Skip to content

· Public charity

United States Polo Association Inc

The association has been organized and exists for the purposes of promoting the game of polo with an overarching goal of improving the sport, coordinating the activities of its member clubs and registered players, arranging, allocating, and supervising polo tournaments, competitions and games and providing rules, handicaps and conditions…

$3.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
94
Grants FY2024still arriving
28
States reached
$119k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$12MPublic Safety & Disaster$1.0MEducation$637kFood & Nutrition$176kCommunity Improvement$42kArts & Culture$42kYouth Development$13k
02FY2024 · 94 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 94 grants below total $2,172,988, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,169,627 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $996,639 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k25 grants · $173k
  • $10k–50k62 grants · $1.4M
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $586k
$15,975
Median grant
28
States reached
$359M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOUSTON POLO CLUB$119,080
DFW POLO ASSOCIATION$117,412
SANTA BARBARA POLO & RAQUET CLUB$80,168
RANCHO SILVERADO STABLES LLC DBA OC POLO$70,484
SCHOLARSHIP AMERICA INC$68,000
OF HORSE YOU CAN DBA DENVER POLO CLUB$66,484
WELLINGTON POLO TOUR INC$64,080
US ARENA POLO$48,130
LAS BRISAS POLO CLUB LLC$43,175
BRIDGEHAMPTION POLO CLUB DBA HAMPTONS POLO CLUB$43,000
VIRGINIA POLO INC$42,030
PORT MAYACA POLO CLUB INC$41,325
LA HERRADURA DE PALM BEACH INC$41,275
TEXAS ARENA LEAGUE$39,380
POLO OPCO LLC$39,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY24–24, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SUTTER BUTES POLO CLUB DBA AGGIE POLO AT UC DAVIES INC: $8k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
NH
WA
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
HI
OK
LA
AL
GA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $566k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions, $116k to organizations and $450k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South America$292k · 52% · 16 people

Stated purpose: TEAM USPA · YOUNG PLAYER OUTREACH · MILITARY INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$176k · 31% · 1 grant · 6 people

Stated purpose: COMM - SAFETY GRANT · YOUNG PLAYER OUTREACH · PRIZE MONEY

North America (Canada and Mexico)$98k · 17% · 10 grants · 2 people

Stated purpose: CLUB AND MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT · YOUNG PLAYER OUTREACH · NYTS PLAYER REIMBURSEMENT

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 136 repeat orgs$2.5M to everyone else

136 repeat relationships: 82 still active in FY2024, 54 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

136
67

Total granted

$11M
$2.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

23%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $231k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Recreation & SportsEducationPublic Safety & DisasterHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • HP
    HOUSTON POLO CLUB
    8× · 2017–2024 · $498k · revenue +42%
  • SCHOLARSHIP AMERICA INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $429k · revenue +26%
  • SB
    SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB MANAGEMENT CO INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $367k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • PC
    PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES INC
    one grant, 2019 · $1.0M
  • SP
    SCONE POLO LIMITED
    one grant, 2021 · $325k
  • LM
    LAS MONJITAS POLO INC
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
American International Polo Foundation

Foster amateure competition in the sport of polo

Recreation & Sports
2
The Polo School Inc

Education and training of amateur polo athletes and the fostering of national and international amateur polo sport competition.

—
3
Polo Training Center Santa Barbara

Encourage the growth of polo by running and supporting training programs for players at all levels.

Recreation & Sports
4
Denver Polo Club Foundation

Use Polo Tournament forums to procure sponsorships for improving healthcare services by providing financial assistance to patients and medical practitioners in need.

Health
5
The American Polocrosse Association

The mission of the amiercan polocrosse association is to offer educational programs which promote sportsmanship through domestic and international player developent programs and to teach horsemanship for the protections and welfare of the…

Recreation & Sports
6
Gpl Polo Club Inc

The purpose of the gpl polo club is to foster, educate, train, promote and support lgbt community members competing in the sport of polo on a local, regional, national and international basis. our parallel purpose is to advance equality…

Recreation & Sports
7
Midland Polo Inc

Midland polo inc ('mp') was established as a membership-driven community organization to promote the awareness, education, history for the sport of polo while also being a community resource for equine therapy and for those in the…

Recreation & Sports
8
Replay Polo Inc

Equine welfare

—
9
Palos Verdes Water Polo Club

To focus on water polo fundamentals and positve mentoring which builds our athletes into champions, and provides benefits that transcend our sport and help our families and communtity thrive.

—
10
Womens International Polo Network Inc

To enhance women's polo around the world by building an online community that includes detailed player profiles and a comprehensive global calendar of women's tournaments.

