Comparison of current power structure and proposed results-based soccer model

Part Five – The Fully Encased Pyramid

Secure statewide and national agreement for the youth model
- Every state association, major youth clubs, and national bodies must agree to convert from closed or pay-to-play frameworks to results-based promotion/relegation.
  - Average family spending on a child’s primary sport rose 46% from 2019 to 2024 (to roughly $1,000+), with competitive/elite soccer often costing $5,000–$20,000+ per year in fees and travel.
- State-wide leagues must be established or radically redesigned in all 54 associations.
- Existing multi-year player registration, tryout, and fee structures must be rewritten.
- Private club operators who currently control elite pathways must accept that results, not contracts or fees, will determine movement.
- Parents, coaches, and local boards who benefit from the current closed model must be brought along or overridden.
- Getting statewide and national agreement is probably the hardest part of the entire exercise. Building the actual promotion/relegation structure isn’t particularly complicated. Getting the organizations, clubs, coaches, and families that benefit from the current system to accept it is another matter entirely. The existing model is built around invitation-based pathways, multi-year commitments, significant fees, and private control of elite competition. Changing that means convincing a lot of people to give up something they currently value.
  - The Core Requirement
    - Every one of the 54 state associations, the major national bodies (US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and ultimately U.S. Soccer Federation), and a critical mass of influential clubs must accept that placement and movement will be determined by on-field results rather than application, payment, or long-term contracts. Without that shift, a state-based pyramid will remain optional—and the clubs that want access to the highest-profile competition will simply continue to operate outside it.
  - The Cost Pressure as the Strongest Lever
    - If there is one thing that could actually force this conversation, it is the cost to families.
      - Average U.S. family spending on a child’s primary sport rose 46% from 2019 to 2024, reaching $1,016 according to the Aspen Institute’s Project Play survey. Soccer sits at the higher end of that average (approximately $1,188), while competitive and elite club programs routinely cost families $5,000–$15,000+ per year once travel, tournaments, and extras are included.
  - This escalation has already reduced accessibility and retention. Parents who are tired of paying thousands of dollars and driving all over the place every weekend are probably the most obvious group to look at. If a state-based system can demonstrably lower those costs without lowering the quality of competition, you suddenly have a pretty powerful argument.
- Specific Structural Changes Required
  - Statewide leagues in all 54 associations. Many states already run competitive leagues, but few operate true multi-tier pyramids with automatic, transparent promotion and relegation. These must be established or radically redesigned so that every registered competitive team has a clear ladder inside the state.
  - Rewriting registration, tryout, and fee structures. Multi-year player commitments and “pay-to-stay” models that lock families into clubs regardless of results must be replaced by annual or seasonal placement based on performance. Fee structures need simplification and greater transparency so that higher tiers do not automatically mean dramatically higher costs driven by travel.
  - Private club operators accepting results over control. Clubs that currently dominate elite pathways (ECNL, MLS NEXT, GA, and similar) derive status, revenue, and recruiting power from closed or selective systems. They must accept that sustained poor results will move teams downward and that strong results from outside their ranks can move teams upward. This is the sharpest cultural shift.
  - Bringing along (or overriding) local beneficiaries. Coaches, club boards, and parent groups who benefit from the current model—stable roster control, predictable fee income, social status within closed leagues—will resist. Some can be converted through clear communication of long-term benefits (better retention, stronger local rivalries, reduced family burnout). Others will require firm policy from state associations or national mandates.
- Practical Path to Agreement
  - A pure voluntary consensus across all stakeholders is unlikely in the short term. A realistic sequence combines pressure from below, pilots that prove the model, and eventual national standards:
    1. Pilot states first. Identify 4–6 willing state associations (ideally a mix of large and mid-sized) to implement full promotion/relegation pyramids with published rules, cost tracking, and independent evaluation after two seasons. Early success data on participation, retention, travel reduction, and competitive balance becomes the most persuasive evidence.
- - 1. Parent and club coalitions. Organize family groups and progressive clubs around the cost data and local rivalry benefits. Visible parent pressure at state AGMs and board meetings is more effective than top-down lectures.
- - 1. National framework with state operational control. U.S. Soccer and US Youth Soccer set minimum standards (transparent promotion rules, licensing floors, data reporting, maximum travel expectations) while leaving the day-to-day ladder design and administration to the states. This respects existing associations while preventing fragmentation or race-to-the-bottom standards.
- - 1. Incentives and phase-outs. Offer preferential pathways into national events (National 1, showcases, identification programs) for teams that earn their place through state performance. Gradually reduce recognition or sanctioning advantages for purely closed national platforms that ignore state results.
- - 1. Override mechanisms when necessary. Where entrenched interests block reform despite clear evidence and parent demand, state associations (with national backing) must be prepared to set the rules of competition for sanctioned play. The alternative is continued fragmentation and rising costs.
- The current system persists because it serves the interests of those already inside the higher tiers more effectively than it serves the broader player pool or the majority of families. Changing it means treating agreement as more than a consensus exercise. The people who have to make this work need a reason to support it: families need to see lower costs, clubs need to see a viable competitive pathway, and state associations need to see that they aren’t simply creating another competition that everyone ignores. Without that conversion, state-managed promotion and relegation remains an attractive idea rather than a functioning national foundation.