The Let Kids Play Act is not merely a set of aspirational standards. It is structured as an enforcement-first statute with real teeth.
On May 13, 2026, a bicameral coalition of Democratic lawmakers—led by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut in the Senate and Congressman Pat Ryan of New York in the House, and joined by several others—introduced the Let Kids Play Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would effectively ban private equity from the youth sports industry. The bill represents the most direct federal legislative challenge yet to the growing consolidation of youth sports by institutional investors and it carries significant legal, regulatory and business implications for every stakeholder in the industry.
The Problem the Bill Is Trying to Solve
The legislation’s backers have centered their argument on a straightforward and politically potent allegation: that private equity has turned youth sports into a luxury item. Youth sports is now a $40 billion industry, and by the sponsors’ account, participation costs have risen by 46 percent in recent years, with average club sports expenses now exceeding $5,000 per child per season. The bill’s proponents argue that private equity firms have achieved this by acquiring and consolidating every layer of the youth sports ecosystem—leagues, facilities, tournament circuits, training platforms, merchandise and even hotels used for travel tournaments—and then leveraging that market control to extract maximum profit from families.
The bill frames these tactics as “vulture practices,” a defined term under the proposed legislation, encompassing price gouging, predatory multiyear contracts, junk fees and the use of exclusive arrangements that foreclose competition from local, community-based operators.
What the Bill Would Actually Do
The Let Kids Play Act is not merely a set of aspirational standards. It is structured as an enforcement-first statute with real teeth. The key provisions include:
Mandatory Divestiture
Private equity funds invested in youth sports are automatically and presumptively designated as “vulture investors” 91 days after enactment, unless they file a sworn certification of compliance within 60 days attesting that they have not engaged in the defined prohibited “vulture practices.” Firms designated as “vulture investors” then have two years to fully divest.
Escrow and Forfeiture Mechanism
Firms that miss divestiture milestones are subject to a monthly 10 percent revenue escrow. Amounts held in escrow are forfeited to a newly created federal Youth Sports Fund—dedicated to scholarships, cost reduction for families and free community access to fields and facilities—if the deadline is not ultimately met.
Refunds and Debt Cancellation
The bill requires “vulture investors” to provide full refunds for “junk fees” collected through prohibited practices, cancel predatory contracts and wipe out outstanding debts, interest and late fees imposed during their period of control.
Personal Liability
Private equity “vulture investors” can be held personally and financially responsible for debts, legal judgments and regulatory violations—including child safety and labor violations—that occurred on their watch.
Private Right of Action and Parens Patriae
The bill creates a private right of action with treble damages for affected families, as well as parens patriae authority for state attorneys general to sue on behalf of their residents.
Criminal and Civil Penalties
False certifications are subject to a $1 million civil penalty and up to one year of imprisonment.
Broad Application
The bill’s definition of “youth sports” is deliberately broad: it covers leagues, clubs, facilities, registration and scheduling platforms, scoring systems, tournaments, training camps, biometric and performance data, and both nonprofit and for-profit operators serving anyone under 18.
Why This Matters Beyond the Headlines
The Let Kids Play Act does not exist in a vacuum. It arrives at a moment when private equity’s footprint in sports—at every level—is under an intensifying legal and regulatory spotlight. We have tracked the emergence of private equity investment in college athletics, most recently through the University of Utah’s groundbreaking arrangement with Otro Capital, which created a for-profit commercial entity to manage the school’s athletic department revenue. That deal raised complex questions around governance, transparency and potential securities issues. The Let Kids Play Act now raises an analogous set of questions, but at the youth level—and with a far more populist and enforcement-oriented approach.
The bill also intersects with ongoing state-level enforcement activity. Michigan’s attorney general, for example, is reportedly investigating Black Bear Sports Group, a private-equity-backed operator active in youth hockey, under existing state consumer protection authority. That investigation proceeds regardless of whether the federal bill advances—a signal that even without congressional action, the regulatory environment for private equity in youth sports is tightening.
The Road Ahead
The Let Kids Play Act faces a challenging path in the current Congress, where Republicans hold the majority. Whether it attracts Republican co-sponsors from sports-heavy districts may be determinative. Even if the bill does not advance in its current form, its introduction signals a meaningful shift in the policy conversation—one that will likely accelerate demands for pricing transparency, fee disclosure and contract reform across the youth sports sector. Industry participants that wait for legislative certainty before evaluating their practices and contractual structures may find themselves poorly positioned when enforcement does arrive, whether at the federal or state level.
What This Means for Industry Participants
For private equity firms and their portfolio companies in the youth sports space, the bill introduces material divestiture risk and compliance exposure that must be assessed now, not if and when the legislation is enacted. The certification mechanism in particular—requiring a sworn statement of nonculpability to avoid automatic “vulture investor” designation—presents significant legal complexity. Determining what practices fall within the bill’s definitions, how existing contracts and fee structures are characterized and whether prior conduct triggers refund or liability exposure are questions that require careful legal analysis.
For youth sports operators, leagues and facilities exploring outside investment, this bill should inform transaction structuring from the outset.
About Duane Morris
Duane Morris will continue to monitor this legislation and the broader regulatory environment around private equity in sports. Stakeholders in this space—whether investors, operators, leagues or institutions—with questions about how these developments may affect their legal and business interests should consider seeking counsel experienced in these issues.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact AJ Rudowitz, Joseph J. Machi, Rebecca A. Guzman, Bryan Shapiro, any of the attorneys in our Gaming and Sports Industry Group, any of the attorneys in our Private Equity Industry Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.