A reader writes:
I want to add a couple of wrinkles that play a role in poor kids getting less access to organized sports. In my town, athletics at the middle-school level were eliminated in 2002 as a result of draconian budget cuts brought on by the post 9/11 recession. And “C team” athletics were also cut at the high-school level. Now, 11 years later, this means the only kids who get to play a sport without paying exorbitant fees are highly talented high-school kids. Younger kids either have to join a club team or play pick-up games. Greenya raises the obvious problem for poor kids in relation to the cost of those club teams.
But I’m guessing you will get readers who will write to you and say “poor kids can go play at the local empty lot/playground/etc.” I would point out that life in impoverished neighborhoods is often not safe, and while parents living in poverty may not be able to provide lots of athletic opportunities to their kids, they can provide safety by keeping them close to home.
This means that there are fewer opportunities today for pick-up games than when I was a kid and was allowed to roam the streets all day in the summer. I played lots of pick-up games as a free-lunch-eating kid in elementary school, until my classmate was violently raped by a new neighbor. Then my folks found lots of reasons to keep me at home, and my interest in sports was redirected to books. It changed how my friends and I were raised, and I can’t help but think safety concerns play a role in how other kids in dangerous neighborhoods are raised as well. I know today, I wouldn’t let my own kids be out of the house for a three-hour baseball game at the park without an adult I trusted supervising them, largely because of fears based in my childhood. And I know that among my peer group, I am not alone.
And I honestly think this is part of the allure of video gaming, especially for families of the working poor. If my kid is playing a video game at home, I’m pretty certain he is safe from the dangers of the world.
The Dish 