Global Sports Federation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582600711
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dawsonville, GA, USA
Phone
6785951931
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$274,148
Expenses
$328,498
Assets
$217,905
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY SIEGEL (EXECUTIVE DI): $74,590 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary exempt purpose of global sports federation, inc. Is to provide sports instruction free of charge to youth worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization's platform is used to build relationships through sports that will facilitate the opportunity to share christ. By partnering with local churches, foundaions, international church mission boards, and donors in the united states, the organization facilitates the opportunity to build relationships through sports in order to share the message of christ. The organization's mission is to make disciples and raise up leadership in the united states and worldwide. The organization has the following programs: -baseball clinics for youth with the gospel always being presented -transporting baseball equipment, clothing, and bibles to nationas -door-to-door evangelism -one-on-one evangelism with follow-up bible studies and discipleship -support and ministry to local churches, including encouragement and training for national pastors and programsto help new churches

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 38.9%; rating input score 39; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $310K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.