Sports fees when the court was given for free

The scene is common: the municipality lends the court to a league for free, and the league charges registration to every kid who wants to play. This 2021 Act cuts off that specific case. If the organisation got the public facility without paying, it cannot charge a fee or registration to a poor or low-income participant for the activities it runs inside. And it is not only a prohibition: the Act also puts on it the positive duty to give broad participation to whoever evidences they cannot pay. Watch the hinge: if the organisation pays to use the facility, the Act does not apply to it.

Three conditions must hold at once, and the first is the one most people miss. One: the sports organisation must be using the public facility for free. Article 6 is blunt — “Organisations that pay for the use of public facilities shall be exempt from this Act” — so the trigger is the free cession, not the court belonging to the town. Two: the sporting activity must take place inside that ceded facility. Three: the participant must be poor or of scarce economic resources; Article 2 speaks of whoever “evidences” being so, but the Act does not say what evidence works. The closest thing to a criterion sits in Article 3(f), which defines an “indigent person” as one who resides in the Municipality and qualifies under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ poverty-level standards — though, as we explain below, that defined term does not appear in the articles setting the prohibition.

• The sports organisation must be making free use of a state or municipal public facility.Verified against the official source
• The sporting activity being charged for must take place inside that public facility ceded free of charge.Verified against the official source
• The participant must evidence being poor or of scarce economic resources and lacking the means to cover the registration fee.Verified against the official source

Information pending verification.

1. 1

   Step 1: First find out whether the organisation pays for the court

   Everything hinges on this, and it is the first thing to ask at the municipality’s recreation office or at the agency that owns the facility. Article 6 says it in one line: “Organisations that pay for the use of public facilities shall be exempt from this Act.” If the league rents the court, this Act does not reach it and the claim falls. If the municipality or the agency ceded it free of cost, then you are inside the situation the Act regulates.

2. 2

   Step 2: What exactly the Act prohibits

   Article 1, in full, because it helps to be able to quote it: “It is provided that sports organisations making free use of public facilities, whether state or municipal, shall be barred from charging fees or registration to poor or low-income participants for the sporting activities carried out inside those public facilities that are ceded free of charge.” Note the reach: it is “fees or registration,” and it is for activities carried out “inside” the ceded facility. The Act says nothing about uniforms, equipment, travel or activities away from that court, and we do not extend it.

3. 3

   Step 3: And what it requires, which is the half people forget

   Not charging is not enough: there is a positive duty. Article 2: organisations making free use of public sports facilities “must give broad participation to children, young people and the general population who evidence being poor or of scarce economic resources and who lack the means to cover the registration fees to take part in sports clinics or tournaments.” That is, the correct answer is not “you can come and watch”: it is broad participation in the clinics and tournaments. And note it says “the general population,” not only minors.

4. 4

   Step 4: The drafting gap, stated as it is

   Here is something worth knowing before you claim. Article 3(f) carefully defines an “indigent person” as “any natural person who resides in the Municipality and qualifies under the poverty-level standards established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” That is a concrete, checkable criterion. But that defined term appears in neither Article 1 nor Article 2, which instead speak of participants “poor or of scarce economic resources,” a phrase the Act never defines. So the statute carries a yardstick for poverty and a municipal-residency condition, but does not textually tie them to the prohibition. We publish it because it is what the source says, and we do not resolve the contradiction: that falls to the regulation or the ordinance, or to a court.

5. 5

   Step 5: Whose job it is to enforce it

   The Act splits the work in two and keeps neither half. Article 4: “Where the public facilities are owned by the Municipalities, these must establish Municipal Ordinances in order to enforce the public policy outlined herein.” Article 5: the Government, its instrumentalities or agencies holding public facilities to be ceded free of cost “must establish and implement regulations in order to comply with this legislation.” Translated: if the court is municipal, the machinery is in your municipality’s ordinance; if it belongs to an agency, in that agency’s regulation. We read neither, and that is why this guide describes no complaint procedure.

6. 6

   Step 6: What this Act does not carry

   Worth saying plainly so nobody arrives expecting what is not there. Act 81-2021 sets no fine, creates no complaint, names no forum to appeal to, sets nobody a term and designates no enforcing agency. The statement of motives says that “the municipalities through ordinances to that effect and the Central Government as part of its public policy shall enforce the provisions of this legislation,” but that lives in the statement of motives and not in the enacting articles. What the Act does give you is a written prohibition and a written duty, with an act and article number, that you can quote to the organisation and to whoever ceded it the facility.

There is no application to file: the prohibition falls on the sports organisation, not on the participant. If the facility is municipal, the route the Act itself points to is the municipality, which must have an ordinance to that effect — normally through the recreation and sports office or the municipal legislature. If the facility belongs to an agency of the Government of Puerto Rico, the route is the agency that ceded it, which must have a regulation to that effect. The Act publishes no form, office, address or telephone, and we do not invent them.

• Believing it is enough that the court is public: Article 6 exempts an organisation that pays to use it.
• Thinking it covers only minors: Article 2 names children, young people and the general population.
• Assuming non-profits are outside: Article 3(e) defines a sports organisation as “with or without profit motive.”
• Expecting a fine or a complaint in this Act: it has neither, and refers to municipal ordinances and agency regulation.
• Taking the Article 3(f) definition of “indigent person” as the operative criterion: it does not appear in the articles setting the prohibition.
• Extending the prohibition to uniforms, equipment or travel: the Act speaks of fees or registration for activities inside the ceded facility.
• Going to the wrong body: if the court is municipal the Act points to the municipality; if it belongs to an agency, to that agency.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Departamento de Recreación y Deportes (DRD)

  DRD

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov