Will USA ever produce a Messi or Ronaldo

[Unregistered]

Actually, kids pay at least 50% of the cost of the food. If it works for food, a need, then why wouldn't it work in sports and other activities, which are wants? 40%-50% covered by the school, the rest covered by the participants. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? You all probably want free health care too.

Why on earth would we want free healthcare? I mean, that would entail restructuring and demanding accountability from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, 2 of the largest and most active lobbyists segments in all of politics. No, I like paying 15% of my salary for insurance, and then going to the doctor's office and still forking out $100 for 15 min of "healthcare". The only thing better is not having insurance, and then paying $400 for the same 15 minutes of 'examination'. Especially when the doctor doing the work might make $50, while he pays $200 to the insurance company providing him his 2 million malpractice rider for the year. Great system, glad you like it so much and don't want to see reform...

Additionally, I'm amused by your attempt to compare school lunches with athletics. Really, do I even need to evaluate the comparison? The school gets nothing in return for providing food, other than complying with state mandates. On the other hand, athletics in turn can provide a source of income (albeit usually low) and attract students and faculty to the school district. But I know, now you're going to argue that HS athletics have no impact on the academic standing of a school because the sports have no impact on the community. Anybody moving to the area would never consider an athletic program when buying a house, and obviously everyone wants to attend Jesuit and Lake Oswego HS based only on their academic standings, eh?!

I'm just amazed that, considering the post was about creating the next Messi or Ronaldo, that this has turned into the pay to play debate. But yeah, that's right, Ronaldo and Messi's were great because their parents forked over the big bucks, not because their creativity was supported from an early age. Good grief...

[Unregistered]

Actually, kids pay at least 50% of the cost of the food. If it works for food, a need, then why wouldn't it work in sports and other activities, which are wants? 40%-50% covered by the school, the rest covered by the participants. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? You all probably want free health care too.

WOW... you are such a Dumb Ass.

Where did you get the data the kids pay at least 50% of the cost of food ?

Why is hot lunch a need ? You can bring a cold lunch.

There are elective classes (like PE, Art, etc.. ) that may not be considered a need. Would you charge extra for those courses ?

Is it a want or a need to have smaller class room sizes ?

What is up with the free health care comment ? The reality is if they charge for sports the same population that require free health care would also get scholarships to play.

Go take a poll of HS kids and see how many go watch HS basketball and football ? That is part of going to HS.

If you want to take the capitalist approach then boy's basketball and football could be self funding (due to ticket sales, etc...). Does that mean girls should pay more to keep there sports ?

One last note, for those people in the community that do not have kids going to school, they should take the school funding portion out of there taxes. They are not using the school and should not have to pay.

BTW, my child does not play on the swings and I don't want to pay for that portion of the play ground.

[Unregistered]

Self Funding

Don't perpetuate the myth that HS football and basketball are self funding. It's all subsidized. Some sports generate more revenue than others but nearly all operate a loss if you're looking solely at the revenues and expenses associated with the program. For example: just take a big high school stadium that exists primarily for football. It's not needed for other sports. If ticket revenue doesn't exceed annual operating expenses associated with football, who is paying for that otherwise unnecessary infrastructure? The point is that it's complicated and it doesn't mean sports aren't worth having. It's solely to point out that a revenue producing sport can "lose" more money than a sport that generates no revenue at all. Made up example: football generates $50K in revenue, but costs $60K to support. Cross country has a $5K budget but generates no revenue. Football loses $10K, cross country $5K. If you were looking solely to save money, you'd cut football.

The real choice is whether we think these activities provide a benefit to the kids and community. I think the answer is yes and it shouldn't always be reduced to a matter of money.

[Unregistered]

Don't perpetuate the myth that HS football and basketball are self funding. It's all subsidized. Some sports generate more revenue than others but nearly all operate a loss if you're looking solely at the revenues and expenses associated with the program. For example: just take a big high school stadium that exists primarily for football. It's not needed for other sports. If ticket revenue doesn't exceed annual operating expenses associated with football, who is paying for that otherwise unnecessary infrastructure? The point is that it's complicated and it doesn't mean sports aren't worth having. It's solely to point out that a revenue producing sport can "lose" more money than a sport that generates no revenue at all. Made up example: football generates $50K in revenue, but costs $60K to support. Cross country has a $5K budget but generates no revenue. Football loses $10K, cross country $5K. If you were looking solely to save money, you'd cut football.

The real choice is whether we think these activities provide a benefit to the kids and community. I think the answer is yes and it shouldn't always be reduced to a matter of money.

I agree with you on the last statement. Not sure about your calculations on "losses" for football and baskeball. The reality is that you can raise money to cover a lot of the costs for football and basketball. So that is in alignment with the previous poster's comment about pay for use. I think if you took away football, enough supporters would show that they are willing to pay.

