reading this and interested in the business of youth sports to subscribe as they provide a great window into it. Youth sports tourism is becoming big business, but it’s yet another illustration of the issues we see regarding money in youth sports.
Are there other entities doing stay-to-play?
Tournament companies are not the only entities using stay-to-play models. Previous articles have been written about NHL departments implementing stay-to-play events like the Dallas Stars. Youth hockey leagues are starting to implement these policies. It’s used in many other sports and widely implemented as private equity continues to consolidate youth sport entities practices. USA Hockey even has stay-to-play hotels for their national tournaments, which other hockey companies are using as ammo to rationalize their own business practices.
The difference between USAH’s stay-to-play policy is that often there are upfront costs to the host organization of the national tournament that need to be taken into account , along with the fact that teams often don’t know they are playing in Nationals until after winning their state or regional tournament – which may only be a couple of weeks before Nationals. I asked a person with knowledge on the topic, here’s what they said:
“I will say this about USAH Nationals requiring stay to play…. I don’t remember how much, if any, of the stay to play revenue goes to USAH versus the local host club. I DO know that when we bid for Nationals – and were awarded the 14U Tier 2 – there was a significant amount of costs to host that were going to be offset by the revenue from the local hotel “kickback”….and USAH essentially requires participating teams to stay to play as a benefit to the host org. Without those dollars to count on, there is an even greater financial strain put on the host org. Plus, by requiring the teams to stay to play, we were able to get better rates, and have room blocks held for longer than they normally would (remember – many teams don’t know they’re participating in nationals until a couple weeks prior) simply because USAH requires the teams to do so if they want to participate. The teams that make nationals within weeks of the event would likely be hard-pressed to find accommodations for an entire team, and at the rates secured by the host org well in advance. I am in no way saying STPs are a good thing, but in some instances, USAH (in this instance) requiring it does actually benefit the participants either financially, or convenience (whole team all in one place, proximity to rinks, etc.)
Really good insight to keep in mind, and I can tell you the amount of work by a host association to execute a national tournament is incredibly large.
Has there been any blowback to specific stay-to-play companies?
There are a couple lawsuits against companies implementing these practices right now. In the hockey world there’s a lawsuit against Black Bear Sports, a company that has certainly ruffled a lot of feathers. There’s also a lawsuit against a company Team Travel Source who work in this space as well. I don’t know the ins and outs of these suits, but the links in this paragraph can provide more background if you’re interested. It’s become such an issue that Congress is trying to get involved introducing the “Let Kids Play Act” that has a portion of it dedicated to stay-to-play policies.
Is stay-to-play here to stay?
To be blunt, I don’t see it going away. What happens in the lawsuits and congress above may have an effect. And if there continues to be more media attention and blowback around these policies, we might see some change. There’s a big hockey tournament company that has even changed its marketing to “Stay and Save” as I’m sure they’re aware of the anger stay-to-play has created.
I think there are two realities at play here:
1. Travel sports and elite youth sporting events that require travel aren’t going anywhere. If anything, this cohort is going to increase in the coming years. Someone smart once told me that youth sports are a “recession proof” industry as parents will do anything and pay anything to support their kids’ dreams. Kinda scary to think about it that way, but I think there’s some truth to that – and business and private equity has caught on.
2. Unless youth organizations band together and create their own tournaments or events, these companies and practices will continue to be sustainable. People like convenience, and running big scale events is HARD WORK. There’s the booking of ice and rinks, recruiting of refs and trainers or medical professionals, merchandise, team registration, check ins, payments, accurate team placements, lodging, organizing of volunteers and support staff, and the list goes on and on.
The harsh reality is that while many people complain about these business practices, I’m not sure there are many with time and experience who would could coordinate these events as a volunteer.
The leaders of these companies will tell you that, yes, you’re paying money for it. But with those payments comes a great product and seamless experience for the players, families and teams.
Some of these companies are very attuned to the needs to the families and customers and although there’s a steep cost they provide a good service. Some of the companies are collecting paychecks. I think you see that in not just stay-to-play events, but in anything you’re paying for in youth sports.
Final Thoughts
Stay-to-Play policies at youth sporting events can be a convenient offering for families traveling to the area. However, like many things in youth sports, it has become tainted for profits.
It’s part of a greater challenge we see in youth sports today where we continue to professionalize and commercialize an experience at ages where it’s unnecessary and in many ways counterproductive to the development and health of our young players.
As always, I don’t love talking about challenges without solutions. When a market in an industry gets too abusive…other options typically emerge.
The easiest one is this:
If there’s an unfair stay-to-play policy – don’t go. If nobody signs up for events with crazy and outlandish costs, companies will have to change. Yes, easier said than done.
Another option is for a dedicated group of volunteers or hockey directors in a specific area to create fun events throughout the year and rotate rinks. Maybe local leagues can get involved and host tournaments by location. By leaders getting together, and with the help of their volunteer army, it’s very possible to coordinate awesome events locally.
The bigger picture solution with more substance is to understand that exposure doesn’t matter until 14u or 15u. I often hear from parents that we HAVE TO be at a specific tournament or showcase (often utilizing crazy stay-to-play rates) because all the scouts will be there.
No.
There is no such thing as a scout until junior hockey. And those junior drafts are at 15 years old (14 out west with the WHL).
With that, there’s no need to significantly narrow the talent pyramid to the point where you feel like you have to travel all year to find good, competitive games. Tier 1 full season under 12 years old I will continue to argue is counterproductive to player development and the health and growth of our sport.
With more teams playing locally through the rational narrowing of the talent pyramid at appropriate ages, there’s less of a need to travel to tournaments outside the area.
Disruptive stay-to-play policies for tournaments is just a symptom of a bigger cause. More travel, more professionalization at younger ages, more FOMO, and less community hockey are at the root of a lot of the ills we see in our game and other youth sports in general.
We’ll continue to try to educate on these areas as best we can, and hopefully this post provided perspective that can help make sense of the stay-to-play model.
