Sports News Update…Got a call from the County and to make it Clear:”One-time Fee of $45.00 per Year”

Posted by Andy Durham on May 17, 2017 at 10:39 am under Amateur, High School | 8 Comments to Read

Got the call this morning and we can now we make it much more clear….On the new “Pay to Play” rule for athletics in Guilford County, you will have a one time fee of $45.00 per year, per athlete….

So that will help eliminate some of the confusion, I hope and that might just give us a better understanding of what might be coming our way for the next school year…

The “Pay to Play” is $45.00 per year, no matter how many sports you are playing and good to get that call from the county this morning to clear that up and this should make it more manageable for kids to continue playing multiple sports in Guilford County….

Again here’s hoping we have been able to clear up some of the confusion surrounding this new rule and we sure had some questions and we got answers and here’s hoping we can find a workable solution to more matters like this in the future and it sure proves that we do have readers and readers are responding…

We are out here to help and remember, we all do have a voice in the community….

Guilford County Schools release from May 9, 2017….
School Board Approves Budget Request for 2017-18
May 9, 2017– The Guilford County Board of Education will ask county commissioners for an additional $10.2 million for operating budget and $10 million for capital outlay for the next school year.

The request is a $2 million increase from the superintendent’s recommended budget, accounting for changes to the unfunded class-size mandate approved by state lawmakers last month.

The requested funds from the county would also help cover anticipated salary and benefit increases from the state ($7.1 million) and an expected increase in charter school enrollment of more than 900 students ($3.8 million).

GCS is expected to grow by approximately 230 students in the next school year, but the school board isn’t asking county commissioners for additional funding for those students.

To pay for the additional GCS students, and make up the majority of costs associated with the state’s class-size legislation ($4.6 million of the $6.6 million needed), while preserving arts, athletics and physical education, the budget reduces 51 teacher assistant positions, reorganizes central office and charges an annual $45 participation fee for athletes who can afford to pay.


  • Concerned Parent said,

    Thanks, Andy, for doing the work to find out Pay-to-Play is one fee per athlete. I remain concerned that $45 is a lot of money for many families, even if they are well above the free-lunch limit because there is already a lot of expense when on a high school team.

    Athletics is largely self-funded. The athletes pay for their shoes and other gear and safety equipment. The Booster Clubs support team equipment, like a blocking sled ($8,000), field/court maintenance, coaches CPR training, awards, championship rings, and many other things.

    The teams fund raise for meals, bus transportation, water, and Gatorade. The parents have to pay to watch their kid play. If the team makes the play-offs or state tournament, its extra.

    The Pay-to-Play fee is not going to be used to support athletics. So, if more money is needed why not raise property taxes? That is the right thing to do.

    Don’t you think that if every player on team Pays-to-Play, there will be an expectation that all players get equal playing time?

    Alternatively, why not charge $5 to $10 for all extracurricular activities. Why should a ball player pay but a debater, dancer, or drummer doesn’t?

    If you raise the cost of sports, the kid on the margin will not be able to play. The kid on the margin is the one that needs a sports team the most.

    I sincerely hope the county doesn’t rubber stamp this egregious line item and comes up with an alternative.

  • Coach KG said,

    Cool so they’ll pay $45 one time, and that’ll take care of the whole year even if they play multiple sports.

  • Andy Durham said,

    There are still some gray areas here and how do they decide who pays and who doesn’t have to pay???
    (The word/info tells us it is designed for those that can ‘Pay to Play’.)

    There will be more questions and hopefully the county will keep getting back with us and let us know how this new plan is working…

    You hope a portion of the money raised by the new fee would go to help cover the operating costs for the athletics departments, but if they don’t get any of this money at all, going toward funding athletics, then it looks to me as if they have missed the boat…

    If money raised doesn’t hit athletics, then the other activities mentioned earlier should be required to have a participation fee as well…
    (Plan is being called and Athletics Fee.)

    Why should the athletes be required to fund the other kids attending school, and to me it would seem the athletics fees should go to help fund athletics…

    The participation fee almost becomes like a tax if the monies gained are not appropriated toward athletics…

    Just saying and just hoping it all works out as the money comes in and you hope it does not become like the lottery, where we hear the lottery monies are supposed to go toward education, but much of the lottery money ends up going to administrative services….

    Good topic and we will see how it bears out…

    We received good and helpful info from the county today…

  • John said,

    I agree with concerned parent on all points. I think charging $45 will do more harm then good. Athletics is the only department in the school that can generate its own revenue. The county does not allot money now anyway for athletics. They do give each school a relatively small fund for field maintenance. This fund would not even fund travel and referee’s. The new superintendent clearly does not support athletics. There is a stigma in the world of education that if you support athletics you are devaluing academics. When in fact the opposite is true. They do not ask for a fee county wide to play in the band, chorus, perform in the theater, etc. Because in academia it is the belief that these things support academics and sports do not. Statistics show student athletes perform better in school. Look at the turn around at Eastern Guilford. Not to long ago Eastern Guilford was one of the worst schools behaviorally and academically in the county. Guys like Coach Robertson and Spinks have elevated their athletic programs and thus improved the school in all area’s. This is unnecessary and might cause more families to explore private and charter schools thus hurting public education even more.

  • Done Deal said,

    The individual schools will not see one red cent of this $45 per player. All of this will go directly to GCS to use as they see fit. The larger issue that GCS needs to face is how to keep teacher assistants in classrooms at the elementary level and how to keep Art programs in schools. This arbitrary $45 fee that not all kids will pay doesn’t solve any of that.

  • drob1211 said,

    I don’t see how it is right if what I’m reading is true. How can you charge an athletic fee that does nothing to help the athletic department? If this fee is for other programs then they should hit up those programs or charge a fee school wide. This is ridiculous to me.

  • Concerned Parent said,

    Well drob1211, they can do anything they want to do. The county needs to step up and willingly fund the school system. Instead they overcrowd classrooms, stop buying textbooks, let the buildings fall apart, and allow the teachers pay to fall to near national bottoms. If you have 230 new students in the system, you should have an increase in the tax base because those students have to live somewhere. I think the county thought they would be able to sneak this fee in. They thought people would think it was directly related to athletics, not realizing the county stop supporting sports a very long time ago.

  • Sportsmom said,

    I’m just wondering…will that include a season pass for at least one parent? I think parents are already “paying to play!”