Send a set share of broadcast money from popular tournaments and leagues to places where everyone in a community can play sports
Steps to make it happen
- Popular tournaments and leagues earn money by showing their games on TV and online.
- A fixed share of that money goes into a fund for local sports.
- Players and people from local clubs decide together how the fund is used.
- The fund goes first to towns with few places to exercise and to kids who may quit because they have no money.
- It also reaches places where girls and people with disabilities can enjoy sports.
- Every year, the fund shows everyone what it spent money on and how much.
- Watching top games helps support the everyday places where people play.
Water so far 💧 1
The proposal in detail
This proposal asks professional leagues and international tournaments that earn large amounts from broadcast rights, meaning the right to show games on TV or online, to follow a common rule: a set share of that income goes to local sports. It covers only tournaments and leagues whose broadcast income is above a certain amount, and leaves out small leagues and sports that are just getting started. Each society decides the share. It is never so high that a tournament cannot keep running, and it stays at a level that can be planned for every year, such as a few percent. The money is managed by an independent fund that keeps its distance from both the government and the sports bodies, and its management includes representatives of current and retired players, local club coaches, local governments, and parents. The money is limited to a few uses: securing fields and gyms in areas with few facilities, helping children from families that cannot pay fees, creating places for women and people with disabilities to take part, training coaches, and teaching about fair play without drugs. For international tournaments, the basic approach is to return the money to each country or region that paid the broadcast fees. A league that already gives back a similar amount to its communities can subtract that amount, but only on the condition that the details are checked by outside reviewers.
BenefitsIt can create a flow where excitement at the top builds the base
The biggest advantage is that it can send steady money to local sports without relying on tax money. Broadcast income grows with popularity, so the more excited people are about top tournaments, the more local activities get supported, which is a clear and simple cycle of benefit. By giving priority to children who had given up sports because of money or location, and to women and people with disabilities who had few places to take part, it can be expected to narrow the gap in opportunities. When more people move their bodies, the whole society gains in health, through preventing illness and reducing isolation. For the sports bodies as well, a wider base of future players and fans is a benefit in the long run. Further, when the uses are published every year and players and local people take part in deciding how money is shared, anyone can see where sports money goes, which can also raise trust in the sports bodies. Putting money into teaching drug-free competition also helps build a culture of fair sports from childhood.
DrawbacksForcing private income to be shared can cause backlash and side effects
The point critics stress most is the doubt about using a public rule to force private organizations to spend income they earned themselves. Professional leagues and tournaments already invest in youth programs and local activities, and a uniform contribution could damage those voluntary efforts and weaken their international competitiveness. The contribution could also be added to broadcast and streaming fees, so viewers end up paying in the end. If tournaments move to countries or regions without such a rule, local income might even fall. Also, even if the fund is independent, places where large amounts of money gather easily attract the influence of interested parties and misconduct, and there is a worry that high running costs would shrink the amount that reaches the field. The government might also use this fund as a reason to cut the public sports budget that already existed. Further, some people feel it is unfair for the money of a few popular sports with large broadcast income to go to other sports too, while others worry that it would make the influence of popular sports even stronger.
Learn the background
In the world of sports, broadcast fees and sponsor money are concentrated in a very small number of top tournaments and leagues, and the amounts grow larger every year. Meanwhile, the local clubs where children and adults exercise every day often depend on the goodwill of volunteers and on participation fees, and they struggle with aging facilities, a shortage of coaches, and rising fees. As a result, big gaps appear in who gets to play sports, depending on a family's finances, where people live, their gender, and whether they have a disability. Yet most of the athletes who support top-level sports grew up in local clubs, and fans, too, came to love sports through their childhood experiences. In other words, the income at the top rests on value created at the base. In some sports, higher-level organizations share money with lower levels, but most of this is voluntary, and the amounts and uses are hard for outsiders to see. As lack of exercise becomes a health problem worldwide, the question is how to connect the flow of money between the top and the base.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes