WOODBURY — Many community members and students are aware of the current situation regarding the school budget which has many consequences, including its impact on high school athletics. A May 5th budget referendum may decide the fate of pay for play sports within the district.
Pay to play sports implies that student-athletes would pay a fee in order to participate in seasonal sports.
“I am not in favor of “pay to play” but I understand if the Region 14 budget is not approved, difficult financial decisions need to be made” Region 14 Superintendent Brian Murphy told the Chief Advocate.
This issue was explored in previous years, though, fortunately, for student-athletes, the final decision ruled against “pay to play” sports.
“There was discussion from the Region 14 Board of Education last year regarding ‘pay to play’ after the 2025-2026 budget proposal was defeated two times at referendum,” Murphy said.
Should the district move to a pay-for-play model, where would these funds go? The answer to this expensive proposition is more complicated than it may seem.
“So I know in Watertown, when they collect those funds, they don’t go back to the school, they go back to the town general fund,” NHS Principal Dr. Mykal Kuslis said. “So it’s not like the school is getting that money. The town is recouping some of that and offsetting some of the tax burden in that way.”
As an example of what it looks like for students elsewhere, Kathy Green, Nonnewaug college career research specialist and parent of a Region 15 athlete, says that, “for my daughter at Pomperaug, it costs $150 per season.”
This can become a large financial burden for some students who do multiple sports. NHS principal Mykal Kuslis says that for Nonnewaug it would “probably be somewhere in the range of $75 to $100, $150 per kid per season.”
“I do three sports, track, basketball, and soccer,” Nonnewaug junior Max Nichols said. “It would definitely be an issue because I also have a sister here. That’s three more sports we would have to pay for. It would be like a lot of money for a family to have to put out.”
“I think as soon as you go pay to play, it is putting more disadvantaged kids at a disadvantage,” NHS Cross country and track coach, and LMC specialist Deborah Flaherty says. “We’re a public school system, and we pay our taxes for a reason. I think they should be able to figure out a budget in such a way that the tax dollars go to students, and athletics is part of being a student.”
Regardless, Flaherty emphasizes how expensive these sports are and why more money may be needed.
“Our previous uniforms were $140. The current uniforms, I believe, are about half that cost, but there are also half the shelf life,” Flaherty said. “Matts are crazy expensive. New pole vault mats are about $40,000.”
Costs like this add up with so many athletes when they don’t pay for themselves. Regardless, Kuslis explains how if this money was to go to the school its effect may be limited.
“If you look at the amount of money that pay to play brings in, I don’t want to sound like it’s not insignificant, but it’s not very impactful,” Kuslis said in regard to the financial decision of possibly instituting a pay for play model that would charge student athletes to join NHS athletics teams.
Kuslis also says that the results can be unexpected.
“I have a very good friend who’s an athletic director in one of the FCAIC schools, so down in like the Fairfield County schools, I won’t say which one,” Kuslis said, “but when they instituted pay to play, their numbers actually went up, because it became like a status symbol and people, more kids actually came out for sports when there was pay to play because it became like, I can afford to pay for this, and it was like a weird backwards impact.”
So, it is unknown how a pay to play model will be taken by the community. However, for Nonnewaug in particular—when it has been discussed in the past— the common preference has been to keep NHS athletics free to students and accessible to all.
“But I will say in the past when it’s been brought up, it has not been a popular opinion,” Kuslis said regarding the historical mention of this funding option.
Kuslis thinks that if the budget does not pass on its first attempt on May 5th, the district will do its best to minimize the impact on students.
“There has been no impact, not no impact, but we’ve tried to keep the impact away from students as much as possible,” Kuslis said. “So we haven’t really gone down the path of potential pay to play cuts or things like that at this point.”
Therefore, Kuslis makes it apparent that in the case of further budget cuts the board will try to keep students unaffected. Although the board can’t know until we get to that position, it seems like they have athletes prioritized at heart.
