We, the undersigned parents, coaches, athletes, and supporters of high school sports in Southern California, call on the California Interscholastic Federation Southern Section (CIF-SS) to reform its transfer eligibility rules under Bylaw 207. As high school football and other sports grow in popularity—with participation reaching new highs in recent years and over 17,000 transfers statewide in 2024—it’s time to adapt the rules to let student-athletes play where they want and thrive, reflecting the changing landscape where kids seek better opportunities for their development.

Not every program will be a powerhouse, and that’s fine—some schools prioritize sports less, or students choose elsewhere due to factors like coaching quality. However, rigid rules often prevent transfers for legitimate sports-related reasons, such as dissatisfaction with a coach, conflicts from coach-parent relationships, or program mismatches that hinder a student’s growth, enjoyment, and mental health. With rising pressures on young athletes contributing to concerns like increased stress and resilience challenges, reforms should prioritize their well-being over punitive measures that disproportionately affect teens for decisions often made by adults.

We support a ‘first transfer free’ rule, allowing one unrestricted transfer per student-athlete during their high school career without penalties like sit-out periods or ineligibility bans—this aligns with ongoing CIF discussions from April 2025 on similar one-time flexibility policies. This provides needed choice while acknowledging that times are changing and kids should have the option to pursue stronger teams or better fits without fostering a ‘quitting culture.’ All subsequent transfers should face scrutiny to curb potential abuse, requiring documentation of motivations beyond athletics or evidence of hardships, with penalties focusing more on adult accountability (e.g., coaches or administrators) than derailing young athletes’ futures.

Private schools’ lack of attendance boundaries allows them to draw talent from wider areas, giving them an edge in competition. While CIF’s competitive equity model helps by placing stronger teams (often privates) into tougher playoff divisions based on performance, it doesn’t fully address the underlying transfer advantages. To help public schools keep pace without forcing uniformity, they should receive targeted measures like relaxed transfer limits or easier hardship approvals.

Harsh penalties, such as up to 24-month ineligibility under Bylaw 202 for inaccurate information, should be scaled back to more reasonable consequences (e.g., one-season bans) to avoid long-term setbacks, while maintaining consistent enforcement across regions to eliminate perceptions of inconsistency.

We urge CIF-SS to:

1.  Adopt a ‘first transfer free’ policy with review for additional transfers.

2.  Permit transfers for sports-related reasons, including coach or program issues, with a focus on mental health impacts.

3.  Conduct proactive audits for schools with multiple transfers to promote consistent enforcement.

4.  Form a task force to explore options for public schools to offset private advantages, such as adjusted playoff groupings.

These updates would empower student-athletes, reduce disruptions like out-of-state moves, and align with the rising excitement in high school sports. CIF-SS is dedicated to education-based athletics—we believe these reforms will enhance that vision. Act now to revise policies before the 2026 season.