Sports should be fun for kids.

For competitive kids playing competitive sports, the competition is a big part of the fun. Losing makes the experience far less enjoyable.

The logic seems so simple. Yet parents at almost every level of sports seem to believe that "participation" should be the real goal on a "competitive" team.

The two aims are mutually exclusive. Either you play to compete and win, or you try to get every kid into every game. But you can’t do both on a regular basis.

Both are valid goals in youth sports. They just don’t belong in the same game. Competitive sports are about competition and winning. Recreational sports are about participation by all.

All kids should have an opportunity to play sports. But organized, competitive sports – we’re talking uniforms, schedules, scoreboards, referees, fans – should be available only to kids who are willing and able to earn playing time rather than be granted as a reward for signing up.

No organized activity is for everyone. Not everyone gets to perform in the class play. Not everyone gets to march in the band. Not everyone makes the scholastic scrimmage team.

If your child wants to "play" on an organized, competitive sports team, then he should learn what it takes to do so, and work toward that goal by practicing harder and longer and eventually getting as good as -- or better than -- the people who are playing. Otherwise, he should play intramurals or just organize pickup games at the playground or in your backyard.

The opposite is also true. If your kid is a dominant player in an informal, recreational league made up of kids with marginal talent and little or no competitive desire, he should move to a competitive team. Pick on someone his own size -- or at least his own ability.

The desire to compete is very natural among kids. If you don’t believe me, try a little experiment. Gather half a dozen kids on a playground basketball court and give them a ball. See how long it takes for them to pick sides and start a game. My guess: 10 minutes, tops. Doesn’t matter if they’re actual basketball players or kids who’ve barely ever picked up a ball. They will still want to "get up a game" after too long.

But the ability to compete is not quite as natural. And this is where the problem usually comes in. Parents of less talented kids are quick to complain when their kid sits the bench on an organized team. Instead of complaining, they should have closely observed the team at practice and in games before letting their child sign up. After watching a few outings, they’d know whether their kid had the talent to contribute, and whether they should move forward with the tryout or suggest their kid spend another year practicing his skills.

Of course, I’m assuming that "contributing to the team" is one of the values that the parent hopes to instill in his kid, as part of the athletic experience. But that’s rarely the case, nowadays. More likely, the value they’re teaching their kid is that he no longer has to earn his way onto the team and into the game. He's entitled.

The problem with that is, even if the kid eventually hones his physical talent to a competitive edge, chances are he’ll be emotionally self-centered and mentally weak, because he was raised with badly skewed athletic values.

To emphasize participation over winning devalues the effort and interest of the kids who joined the team because they felt competition was a key part of the fun.

To emphasize winning over participation devalues the effort and interest of kids who joined the team because they felt the exercise and camaraderie were key parts of the fun.

To insist that both of those goals can exist with equal weight on the same team devalues common sense.