|

Pay-to-play
increase should depend on sport
By Aaron Igdalsky
   
Did you play baseball or hockey last year? How about basketball or softball?
Due to athletic department budget cuts, the pay-to-play fee for all sports
at Hall and Conard has increased from $55 to $75 for the 2002-2003 school
year. A pay-to-play fee is the cost that student-athletes must pay to
join a team. Every student-athlete has the same fee, regardless of their
sport.
    Although many have voiced concerns about this increase,
it seems to be an analytical choice. However, an alternative solution
to this conflict is to have students involved in sports with more expensive
equipment pay more, and vica-versa. This is a much more balanced system,
and students and parents would not be paying money to benefit other sports
and teams beside their own. The athletic department would avoid having
to cut any of the sports teams.
 |
   
There are many expenses involved with an athletic team. The twenty dollar
increase, which will be used exclusively in the athletic department, will
help to pay for uniforms, equipment, buses and officials. All of these
things do not come cheap, especially when you are talking about more than
a dozen sports, some of which have six different teams due to the various
gender and age levels. With the hundreds of student-athletes at Hall,
it is clear that these fees are necessary to keep the program alive and
well.
    Some would argue that $75 is a bit much to play a game,
but that $75 may actually save the game and sports that you play. Hall
athletic director Betty Remigino-Knapp is not for the increased
fees, but deems them necessary. Nevertheless, the last thing she wants
to do is cut a sport from the program because the athletic department
cannot afford to keep it running.
    If a student cannot afford to pay the fee, and they are
on the free/reduced lunch program, the fee is waived. Students who are
not on this plan but cannot afford the fee are encouraged to see the athletic
director to discuss their situation. Remigino-Knapp says that the last
thing she wants is to turn away student athletes, and she hopes this will
not happen. Another important financial note concerning this increase
is that there is a $300 spending cap per family. This means that families
with multiple student athletes can spend a maximum of $300, before being
relieved of all financial obligations.
    According to Remigino-Knapp, the idea of an increase came
out-of-nowhere at a Board of Education meeting. The original
proposal was a $45 increase, but after an outpouring of concern, it was
lowered to $25. She added that this was officially put into place by the
Board of Education and not her personally. Remigino-Knapp says that this
increase had nothing to do with recent increases in towns such as Simsbury.
Rather, the West Hartford budget cut is the only reason for the increased
pay-to-play. She hopes that it will not increase again for a while, but
that another addition to the fee is fairly likely. This increase should
be based upon the specific sport that the student in which the student
participates. This means that if a student is a member of the swim or
basketball team, for example, they should pay less than other sports because
those teams require less equipment.
    Student-athletes playing football or lacrosse, on the
other hand, should pay a larger fee because those teams require hundreds
of dollars worth of padding and protective equipment. This policy would
allow students to see their money affect them personally, and not just
be thrown into a general fund for the use of others.
    This issue of increased pay-to-play fees is undoubtedly
controversial. Student-athletes do not want to stop playing their sport,
but unfortunately, some may be forced to. Seventy-five dollars is a lot
of money to just have fun, as weve been raised to feel
about sports.
    Unless the fee is lessened, even slightly, or it stops
increasing for athletes participating in sports that require little equipment,
the athletic-department could see a drop in students participation.
|
|
|