Stay-to-Play Lawsuit: Team Travel Source and Varsity Brands

A group of youth sports parents filed a federal stay-to-play lawsuit on May 20, 2026, accusing Team Travel Source of forcing families to book hotel rooms through its platform, tacking on hidden “junk fees,” and advertising a lowest-rate guarantee the company allegedly refused to honor. The case, Russell et al. v. The Complete Plan, Inc. d/b/a Team Travel Source, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and seeks to certify a nationwide class with aggregate claims exceeding $5 million.¹

What Stay-to-Play Actually Requires of Families

A stay-to-play policy requires out-of-town teams and their families to book hotel rooms exclusively through a tournament-designated booking portal or travel partner. Families who refuse risk disqualification or face opt-out fees that can reach $500 per family or $2,400 per team.² The policies are common in volleyball, softball, hockey, soccer, and competitive cheerleading.³

The money moves like this: a third-party travel company guarantees hotels a volume of bookings, takes a commission of roughly 10 percent, and shares a portion with the tournament organizer and sometimes the local sports commission.³ Operators and host cities defend the practice as a way to secure group rates and measure local economic impact. Parents widely report that the mandated prices run higher than what they could find on their own, and that they lose access to loyalty points and independent discounts.² The Sports Events and Tourism Association reported that 40 percent of tournament destinations used stay-to-play policies in 2023, down from 60 percent in 2021.

What the Team Travel Source Complaint Alleges

Five plaintiffs from California, Kentucky, and New York brought the suit, four of them parents of competitive cheerleaders.⁴ The defendant, The Complete Plan, Inc., does business as Team Travel Source and manages housing for more than 1,600 events annually, partnering with organizations including 3Step Sports and the National Senior Games Association and with hotel chains including Hilton and IHG.⁵ The case number is 3:26-cv-00360-CHB.¹

The claims are built on consumer protection theories rather than antitrust, though lead attorney Karen Dahlberg O’Connell of the Almeida Law Group has acknowledged antitrust implications.⁴ The complaint alleges that Team Travel Source:

Coerced families into booking through its platform by telling them their children’s teams would be disqualified if they booked elsewhere, including for events that did not actually impose a stay-to-play requirement.⁶
Added mandatory junk fees to every reservation, including a nightly housing fee the plaintiffs say provided no benefit to families.¹
Advertised a “Lowest Rate Guarantee” while charging prices higher than families could find through direct hotel bookings, and refused to honor rate adjustments when parents produced cheaper alternatives.⁶
Induced hotels to inflate their public rates so Team Travel Source’s block rates would look competitive by comparison.⁶
Misrepresented the purpose of stay-to-play, claiming the policies were needed to measure local economic impact when, the complaint alleges, they were a mechanism for extracting fees.⁴

Where the Case Stands and Who Can Join

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide class covering the past five years, with subclasses for California (four years) and New York (three years).⁴ Beyond money damages, the suit asks the court for an injunction forcing changes to Team Travel Source’s business practices.⁷

As of mid-2026 the case is in its earliest stages. No class has been certified, no scheduling orders have been issued, and no settlement discussions have been reported. Team Travel Source has not issued a public response.⁷ The Almeida Law Group leads the plaintiffs’ team, with Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway and Wise LLP and Kaplan, Johnson, Abate and Bird LLP as co-counsel. The firms report hearing from over 400 families since the filing and are soliciting additional class members, particularly those who tried to use the Lowest Rate Guarantee.⁴

How the Varsity Brands Settlements Already Changed Stay-to-Play

The Team Travel Source case follows years of antitrust litigation against Varsity Brands, the dominant company in competitive cheerleading. Plaintiffs’ filings estimate Varsity controls roughly 80 percent of the competition market, 80 percent of apparel, and 75 percent of camps.⁸

In Fusion Elite All Stars et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC et al., a class of all-star gyms and spectators accused Varsity and the U.S. All Star Federation of monopolizing the events market through acquisitions, exclusionary contracts, and manipulated championship bids. Varsity settled in late 2022 for $43.5 million, along with governance reforms separating Varsity and USASF board membership and capping any single event producer at one-third of USASF voting seats.⁹

