Across the country, high school athletics are often a cornerstone of local cultural life, bringing communities together while forging lifelong memories for students. More than half of all American high school students participated in a school or community sport in 2023, making athletics a foundational experience for more than eight million students in Grades 9-12. This engagement confers numerous benefits to participants: Involvement in athletics increases college attendance and is associated with higher levels of self-esteem, improved academic achievement, accelerated leadership development, and a greater sense of belonging. 

Despite the prevalence and benefits of high school sports, there are wide disparities in students’ access to well-funded athletic programs. In some regions of the country, high-poverty public high schools spend far less on athletic programs and as a result have substantially lower sports participation rates. Unfortunately, amid receding federal and state investments in education, district leaders may face additional pressures to reduce spending on athletics, extracurricular clubs, and elective courses. In the face of these pressures that threaten to widen extracurricular engagement gaps, education leaders and advocates must work to provide all high school students with holistic learning opportunities beyond the traditional classroom.  

Funding for Public High School Sports 

Typically, public school districts support high school sports programs by using a mix of federal, state, and local revenues to pay for coaching, transportation, equipment, facilities, and athletics administrators. Although local education agencies (LEAs) can spend state resources on high school sports, the vast majority of state school finance systems don’t provide dedicated funding streams for interscholastic athletics.1 Therefore, local school districts ultimately face responsibility for maintaining athletic programs, leading to wide variation in extracurricular sports funding across districts. 

To supplement federal, state, and local revenue streams, LEAs often turn to external sources such as participation fees, ticket sales, or private donations to support their high school sports programs. For example, Georgia’s DeKalb County School District charges athletic fees, sells tickets, and encourages parents to join private booster clubs. Districts may also authorize bonds to finance construction or renovations for athletic facilities. Earlier this year, voters in Texas’ Spring Branch Independent School District approved bond propositions totaling $559 million to improve high school and districtwide athletic facilities. While most states do not collect data on athletics expenditures, Massachusetts and New Jersey offer insights into disparities in high school sports spending and participation among districts within the same state. 

Students Sidelined: State Spotlight on Inequitable Sports Access in Massachusetts  

Although Massachusetts’s Chapter 70 school funding formula provides additional resources to higher-poverty districts, wide disparities exist in school athletics expenditures among the Bay State’s 417 public high schools. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education strives to provide all students with a “diverse array of opportunities to engage” in athletics, the arts, and elective courses. Nevertheless, in practice access to well-funded athletic programs at the high school level varies considerably. During the current school year, some public high schools in Massachusetts will spend three times more on athletics than other schools in the Commonwealth (Figure 1). 

In Massachusetts, some public high schools spend three times more per student on athletics than other public high schools in the state.

Figure 1: Map of Athletics Finance Data for Select Massachusetts Public High Schools, SY25-26 

Note: Purposive sample of Massachusetts public high schools selected based on school demographics and availability of athletics expenditure data in district budget documents. Source: Massachusetts Bureau of Geographic Information, “MassMapper,” August 18, 2025. 

These disparities in high school athletics expenditures contribute to substantial gaps in sports participation rates across Massachusetts public high schools. The average Massachusetts public high school student competed in 0.65 sports seasons during school year (SY) 2024-25. However, this average conceals stark disparities: Affluent public high schools had sports participation rates four times larger than high-poverty high schools (Figure 2). Given the benefits of participating in athletics, students in high-poverty public high schools in Massachusetts likely have fewer opportunities to develop their leadership abilities, self-esteem, and communication skills through interscholastic athletics. 

In Massachusetts, affluent public high schools have sports participation rates four times higher than high-poverty public high schools. 

Figure 2: Number of Sports Seasons Completed Per Pupil Compared to Enrollment Share of Low-Income Students Among Massachusetts Public High Schools, SY24-25 

Note: To account for Massachusetts public high schools also serving students younger than Grades 9-12, the denominator used for sports participation rate is total school-level Grade 7-12 enrollment. Sources: Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletics Association, “2024-25 Sports Participation by School,” July 14, 2025; Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, “2024-25 Enrollment by Grade Report (School),” January 9, 2025.  

Jersey Numbers: State Spotlight on District Athletics Expenditures in New Jersey 

Likewise, students attending high-poverty public schools in New Jersey also experience less access to well-funded interscholastic athletic programs. During SY24-25, affluent New Jersey public school districts spent 1.7 times more per enrolled high school student on athletics than high-poverty districts, on average. Wealthy districts also devote a much larger portion of their budget towards athletics compared to high-poverty districts statewide. These statistics further reflect that public school students attending high-poverty schools in the U.S. have fewer opportunities to participate in school-based athletic programs. 

Affluent New Jersey public school districts spend nearly twice as much on athletics compared to high-poverty districts in the state. 

Figure 3: New Jersey Public School District Athletics Spending Compared to District Poverty Quintile, SY24-25 

Note: School district sample restricted to the 272 New Jersey public school districts serving students in Grades 9-12. Source: New Jersey Department of Education, “2024-2025 District Budget Data – Advertised Appropriations,” April 14, 2025. 

Leveling the Playing Field 

At a time when adolescents feel increasingly isolated, interscholastic athletics can provide students with an enduring sense of community. However, students attending high-poverty high schools have substantially fewer opportunities to find belonging through school-based sports.  

With LEAs facing increased budget pressures, this disparity may widen without concerted attention from education leaders. At the local level, district leaders should consider lowering participation fees or providing waivers to reduce barriers for low-income students. As it stands, the vast majority of state education agencies currently fail to collect sufficient data on district expenditures supporting athletic and extracurricular activities. If state governments begin collecting data to identify athletics opportunity gaps, they will become better equipped to support athletic programs in high-poverty districts. These efforts will give more students life-changing experiences to develop their leadership styles, communication skills, and tenacity.