In “The Cost of High Stakes on Little League Games”, C.W. Nevius states that direct and brutal violence has become commonplace in American fields of play for youth. Parents who place high demand on choice and performance of their children aggravate the situation. Consequently, children are finding alternative sports to stay away from the high stakes parents place on league games. Therefore, I agree to Nevius’s point of view that parents’ involvement has potentially destroyed the enjoyment and learning essence of childhood sport.
The essay indicates that parents “scream at their kids, yell at the officials, and, in more cases than anyone would like to admit, something troubling happens” (Nevius 336). Parents live their lives through their children. They yell to the coach and wish their children to perform the best on the fields. Their inappropriate behavior becomes an unhealthy obsession with winning, which can be improved, and made to win over their contenders. Success achieved on the field has become the only goal worth achieving for many parents. Parents cannot participate in sports, other than being spectators.
Thus, they have decided to be the best spectators in their own way. Nevius uses an example to show how parents misbehave as spectators. For instance, Junta who is a parent, becomes furious and vents his anger on coach Costin, beating him to unconsciousness. All this while, children beg the parent to stop but he does not yield to their cries. The incident occurs because the parent thought the coach was allowing rough play (Nevius 336). The above example confirms my affirmation on Nevius’ claim of the negative effects of parents’ involvement in their children sports. These include improbable demands and disorderly behavior instances.
Nevius calls for the establishment of clear ethics code before the season begins, and parents must go over it. Second, parents violating the code must face stern reminders of their place in the sport, to prevent further disorderly conduct (Nevius 338). I strongly agree to the writer’s idea. It is true; various levels of parental involvement affect children’s development on sports, studying, and other domains. Regulation of parental anticipations and conduct is important.
The essay by Nevius originates from the general literature and public concern on the cost of competition. Just like the writer shows, competition leads to negative effects on children’s development (Rosen 154). The high number of children opting for non-mainstream sports such as skateboarding, mountain biking, and surfing, offers a true indication of the presence of negative effects. The alternative sports have fewer rules, less structure, and parents do not know the first thing about them. Concisely, they offer the protection needed by children. Overall, we can conclude that excess parents’ involvement destroys the fun in sports, for their children. The destruction also extends to other development areas other than sports.
Competition leads to other negative effects like violence and extreme interest by coaches and parents alike. The stake of winning becomes extremely high as sports become a market place for athletes to win. Due to the commercialization and competition, rankings, talent scouts, betting, and scholarships have become top priorities for parents and coaches (McCarthy 155). In the first paragraph of Nevius’ essay, a coach who was a screamer punched a parent who confronted him about the yelling, at his son. The reason for the coach’s anxiety and anger was the urge for his team to win the favor of talent scouts. Coaches and parents need to use a youth development approach to ensure that they teach valuable lessons (Holt and Sehn 27). They are the first mentors to the children participating in grade school and high school sports.
In reality, schools are paying premium salaries on coaches who perform well nationally (Rosen 156-157). A ranking on national newspaper increases the visibility of high schools to talent scouts (McCarthy 155). The current environment full of championship systems, fantasy leagues and rankings make coaches, players and teams to be interchangeable like commodities. Sport has taken competition to the highest peak. It is no longer enough to be good at sport. Schools are racing to be the best facilities that nurture the next sport stars. The obsession is leading to an emphasis on short term goals. Both parents and administration in high schools want excellent results now. The above fact explains why the incidents of enraged parents are so out of proportion that they sound absurd (Nevius 336). Hence, we can conclude that rankings, premium salaries, and talent scouts, motivate coaches and players. The social currency of status, fame and wealth has become too lucrative. It is creating insanity in sports at the expense of childhood and youth development.
In conclusion, competition should leave room for children put their own effort without pressure and be able to reflect on the outcomes. The root of the problem associated with the high stakes in little school games is the proliferation of major league competition into the minds of youth development stakeholders. Correcting this mindset will correct the ills of the unhealthy competition in little league games. In essence, parents need to monitor their level of involvement on their children’s playing. Otherwise, direct and brutal violence will continue to become common where youths are playing.
Works Cited
Holt, Nicholas and Zoe Sehn. “Processes Associated with Positive Youth Development and Participation in Competitive Youth Sport.” Positive Youth Development Through Sport. Ed. Nicholas Holt. New York: Routledge, 2008. 23-31. Print.
McCarthy, John. “High School Coaching and Youth Development Approach.” The Dimensions of Physical Education. Ed. Lori Ciccomascolo and Eileen Sullivan. Burlington: Jones & Barlett Learning, 2010. 153-162. Print.
Nevius, C W. “The Cost of High Stakes on Little League Games.” San Francisco Chronicle. 11 December 2000: 336-338. Print.
Rosen, Joel. The Erosion of American Sporting Ethos: Shifting Attitudes Toward Competition. New York: McFarland, 2007. Print.