Updated date:

Should We Keep Funding Public School Sports?

I enjoy writing about politics, economics, foreign policy, and culture.

High school basketball and football games are an iconic tradition, but should we have to fund them with taxes?

High school basketball and football games are an iconic tradition, but should we have to fund them with taxes?

Should K–12 Sports Be Privatized?

Is it wrong to spend taxpayer dollars on sports in public schools? Rarely has such a can of worms been opened. If you think that people get hot under the collar about same-sex marriage, flag burning, or healthcare, you ain't seen nothin' yet! In Nevada in 2016, school board candidate Russell Davis proposed ending taxpayer support for public school football. He argued that the physical dangers of football make it an unacceptable institution to fund.

But, dangers of high school football aside, should any taxpayer money go to public school sports in our post-Great Recession age of austerity? For example, in 2016, my school district was in the midst of a painful budget crunch, and teachers faced the prospect of diverting money from their paychecks to their health insurance premiums, effectively resulting in a pay cut. The district, however, insisted that no extracurricular programs would be cut. As a teacher, I find it unconscionable that football was still funded . . . but educators had to suffer through pay cuts.

U.S. Academics Are Lagging

As a nation, our academic rigor is lagging. We have low test scores and do poorly compared with virtually all other industrialized nations—despite spending the most dollars per student! In America, we spend lavishly on education but see little return. Where we do truly stand out from other industrialized nations is our obsession with sports. While we are quick to debate endlessly about hot-button issues like teacher training and the effects of standardized testing on students' self-esteem, few are brave enough to broach the topic of sports funding.

If we cut the funding for public school sports in half, or eliminated it entirely, would the additional funds for classroom learning lead to improved education outcomes for children and teens? Obviously, there would be some improvement. The question is, how much improvement for what cost? What would we gain in terms of graduation rates and college preparedness versus what would we lose in terms of athletic benefits? We must examine how much benefit is derived from public school sports.

The iconic novel "Friday Night Lights," set in West Texas, highlights America's love of high school football.

The iconic novel "Friday Night Lights," set in West Texas, highlights America's love of high school football.

Weighing the Benefits of Public School Sports Against the Costs

Undoubtedly, many students are improved through sport. Young men and women gain physical and mental prowess from public school sports, as well as creativity and leadership skills. But can these same benefits not be derived from club or city league sports? Or could they not be derived from academic-oriented extracurriculars or, dare we say it, more time in the classroom? Shifting our focus from public school sports to academic-oriented extracurriculars could minimize the loss of leadership skills, creativity, and mental sharpness derived from soccer, basketball, volleyball, or football.

And which students do public school sports benefit? A primary argument in favor of well-funded sports programs is that they encourage the attendance and classroom participation of students who would otherwise drop out of high school. For example, coaches often declare that some students only attend school because of football or basketball. Take that away from them, and they will refuse to come to class. But should we educators be held hostage by our students in this way? This is especially true given that it is a minority of students. When it comes to sports, unlike academics, there is little inclusiveness. You have to make the team.

The Few Are Subsidized by the Masses

While education itself is supposed to be universal and inclusive, varsity sports, especially at large public high schools, can be anything but. Only good athletes make the team. The select few are being subsidized by the masses. If public school sports want taxpayer dollars, then shouldn't they be as inclusive as the public school classrooms themselves? How can a public school deny a student a spot on the varsity team for alleged lack of ability, especially when such an occurrence in an academic setting would be swiftly and loudly condemned? Many schools have made AP classes open enrollment, allowing any student to register, so why are sports exempt from such mandated inclusiveness?

Privatization Could Be the Answer

If parents truly believe that their children will benefit from sports, then a market will develop to cater to their demand. Private sports leagues will develop, and teams can allow poor-but-athletic children and teens to join at a discount, trading lower revenue for greater prospects of winning. While education should be considered a public good, I see little reason why sports should not be privatized.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.