Does anyone have USAWP membership numbers that they can graph over the years? Are we growing as a sport? Shrinking? Have we recovered from Covid? Thanks
You can access BOD meeting minutes on USAWP website. The last posted meeting was Sept 2024. This was Ramsay’s last meeting and he reported individual membership = 41,000 and club members = 444. This data is not reported at every meeting.
However, I noticed in the meeting minutes from Dec 2018 Ramsay reports individual membership = 48,000. The take away from this is that we are not growing, in fact, we are declining from 48k in 2018 to 44k in 2024.
I am sure there have been years of small growth. However, it’s concerning that over the last 6 years we have decreased membership. Another reason for concern is an uninformed and pretty random Board of Directors along with a new CEO who has been completely invisible to the public / members. What is the process for electing or nominating BOD’s? Without a high functioning BOD there won’t be growth in water polo and there will be no accountability from the CEO.
1 Like
a longer historical perpsective. The last annual report on USAWP is from 2021 and we are laready in 2025.
1 Like
I have personally heard from a couple of younger families that they have moved on from the sport due to costs. As we know it is an expensive sport to play.
I didn’t realize it was a greater than 20% drop from the peak though.
1 Like
We have been discussing the topic of Ed Neusem and the top-down risk of stagnating or declining college recruiting. This trend will inevitably trickle down, affecting high school participation numbers and, eventually, younger age groups. The number of Division 1 and Division 3 programs—particularly for men—has remained unchanged, while roster spots are decreasing and opportunities for domestic players are becoming more limited. Given these challenges, why would any athletically talented kid invest in a sport that only spans K-12?
2 Likes
It’s a chicken and egg problem re high costs. Less people = higher costs. Higher costs = less people. I have always felt that USAWP would be best served for growth and long term success if they created a pure recreation model for 10/12/14 U based on AYSO soccer. Club polo is expensive and not for every family at young ages. Work with Cities or Counties (particularly in California where people know the sport) to create a seasonal recreational system (not affiliated with clubs). The model could just copy AYSO: everyone plays equal amounts, everyone learns every position, volunteer run, very low cost, 8 week season. Once you create a framework, it could be easy for other cities with pools to adopt in their Parks and Rec departments. Of course, club polo should also exist for those that want more development and expertise.
2 Likes
I imagine the 2022, 23, & 24 numbers are bad otherwise they’d be published - Are they hiding behind “12-mo memberships” for the change in reporting? - If so, why not a snapshot of members on 12/31?
Not sure this is the case. In their Dec '22 minutes they suggested “Membership: Membership revenue for 2022 was up approximately 33% from the
COVID affected 2021 year. Total paid memberships are on track with 2019, the best
membership year to date.” source: https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/sidearm.nextgen.sites/usawaterpolo.org/documents/2023/5/3/4.097011-74__44567897v1_Board_Meeting_Minutes__Dec._10__2022___ML_edits_.pdf
A 33% increase from '21 puts the membership at 49K, which is close to 2019 peak.
Anyway, the fact that one needs to extrpolate and guess seems subpar. The information should be readily available on their site along with their financial statements.
Regarding the board’s membership, many of the board members have been on the board for more than a decade. Are there any term limits?
2 Likes
Just looking at the numbers reported so far, I think the answer is that there was steady growth from 2010-2019–~34,000 members to ~51,000 members, which by my calculations is ~50% growth over 9 years. Covid quickly erased those gains. If the report of membership of 41,000 in late 2024 is correct, it looks like the growth rate from 2021-2024 is similar to the pre-Covid era, but hard to make any judgements based on only a couple of years of recovery. I’d like to see whether the number of clubs is growing, which I think is a much more important metric. The key to growing the sport is increasing the number of new clubs in places that are not traditional water polo hot beds. If we’re not seeing that, water polo remains a niche sport. If the number of clubs grows, membership growth will follow.
1 Like
This assumes that the primary goal in youth sports is to play on a college varsity team. Pick any sport you want, and the chances that a youth club member will play varsity at college is vanishingly small. Last time I looked at the numbers, water polo was actually a better bet, because the ratio of college roster spots to high school players was higher for water polo than for most sports.
