default
Member
Apparently you didn't read/comprehend my entire post. I clearly stated schools should only provide a portion of the funding and the participants should be funding the rest out of their own pocket or via fundraising.SoCal_Dad said:HS programs typically have some players not playing club/travel. A rec league can provide playing opportunities for the players that didn't make it on a HS team.
So in a district, everyone with-out kids is paying for someone else's kids to play sports.
And some people WITH kids in the district are paying so a select few can play instead of their kid and they have to go and pay again for their kid to play in a rec league.
Doesn't sound fair does it?
- The cost of ALL sports programs to a district should only be a few dollars a year per taxpayer due to the large base. It would cost taxpayers far more if they allowed their district to discontinue sports.
- The participants in the HS program would be paying most of the cost of their participation. From my experience, it is far higher than the cost of playing in a rec league. BTW, rec leagues are also typically taxpayer subsidized in one way or another (e.g. fields).
I actually agree with you in principle - to a degree, but feel you're making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the cost per taxpayer. The real issue is the bait-and-switch that happens when popular items - currently funded ones - are held hostage to justify a tax increase so they can fund other items that would never pass.