USA: +1 508 290 1604 
Sign in
QUESTION
You work in the sport and recreation division of a city government. As it faces a budget crisis, you are asked to present arguments either for or against privatizing all the city’s youth sports programs. Take a position for or against privatization and present three major points to justify your position in 500 words..
You can consult this webpage for Los Angeles’ Department of Recreation and Parks program for Youth Sport: https://www.laparks.org/sports/youthtourn
ANSWER
The need for Privatization of the City’s Youths Sports
Privatization is now a global phenomenon taking over all public activities and organizations. According to the case study provided, it seems that privatization is meant to save on budget. Apart from this argument, other aspects point to the need for privatizing youth sports. Therefore, I find privatization necessary as the youth sports need partnerships, payment for talent, and the parents can now assert their demands to shape the market paradigm landscape.
Partnerships are necessary for youth sports to thrive. As the pandemic created significant problems for the economy, it also changed the norm of youth sports as issues with budget became persistent. Privatizing youth sports will enable various sponsors to notice the efforts of the clubs and pour in their investment to see their talent proceed. Nonetheless, youth sports have been mainly for entertainment because of the little appreciation, and privatizing them will significantly benefit the participants and their coaches. At the same time, the partnerships when the sports are privatized will lead to a change in the models of operation to create meaning to the sports activities.
Secondly, the sports world is changing rapidly, and unlike how the youth saw sports as a recreational activity, they are now open to using their talents in a more recognizing and appreciating environment. Furthermore, private youth sports can quickly help the participants get funds to pay their school fees up to college and even sustain their families. Perhaps, the budget constraints even in schools are making them move away from their usual programs, allowing the private sector to thrive as it provides “paid to play” practices. Although some argue that privatizing will affect the education of the athletes negatively, studies show that the youth active in sports are likely to perform better. Therefore, shifting to private sports will not have any impact on the education of the athletes.
Thirdly, unlike in the past, where private organization only protect their interests, the youths’ families can now assert their demands as attempts to shape the market paradigm landscape. The concept of limited choice is only stuck with the critics of privatization because they believe the organizations do not have any commitment to the educational objectives of the students. The parents are made knowledgeable of the options they have when they let their children join private organizations. Therefore, any propositions and opinions indicating criticism of privatization do not understand the agency practiced by agencies as a dichotomous concept. For many reasons, many private organizations thrive in aspects like sports in the clear distinction that exists between efficiency and the demands of public institutions like the ones in the city. Still, the organizations have the ability to improve the architecture in which the sporting activities take place. Otherwise, the concern the private organizations have on the task environments is different from the city’s, which makes them the most viable options.
In summary, it is critical it privatizes the city’s sports to enable effective partnerships that will drive the sports forward while ensuring that the athletes receive appreciation for their talent and the parents are able to participate equally. This is just a move to bring change, which is inevitable for growth purposes. Otherwise, the budget and other constraints may deter the rapid growth and development of sports within the city.
