You have the coaches. You have the demand. Registration is strong and your waitlist is growing.
But you can't add another team because there's nowhere for them to practice.
This is the reality for directors across the country. Facility access has become the number one operational bottleneck in youth sports. Field scarcity, rising rental costs, and competition for limited space are constraining programs that would otherwise be expanding. The facility crunch isn't a minor inconvenience. It's an existential challenge that determines whether programs grow, stagnate, or shrink.
The math is unforgiving. Facilities drive capacity. Capacity drives revenue. If you can't secure enough field time, you can't serve enough athletes. If rental costs consume too much of your budget, every registration generates less margin. A bad facility deal doesn't just create operational headaches. It can erase your financial viability entirely.
The programs navigating this successfully aren't just hoping for better access. They're rethinking their entire approach to facilities: how they find space, how they negotiate costs, how they partner with other organizations, and how they maximize every hour they have.
Why the Facility Crisis Is Getting Worse
Several forces are converging to make facility access harder than ever.
Youth sports participation has grown while public facility investment hasn't kept pace. Parks and recreation departments face budget constraints. School districts prioritize their own programs. The supply of fields and courts hasn't expanded proportionally to the demand for them.
Private facility development has accelerated, but at premium price points. Indoor turf complexes, training centers, and dedicated sports facilities have proliferated, offering guaranteed access but at costs that strain program budgets. A program that once practiced for free on public fields now faces $150 per hour indoor rates during weather months.
Competition for existing facilities has intensified. More programs pursuing the same limited slots means allocation becomes contentious. School fields that once had open availability now require formal agreements and often fees. Parks that accommodated everyone now have permit systems with waitlists.
Rising maintenance and operating costs get passed to users. Municipalities facing budget pressure increasingly charge fees for field use that was previously free or nominal. Energy costs for indoor facilities translate to higher rental rates. Insurance requirements add costs that facilities pass through.
Climate unpredictability compounds the problem. More extreme weather means more canceled outdoor practices and games, which increases demand for indoor backup options. But indoor capacity was already scarce, so weather disruptions create cascading scheduling crises.
This isn't a temporary squeeze that will resolve itself. The structural factors driving facility scarcity are persistent. Directors who wait for conditions to improve will wait indefinitely.
Understanding Your True Facility Costs
Before solving the problem, understand what you're actually spending. Many programs don't have clear visibility into their facility costs because expenses are fragmented and often buried in other budget lines.
Calculate your total facility spend across all sources. Direct rental fees are the obvious component. But also include permit fees, field lining and preparation costs, equipment storage fees, utility contributions, insurance requirements specific to facility use, and any maintenance obligations your agreements include.
Calculate your cost per hour of usable time. Total facility spending divided by total hours used gives you a baseline. But refine further: what's your cost per hour for prime time versus off-peak? What's your cost per hour for outdoor versus indoor? What's your cost per hour during good weather months versus weather-risk months?
Calculate your cost per athlete for facility access. Total facility spending divided by total athletes served shows how much of each registration goes to facilities before you've spent anything on coaching, equipment, or operations. If that number is rising faster than your registration fees, your margin is compressing.
Compare your costs to alternatives. What would it cost to use different facilities? What would additional hours at your current facilities cost versus expanding to new ones? What's the breakeven point for different options?
This analysis often reveals surprises. Programs discover they're paying premium rates for inconvenient slots while cheaper options exist. They find that certain facilities consume disproportionate budget share. They realize that facility costs have drifted upward without deliberate decisions.
The Negotiation Leverage You Probably Have
Many directors accept facility terms as fixed. They receive a rate sheet, pick their slots, and pay what's asked. But facilities often have more flexibility than they initially present, especially for programs willing to negotiate intentionally.
Volume commitment is your primary leverage. A facility would rather have guaranteed occupancy than hope for bookings. If you can commit to consistent hours across a full season or year, that certainty has value worth exchanging for better rates.
Off-peak utilization solves problems for facilities. Those early morning slots, late evening hours, and weekend edges that facilities struggle to fill become negotiating opportunities. You get lower rates. They get occupancy during otherwise dead time.
Multi-year agreements provide stability both directions. A facility might discount rates in exchange for a two or three year commitment because it reduces their sales effort and provides predictable revenue. You get rate protection against increases and guaranteed access.