—
11
Foothill Club Water Polo

Foothill club water polo is dedicated to providing programs for athletes of all ages, regardless of their exprience or skill level. to provide young athletes with a positive, constructive environment where young men and women can achieve…

Recreation & Sports
12
Los Angeles Water Polo Foundation

Club to maximize waterpolo potential

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Houston Polo Club; the most unlike its peers is Culver Educational Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

42 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 42 of the 215 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
39/42
Grantees still filing
19/42
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES INC: $1,000,000 · OtherPILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES INC+171 more: $10,269,103 · Other+171 moreHOUSTON POLO CLUB: $497,919 · Recreation & SportsHOUSTON POLO CLU…DFW POLO ASSOCIATION: $221,837 · Recreation & SportsDFW POLO ASSOCIA…CENTRAL COAST POLO CLUB: $189,468 · Recreation & SportsCENTRAL COAST PO…YALE POLO AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC: $185,297 · Recreation & SportsYALE POLO AND EQ…Aiken Polo Club Inc: $163,486 · Recreation & SportsAiken Polo Club …MASHOMACK POLO INC: $141,740 · Recreation & SportsMASHOMACK POLO I…LIGONIER POLO ASSOCIATION: $100,248 · Recreation & SportsEASTERN SHORE POLO CLUB INC DBA POINT CLEAR POLO CLUB: $98,937 · Recreation & SportsTINICUM PARK POLO CLUB INC: $81,331 · Recreation & Sports+11 more: $314,780 · Recreation & Sports+11 moreSCHOLARSHIP AMERICA INC: $428,500 · EducationCornell University: $46,877 · EducationGARRISON FOREST SCHOOL INC: $42,595 · EducationTexas A&M Foundation: $28,586 · Education+2 more: $23,468 · EducationSAFETY EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE: $15,055 · Public Safety & DisasterAGGIE POLO CLUB AT UC DAVIS INC: $8,076 · Human Services
Other$11,269,103Recreation & Sports$1,995,043Education$570,026Public Safety & Disaster$15,055Human Services$8,076

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOUSTON POLO CLUB: $497,919 over 8y, 6.4% of budgetSCHOLARSHIP AMERICA INC: $428,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB MANAGEMENT CO INC: $367,415 over 8y, 1.7% of budgetCHICAGO POLO ASSOCIATION LEN MONSON TREASURER: $282,355 over 6y, 50% of budgetVIRGINIA POLO INC: $250,662 over 8y, 14% of budgetDFW POLO ASSOCIATION: $221,837 over 2y, 73% of budgetCentral Texas Polo Association: $212,701 over 7y, 57% of budgetCENTRAL COAST POLO CLUB: $189,468 over 8y, 10% of budgetYALE POLO AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC: $185,297 over 8y, 11% of budgetBARRINGTON HILLS POLO CLUB INC: $174,943 over 8y, 40% of budgetMYOPIA HUNT CLUB: $171,446 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetAiken Polo Club Inc: $163,486 over 8y, 9.3% of budgetMASHOMACK POLO INC: $141,740 over 6y, 5.3% of budgetLIGONIER POLO ASSOCIATION: $100,248 over 4y, 18% of budgetPCM INC: $99,352 over 6y, 17% of budgetEASTERN SHORE POLO CLUB INC DBA POINT CLEAR POLO CLUB: $98,937 over 8y, 11% of budgetTINICUM PARK POLO CLUB INC: $81,331 over 5y, 14% of budgetDetroit Polo Club: $64,702 over 5y, 41% of budgetMAUI POLO CLUB ASSOCIATION: $59,023 over 6y, 73% of budgetWILL ROGERS POLO CLUB INC: $55,468 over 5y, 12% of budgetHAWAII POLO SCHOOL & TRAINING FOUNDATION: $48,021 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetCornell University: $46,877 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSanta Rosa Polo Club: $45,329 over 3y, 16% of budgetGARRISON FOREST SCHOOL INC: $42,595 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSAN ANTONIO POLO CLUB: $32,606 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetMyopia Polo Education Foundation Inc: $32,000 over 2y, 32% of budgetPolo Cares Inc: $30,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $28,586 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAIRFIELD COUNTY HUNT CLUB INCORPORATED: $24,410 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetPOLO TRAINING FOUNDATION: $22,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetSAFETY EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE: $15,055 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOklahoma State University Foundation: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWOW POLO SERIES LLC: $13,000 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetNATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION INC: $12,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetORANGE COUNTY POLO CLUB NON-PROFIT CORP: $10,500 over 1y, 13% of budgetST LOUIS POLO CLUB: $10,100 over 1y, 9.5% of budgetPolo Players Support Group Inc: $9,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetCulver Educational Foundation: $8,468 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAGGIE POLO CLUB AT UC DAVIS INC: $8,076 over 1y, 10% of budgetFRIENDS OF FRANKLIN PARKS INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds HOUSTON POLO CLUB ↗
  • Who funds SCHOLARSHIP AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB MANAGEMENT CO INC ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO POLO ASSOCIATION LEN MONSON TREASURER ↗
  • Who funds VIRGINIA POLO INC ↗
  • Who funds DFW POLO ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Central Texas Polo Association ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL COAST POLO CLUB ↗
  • Who funds YALE POLO AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds BARRINGTON HILLS POLO CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds MYOPIA HUNT CLUB ↗
  • Who funds Aiken Polo Club Inc ↗
  • Who funds MASHOMACK POLO INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO0.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization United States Polo Association Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United States Polo Association Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 80%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    8get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 215 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on United States Polo Association’s filings →

    More from the funding graph