1 Like
As far as college goes, there are a lot of factors but my sons 2017 12U JO’s team had about 10 kids on it, 4 of them are playing D1 this year and one is playing D2. They were in the silver division… They stuck with it, worked hard and kept improving. Would they have done that if they did not see hope to play in college, that is doubtful. That is why USA WP needs to start the conversation with NCAA about internationals. USA WP stepped up and limited internationals last year and at the 18U level the competition was much better. Why? The influx of internationals on lower ranked teams ruined JO’s the year before. Who wants to invest an entire year to be beaten badly by a team you beat twice before JO’s. John Abdou would be the perfect person to start the conversation as he went from USA WP to the NCAA coaches committee and assistant AD at UCI.
6 Likes
Until sophomore year (16U), the primary focus is on competition and the sport itself, with less emphasis on college prospects. This changes in sophomore and junior years when college planning becomes a priority, influencing how after-school time is allocated across extracurricular activities.
There is a real trade-off: to become an elite player (D1), one needs to spend 2+ hours at the pool or gym daily. Between water polo and school, there is little to no time for other activities. The painful reality is that college admissions committees generally do not value athletic achievements unless the applicant is pursuing D1 or D3 athletics.
Investing significant time in sports, rather than in activities that can be highlighted on a college application, can be a disadvantage in the admissions process. It’s unfortunate, given the many positive effects sports have on youth, but these are the realities of the “admissions game.”
They absolutely ruined JO’s! Once you’ve beaten a team you should always beat them! No way should a losing team be allowed to bring in talent to improve their chances of winning. That’s completely unfair!
The good teams should always be good and the bad teams should always be bad! Bringing foreign children to play with American children isn’t fair! We all know that these foreign kids are born with certain attributes that automatically make them better than American children…so it’s good that they are limited them from participating in American competitions.
Now we just need to make sure all the Newport Beach kids stay in Newport Beach because it wouldn’t be fair if any of them started playing for a club team in someplace like Bakersfield. It would be totally unfair and ruin the sport!
1 Like
Early favorite for Strawman Post of the Year
Also nominated in the category of Sarcasm that Tries Hard but Isn’t Funny
2 Likes
Hahahaha
That was funny
1 Like
Initial JO Allocations are out - some interesting items assuming allocations are distributed proportional to membership:
at 18u boys:
the Midwest zone has more members than Central
PSW (San Diego) has fewer members than SE (Florida)
At 18u girls, the Midwest and SoPac zones have equal numbers?
At 16u girls, Central & SoPac have equal numbers? The Pac zone is almost 2x the numbers of SoPac 16u girls? (9 vs 5 allocations).
It seems like there are a lot fewer 16/18u girls playing in SoPac than in years past. Also seems like the share of athletes from outside of California is growing
Obviously with Texas JO’s there will be a big re-allocation, but these numbers offer insight into a topic USAWP has been less than transparent with over the past few years.
2 Likes
these allocations are silly.
Last year’s 18U Boys finishers
| Zone | Teams | Highest Finish | Average Finish | 2025 Allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOPAC | 7 | 1 | 10.9 | 7 |
| CCA | 5 | 4 | 14.4 | 5 |
| PAC | 10 | 3 | 17.5 | 7 |
| NEZ | 3 | 11 | 21.0 | 3 |
| PSW | 4 | 7 | 23.3 | 3 |
| CEN | 4 | 9 | 27.0 | 4 |
| PNW | 2 | 35 | 36.0 | 2 |
| SEZ | 3 | 34 | 37.3 | 4 |
| SWZ | 3 | 27 | 40.0 | 4 |
| MTN | 2 | 33 | 40.5 | 3 |
| MID | 4 | 31 | 40.8 | 5 |
| HAW | 1 | 41 | 41.0 | 1 |
I think the allocations reflect membership - so the Midwest teams can fly to California and go 2-8 or fly to Texas and go 8-2. I know what I’d choose.
I feel like in certain zones like 18U Pac and Sopac girls the loss of clubs due to super clubs along with slightly lower interest reduces the auto bids. However some zones have more registered clubs so that their high schools can practice as a club (cheaper insurance) central zone and probably midwest. Those clubs don’t register for Quals and the allocations get shifted every year based on registered teams.
1 Like
rolled1,
I am not sure that you know what you are talking about 
Sopac 18U girls had 12 teams for 2024 JO Quals (10 clubs total, two clubs fielded A and B teams). Central zone 18U girls had 15 teams (12 clubs total, three clubs fielded A and B teams)