The issue is I don't think you would get the same support for other sports. For that matter, you would not get that support for some of the elective programs that we offer in schools. This is where the argument of pay to use falls apart.

You have to balance democracy where you create a plan that is in agreement with the "majority", but at the same time keep it fair so that individual rights are protected.

[Unregistered]

WOW... you are such a Dumb Ass.

Where did you get the data the kids pay at least 50% of the cost of food ?

Why is hot lunch a need ? You can bring a cold lunch.

There are elective classes (like PE, Art, etc.. ) that may not be considered a need. Would you charge extra for those courses ?

Is it a want or a need to have smaller class room sizes ?

What is up with the free health care comment ? The reality is if they charge for sports the same population that require free health care would also get scholarships to play.

Go take a poll of HS kids and see how many go watch HS basketball and football ? That is part of going to HS.

If you want to take the capitalist approach then boy's basketball and football could be self funding (due to ticket sales, etc...). Does that mean girls should pay more to keep there sports ?

One last note, for those people in the community that do not have kids going to school, they should take the school funding portion out of there taxes. They are not using the school and should not have to pay.

BTW, my child does not play on the swings and I don't want to pay for that portion of the play ground.

You are about the most clueless person around. Please, don't procreate. Remove your kin from the gene pool. Now, go mow my yard.

[Unregistered]

I'm just amazed that, considering the post was about creating the next Messi or Ronaldo, that this has turned into the pay to play debate.

It's because that was the comment that a certain dumbarse decided to focus on. Clearly he can't pay for his kids and prioritizes sports over education, but his comments reflect that.

[Unregistered]

The real choice is whether we think these activities provide a benefit to the kids and community. I think the answer is yes and it shouldn't always be reduced to a matter of money.

No one said they didn't provide a benefit. The argument is about how much the kids should pay vs. how much the tax payers should pay. And the reality is, there is only a fixed amount of money for everything. So the real question is WHICH activities that are funded from the fixed pool of money provide the largest return. No one seems to care if they cut classroom days, but heaven forbid they cut sports, or make the participants pay a higher share.

[Unregistered]

You are about the most clueless person around. Please, don't procreate. Remove your kin from the gene pool. Now, go mow my yard.

OK Mr. Pay for Play (for HS Sports)

Go put a quarter in your penny bank and go play with yourself.

[Unregistered]

It's because that was the comment that a certain dumbarse decided to focus on. Clearly he can't pay for his kids and prioritizes sports over education, but his comments reflect that.

I think the point that started the whole thing was my comment that it cost a lot of money to play soccer at a high level here. Take a look at club fees, etc... The high cost may be cost prohibitive for some athletes and therefore we are limiting our talent pool. Take a look at Messi. How old was he when he joined Barcelona ? How much did he pay ? Didn't they set him up for medical treatment as well as set up housing and work for his father ?

In the USA, if you want the Academy experience for your kids, you spend $35K to send them to a place like IMG.

I don't have issues paying the club fees. My point is this may be cost prohibitive attracking more athletes.

Any ways that was my initial point. Then someone made a comment about HS Sports vs. Education. I don't think that HS soccer programs will produce anybody of Messi's ability.

[Unregistered]

I think the point that started the whole thing was my comment that it cost a lot of money to play soccer at a high level here. Take a look at club fees, etc... The high cost may be cost prohibitive for some athletes and therefore we are limiting our talent pool. Take a look at Messi. How old was he when he joined Barcelona ? How much did he pay ? Didn't they set him up for medical treatment as well as set up housing and work for his father ?

In the USA, if you want the Academy experience for your kids, you spend $35K to send them to a place like IMG.

I don't have issues paying the club fees. My point is this may be cost prohibitive attracking more athletes.

Any ways that was my initial point. Then someone made a comment about HS Sports vs. Education. I don't think that HS soccer programs will produce anybody of Messi's ability.

The point I was making is that to perform at a high level in most sports, you have to pay a lot of money. This is something new to Oregon, but not new to other parts of the country. And thank you for making my point about HS soccer not developing a Messi. No, to develop even a college level soccer player, you need to spend thousands in club fees (and be thankful you are in Oregon where those fees are much lower than in other parts of the country). In football, the next Adrian Peterson is developed in high school. Where they pay a few bucks to play and move on to college. Meanwhile, that cost is born by the other students at the expense of other areas where that money could be spent. And yes the school lunches at our schools cost $3.50. At most, it is a $5 lunch. So the kids are paying for 70%. Seems reasonable to have the kids who play sports pay for 50% of the cost of that sport.

[Unregistered]

OK Mr. Pay for Play (for HS Sports)

Go put a quarter in your penny bank and go play with yourself.

Did you type that while you were under Sam Adam's desk?

[Unregistered]

Did you type that while you were under Sam Adam's desk?

Are you good friends with Sam ?