$275. That’s how much money you’re asked to contribute to play any of the sports at our school. Whether you play your sport in the pool, which costs thousands of dollars to heat every year, or are part of the badminton team, which requires athletes to buy their own rackets, the fee is constant.
Some parents and students might be wondering about this system’s fairness. After all, each sport needs different equipment, which naturally costs varying amounts of money. For example, cross country seems like a relatively cheap sport due to its lack of equipment compared to water polo. However, this flat fee is the best option for Saratoga.
Firstly, it is important that the base cost of sports participation is subsidized for certain sports to ensure affordability for everyone. Saratoga High is a unified school and that means it should support each one of its aspects financially. Charging more for one sport discourages participation, which leads to a weaker program overall, and punishes athletes who play more costly sports.
Secondly, much of the $275 fee helps cover the cost of maintaining sports facilities, such as the weight room and the trainer’s room. It is virtually impossible to calculate an exact figure for each individual sport.
For example, one of those shared resources is athletic trainer Liz Gilmore. In order to quantify the expense by sport, one would have to count the hours each sports team spends receiving the athletic trainer’s attention.
This venture would not only be extremely time-consuming and expensive, but also provide an inaccurate portrait, as every visit to the trainer is unique. One person might be rolling an injury, while another could be using the elliptical, which is clearly more expensive.
Also, if we want true equality, shouldn’t we also charge each individual a different amount of money? After all, injured athletes require much more attention and are therefore more costly than healthy ones. This proposition, an extrapolation of the current criticism of the sports program, demonstrates the ridiculousness of suggesting separate fees.
In fact, trying to split costs is analogous to two friends sharing ice cream and trying to divide the bill by weighing the ice cream eaten by one friend while factoring in the proportion of chocolate syrup on each side of the bowl. It’s time-wasting and unrealistic.
Finally, the money disparity is not as large as it looks. The $275 fee does not truly cover the costs of running the sports program; instead, Sports Boosters relies on various fundraisers and donors. Also, individual sports teams that need more money for specific reasons, like buying new jerseys, often raise their own money.
In short, we need to recognize that although the $275 fee associated with the sports program appears to be an inequality in costs, it is really an effective and fair system that should remain.
