This is dumb.
Are SOME sports more expensive than others? Sure. If you're cycling or playing golf, you need a bicycle or set of clubs, respectively.
And are some traveling sports more costly? Sure. Traveling sports certainly add up.
But basketball? Sure, you might have to replace the shoes every few years, but they don't have to be some ridiculously expensive pair. Other than that, it's ... what ... proper undergarments and socks?
And baseball? New pair of cleats every few years, which don't have to be some absurdly expensive pair. New glove maybe two or three times before adulthood (assuming they start out playing teeball), and again, it doesn't have to be an exorbitant one. Other than that, maybe socks and tape. Pine tar, if you're feeling magnanimous, but our team always had it.
Football? Cleats that will last most of their school career (I used one pair from 7th to 12th grade ... still have them), one to three pairs of gloves over the course of their school career, proper undergarments, and a mouth guard. And whatever joint braces you need after a few years of playing since, you know, it's football.
This is a bad use of data. The chart shows how much parents DO spend on sports. It doesn't show how much is necessary for the child to play sports. The difference there could be huge, but it's not taken into account to establish whether or not the bare minimum cost is prohibitive (and it isn't).
Also, I get that gas to games and such costs money, but those are technically not prohibitive expenses. What kind of asshole parent would keep their kid from playing a sport if they weren't able to afford the gas to go see the games?
This is dumb.