Partnership framing changes the conversation. When you approach a facility as a customer demanding lower prices, you're in an adversarial negotiation. When you approach as a potential partner discussing how to solve mutual problems, possibilities expand. Maybe you provide volunteer labor for facility maintenance. Maybe you promote the facility to your membership. Maybe you help fill other programming gaps they have.
Competitive alternatives strengthen your position. If you have options, the facility knows you can walk away. Research what else exists in your market. Get quotes from alternatives. Mention that you're evaluating options. A facility that thought you had no choice suddenly becomes more flexible when they realize you do.
Be willing to consolidate. If you're currently using three different facilities, consolidating to one or two might generate enough volume to negotiate meaningfully better terms. The administrative simplicity is a bonus.
Partnership Models That Expand Access
Beyond negotiating better deals at existing facilities, partnership models can unlock access that programs couldn't achieve alone.
School partnerships remain the most valuable and most underutilized opportunity. Schools have facilities that sit empty many hours per week: after school, evenings, weekends, and all summer. Formalizing access through a joint use agreement benefits both parties.
Approach school partnerships correctly. Don't ask the athletic director if you can use the gym. Go to the district administration with a formal proposal. Address their concerns proactively: insurance coverage, supervision, facility condition, scheduling coordination, liability. Present yourself as a professional organization that will treat their facilities with care, not a random group asking for a favor.
Joint use agreements should specify everything: which facilities, which hours, what fees if any, who's responsible for setup and breakdown, what happens if there's damage, how scheduling conflicts get resolved, what notice is required for changes. Vague agreements create problems. Detailed agreements create sustainable partnerships.
Other youth sports programs are potential partners, not just competitors. A soccer club and a lacrosse club competing for the same fields are both losing. The same two clubs coordinating their seasons and sharing facility agreements both win. Explore whether programs serving different age groups or seasons could combine their leverage for better deals.
Religious institutions often have facilities with weekday availability. Churches, synagogues, and mosques with gyms, fellowship halls, or outdoor space may be open to community use agreements. Approach with respect for their mission and flexibility around their schedule priorities.
Corporate facilities sometimes offer community access programs. Companies with fitness centers, playing fields, or recreation facilities may make them available for tax benefits, community relations, or employee morale. It's worth investigating what exists in your area.
Municipal partnerships can provide access to facilities under development or underutilized. Parks departments sometimes welcome programming partners who will activate spaces they can't staff. Your program provides the activity. They provide the facility. Both benefit.
Maximizing the Hours You Have
When facility access is constrained, efficiency matters enormously. Every hour needs to generate maximum value.
Audit your current utilization. Are you actually using all the time you're paying for? Are practices starting on time and using the full slot? Are there gaps between sessions that could be eliminated with better scheduling? Underutilization of expensive facility time is common and fixable.
Increase coach-to-athlete ratios where possible. If facility cost per hour is fixed, serving more athletes in that hour improves your economics. This doesn't mean overcrowding to unsafe levels. It means examining whether your current ratios are based on quality considerations or just habit.
Design practices for the space you have rather than the space you want. If you only have half a field, design drills that work in half a field. If your court time is limited, maximize activity density so athletes are moving constantly rather than standing in lines.
Layer programming creatively. Could your older athletes arrive early for skill work while the main session runs? Could a parent fitness class happen adjacent to practice? Could equipment storage double as a training area for small group work? Think about your facility time as a canvas for multiple activities.
Consider split sessions. Instead of one two-hour practice, could you run two one-hour sessions serving different groups? This doesn't increase your facility hours but serves more athletes within the same time.
Evaluate your competition footprint. Games and tournaments consume enormous facility resources. Could you play shorter games at younger ages and fit more games in the same facility window? Could you consolidate tournament play to reduce total facility days needed? Small changes to competition formats can meaningfully reduce facility requirements.
Building Facility Strategy Into Planning
Facility access shouldn't be an afterthought addressed after you've designed your program. It should be a primary input that shapes what you offer.
Plan seasons around facility availability, not the reverse. If indoor courts are scarce January through March, don't design a program that peaks during those months. If outdoor fields are plentiful in fall, consider whether you can shift programming to take advantage.
