While $350 dollars to play high school football in Massachusetts and $630 dollars to play high school tennis in Ohio are near the high end of the pay-to-play spectrum, the national average—between $75 and $100 dollars—is nevertheless alarming to those who consider athletics a fundamental part of public high school. Despite sharp criticism, pay-to-play programs provide an alternate source of revenue for public schools in dire budgetary straits and often act as a last resort to save athletic programs from elimination. Charging students participation fees, however, raises equity issues among students and schools in a given district. Students unable to pay the fee risk being excluded from activities that may otherwise enhance their educational experience. Beyond the individual student’s ability or inability to pay a fee, one school may offer more courses and activities than another school in the same district because a sufficient number of its students are able to pay associated fees and therefore preserve the course or program. Thus, pay-to-play programs may ”save” football at one school, while the costs of charging students to play may eliminate football at another school, ”turning a once-sacred part of public education into a numbers-driven business” . . . .