A follow-on case, Jones et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al., brought claims for families who indirectly paid Varsity for competitions, camps, or apparel between December 2016 and March 2024.¹⁰ It specifically targeted Varsity’s “Stay Smart” hotel-booking rules, a close cousin of stay-to-play.¹¹ Internal records surfaced in that litigation showed Varsity collected roughly $4 million a year in hotel room rebates.² Varsity and Bain Capital agreed to an $82.5 million settlement, and payments began in March 2026. As part of the deal, Varsity agreed to drop stay-to-play at 35 percent of its events through 2029.⁶

A third case, Open Cheer and Dance Championship Series LLC et al. v. Varsity Spirit, LLC et al., in the Northern District of Texas, was headed for a three-week jury trial on June 9, 2026, which would have been the first Varsity antitrust case to reach a jury.¹²¹³¹⁴

Other Legal and Regulatory Pressure

Stay-to-play is drawing scrutiny outside cheerleading. In February 2025, a plaintiff filed Martinez v. US Junior Nationals Inc. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that a youth basketball organizer’s mandatory hotel requirements amounted to an illegal tying arrangement under federal antitrust law. The theory is that the tournament forces parents to buy one product, lodging through a designated company, in order to access another, the competition itself.¹⁵

In youth hockey, the Michigan and Texas attorney general offices have opened investigations into potential antitrust violations involving Black Bear Sports Group and the NHL’s Dallas Stars. The Michigan AG’s office confirmed it is reviewing whether corporate consolidation of local hockey programs has driven higher prices and lower service quality, and investigators have sent questionnaires to families.¹⁶ The Dallas Stars paused their stay-to-play policy in late 2025 after public scrutiny but indicated plans to reinstate it.²

The Let Kids Play Act

On May 13, 2026, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Representative Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania introduced the Let Kids Play Act, which would ban stay-to-play requirements outright.¹⁷ Co-sponsors include Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Pat Ryan, and Angie Craig.¹⁸

The bill reaches well beyond hotels. It would require private equity firms deemed “vulture investors” to divest from youth sports within two years, ban multi-year player contracts and junk fees, mandate refunds to families already charged such fees, and create a private right of action allowing families to sue for treble damages. State attorneys general would gain authority to bring suits for affected residents. False compliance certifications would carry a $1 million civil penalty and up to a year in prison.¹⁹ The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce committees and faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress.¹⁷ Until something changes in court or in Congress, the families booking rooms through designated portals remain on the hook for whatever the policy requires.

1
PR Newswire. Almeida Law Group Represents Parents Suing Team Travel Source Over Stay-to-Play Junk Fee
2
Oklahoma Watch. Forced Housing, Hidden Kickbacks: How Stay-to-Play Squeezes Sports Parents
3
TulsaKids. How Stay-to-Play Squeezes Sports Parents
4
Buying Sand Lot. Youth Sports Parents File Class Action Stay-to-Play Lawsuit
5
Team Travel Source. Team Travel Source
6
Fastbreak. Stay-to-Play Policies Explained for Parents
7
US Soccer Parent. Team Travel Source Stay-to-Play Lawsuit
8
ClassAction.org. Jones et al. v. Bain Capital Private Equity
9
DiCello Levitt. Varsity Brands to Pay $43.5 Million to Settle Competitive Cheerleading Industry Antitrust Class Action
10
Cheer Antitrust Settlement. Cheer Antitrust Settlement
11
Cheer Daily. Varsity Brands, Bain Agree to $82.5 Million Antitrust Settlement
12
Sportico. Varsity Brands Cheerleading Antitrust Lawsuit
13
PACER Monitor. Open Cheer and Dance Championship Series LLC et al. v. Varsity Spirit, LLC et al.
14
Law360. No Deal Reached in Cheer Competition Antitrust Mediation
15
Bloomberg Law. Youth Basketball Group Accused of Illegal Hotel Tying Deals
16
WMUK. Black Bear AG Investigation
17
USA Today. Private Equity Youth Sports Federal Bill
18
Oklahoma Watch. Federal Bill Would Ban Stay-to-Play and Force Private Equity Out of Youth Sports
19
Congress.gov. H.R.8788 – Let Kids Play Act