Align growth plans with facility reality. Before committing to serve 20% more athletes next year, confirm you can access 20% more facility time. Growing registration without growing access creates waitlists, quality problems, and frustrated families.
Budget facilities as a strategic category, not just an expense. What would additional facility access enable? What's the return on investment for higher-cost facilities that provide more reliability? When does it make sense to pay more for better access versus constraining growth to match limited access?
Build facility development into long-term vision. If no partnership or negotiation can solve your access problem, is facility ownership or development eventually necessary? Some programs reach scale where building or leasing dedicated space becomes economically rational. That's a long-term project, but it starts with recognizing the strategic need.
The Indoor Problem
Indoor access deserves special attention because it's often the binding constraint. A program might have adequate outdoor field time but face crisis whenever weather hits or during seasons when outdoor play isn't viable.
Indoor facility economics are brutal. Construction costs, utility costs, and insurance costs for indoor complexes mean rental rates that far exceed outdoor alternatives. An hour of indoor turf time can cost five to ten times more than an hour on a public outdoor field.
Some programs budget for limited indoor backup and accept that weather will cancel some activities. This works if families have realistic expectations and the program communicates well about weather policies.
Other programs budget for indoor consistency and price accordingly. If reliable indoor access during unpredictable months costs an extra $50 per athlete, some families will pay for that reliability. Position it as value, not just cost.
Dome and tent structures offer middle-ground options. Seasonal covering of outdoor fields costs less than permanent indoor facilities while providing weather protection. Explore whether such structures exist in your area or whether installing one makes sense.
School gyms remain the most cost-effective indoor option when available. The facility already exists. The marginal cost of your use is low. School partnerships should prioritize indoor access during weather-sensitive periods.
When You Can't Solve It
Sometimes the math doesn't work. Facility costs exceed what registration fees can support. Access limitations constrain growth below sustainable scale. Partnership opportunities don't materialize.
In these situations, directors face hard choices.
Raising prices tests whether families will pay more for facility-constrained programming. Some will. Some will leave for programs with better access at similar prices. Know your market before assuming price increases will solve the problem.
Reducing scope means serving fewer athletes at appropriate quality rather than serving more athletes poorly. This is painful but sometimes necessary. A smaller program with adequate facilities outperforms a larger program with compromised access.
Geographic expansion into areas with better facility availability might be viable. If your current location is facility-constrained but a neighboring community has access, could you serve both?
Facility development through ownership, lease, or construction becomes attractive when the math works. Programs at significant scale sometimes find that building or securing dedicated space costs less over time than perpetually renting at premium rates.
Accepting constraints means designing a program that fits available facilities rather than fighting reality. This might mean shorter seasons, smaller rosters, or different programming than you originally envisioned.
None of these choices are pleasant. But programs that acknowledge facility constraints and adapt deliberately outperform programs that ignore the problem until it becomes a crisis.
The Bottom Line
Facility access increasingly separates thriving programs from struggling ones. In markets where access is scarce, programs with locked-in agreements have competitive moats that newcomers can't easily cross.
If your program has strong facility access, protect it. Maintain relationships with facility managers. Honor your agreements meticulously. Treat access as the strategic asset it is.
If your program lacks facility access, prioritize solving it. Every other improvement you make is constrained by the facility ceiling. Better coaching, better curriculum, better marketing all matter less if you can't physically serve the athletes who want to participate.
Watch what competitors are doing. If another program just secured a major facility partnership, your access picture may have just gotten worse. If a new facility opens, move quickly to establish presence.
The facility landscape will keep tightening. The programs that treat access as a core strategic priority will survive and grow. The programs that treat it as someone else's problem will find themselves squeezed out.
Ian Goldberg is the CEO of Signature Media and the Editor of the largest and fastest growing sports parenting newsletter. He's been recognized as an industry expert by the National Alliance for Youth Sports, the US Olympic Committee's Truesport, and the Aspen Institute's Project Play. Ian is also a suburban NJ sports dad of two teenage daughters and has over 2,000 hours of volunteer time coaching them (which he calls the most fun form of R&D for his newsletter content). Ian and his team provide players, coaches, parents and program directors with the articles and content they need to have a great sports season. Ian has spent most of his career in digital product development and marketing and got his start at the White House where he worked for the economic advisors to two US Presidents.
