I didn't state that it was reasonable but a lot of parents do care. Something on the order of 2% of entering US college freshmen receive at least a partial athletic scholarship at NCAA D1/D2 schools. This can be a major cost savings, plus it allows them to bypass the normal application process. We can argue about whether colleges should give athletic scholarships at all but that's how the system works.

I agree that sports should be accessible to kids of all income levels. And that's true to an extent for certain sports. But the cheaper options of playing on public school or community center teams will only take you so far. The better coaches and higher levels of competition necessary to develop real mastery are often only available in expensive private clubs and academies.

▲

estearum 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry I guess what I'm getting at is more specifically: why should anyone care if people are priced out of the absolute upper echelons of sports?

I actually think it's probably better that tier of athletics is predominantly (and obviously) a bunch of trust fund babies. It's immensely high risk and low utility (both internally and externally to the athlete themselves) for anyone else to be pursuing those ambitions.

▲

fragmede 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Because, not to be idealistic, but America is supposed to be the land of opportunity. There are no kings, or lords. Every person is equal in the eyes of the law, and the free market is the decider. If we're abdicating that position, and just wanna accept that the rich get everything and everyone else fights for their scraps, well, I mean, everyone's gotta have an ethos, I guess.

	▲	estearum 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with those ideals, but this is like saying that only nepo-babies are likely to be professional basket weavers. I don't see that as a meaningful bifurcation of kings and lords. Some people can afford the 99.9999% probability risk of investing 15 - 20 years of ultra-intensive training and coming up with literally no career and no method of adding value to their community that's even remotely correlated to the level of investment in their training. Most people cannot. It is good if that is as few people as possible. And it is good if that person isn't literally starving afterwards (i.e. can just collect rent from their parents' accounts)