This Pricing Experiment Doubled Youth Participation

What if price wasn’t the gatekeeper to youth sports?

Morton in the Community Trust tested this question by replacing fixed pricing with “pay what you can” for their football camps in Inverclyde. The result? 130 new faces daily – more than double their usual participation rates.

The cost-of-living crisis had been locking kids out of sports.

Across the UK, families face impossible choices. Thirty percent of parents cannot afford sports equipment and clothing. Another 37% report their children missing activities due to cost barriers.

Traditional sports programs operate on assumption-based pricing. Organizations set rates based on operational costs, competitor analysis, or perceived value. They rarely test what happens when you remove price as a barrier entirely.

How Morton changed the game

Instead of standard pricing models, they partnered with anti-poverty charities and community organizations. The message was simple: bring your kids, pay what you can manage.

Active Schools partners immediately noticed the difference. They saw “kids that they’ve never seen attend camps” – children they recognized from schools but who never joined sports activities. The 400 participants across two camps revealed massive unmet demand.

Why flexible pricing actually works

Pay-what-you-want models typically generate minimal revenue when used alone. Academic research shows standalone versions averaged only $0.92 payments. But when coupled with social causes, payments increased to $6.50 – a 700% improvement.

Morton’s community focus created this charitable response.

Parents paying what they could afford felt part of a community solution rather than charity recipients. The framing shifted from “free program” to “flexible community investment.”

Psychology explains Morton’s success. When programs frame flexible pricing as community investment rather than charity, parents respond differently. They become contributors, not beneficiaries.

What other organizations can learn

Test for hidden demand first. Most organizations never measure who they’re excluding through pricing. Morton’s doubling of participation revealed this invisible barrier.

Frame it as community investment. Parents want to contribute, not receive charity. The language you use shapes the response you get.

Partner with existing networks. Morton worked with anti-poverty charities and schools. These partnerships provided credibility and reach.

But the model has limits. It requires organizational commitment to serve families regardless of payment. Some participants will pay nothing, and that needs to be genuinely acceptable.

Beyond sports programs

Libraries, arts centers, youth services, and educational programs face identical accessibility challenges. The template is straightforward: partner with community organizations, replace fixed pricing with flexible options, and measure participation changes alongside revenue.

Morton’s experiment proves something important about community need. Remove the price barrier, and demand appears immediately.

The question for other organizations is simple: what would happen if you tried?