ECNL playing minutes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Arlington (boys - not sure about girls) gives all players 50% gametime in at least 90% of matches. I don't think they're the only club to do this either - it's not that hard to do.

Respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Arlington (boys - not sure about girls) gives all players 50% gametime in at least 90% of matches. I don't think they're the only club to do this either - it's not that hard to do.

This is not the case on the Arlington girls side. The 6 subs are playing anywhere on average from a 20minute per half to 10minute per half. I have seen players sit out entire half as well in tight game.

Worth pointing out that 20min per half is 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do all 18 players get on the field every game? Do some players only play a couple minutes? What is the distribution on your team of playing time?

U14 ECNL - Yes, all 18 that are rostered get on the field. But minutes do vary each game. The team is a bottom feeder so I don't think it matters much. The problem is the team doesn't have enough competent players to be competitive, they are lazy AF in practice and the coaching decisions are questionable which leads to inconsistency on direction and on the field. The team does not have many players with a high soccer IQ either. But my kid is continuing is continuing to develop so it's all good for now.

This isn't meant as a dig.....but are you sure on the bolded part? Not sure how that's really possible given the overall circumstances you described...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too? Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to. And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)? If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

[Anonymous]

Insane!

[Anonymous]

At a certain point there should be starters and subs. Maybe U13/14 is too young, but by U16 there’s probably a very clear delineation who is a starter and who is a sub. I have three kids, youngest still playing travel soccer, orders now in college neither playing college soccer. I was indignant when my oldest started sliding into the sub role but with the next two — I realized why. Only my youngest is actually a starter-quality player for ECNL. The oldest didn’t care enough to do the work outside of practice and played maybe half a game in the less competitive games, the middle was never fit enough to do more than sub in as a relief for a starter for 10/15 minutes before the half, and my youngest starts and plays the full game. And will be playing in college. They all wanted to keep playing on those teams though, so it all worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too?

Yes. It's a competitive team so playing time shouldn't be equal, but the club has an obligation to place kids on a team where they can get a reasonable amount of playing time - which I put at about 50% as a minimum. If you tell me 45% is OK then I won't quibble with you - but if a kid is getting 10 or 20 minutes a game the club should not have offered the kid a spot on that team - they're just taking your money and not giving the kid value in return.

Note that I'm not making a blanket statement that any kid should get 50% playing time on a highly competitive team. I am making the dual statement that one of the following is true:
EITHER (a) the kid should get 50% playing time,
OR (b) the kid is not a strong enough player to justify 50% playing time, in which case THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THEM A SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to.

18 rostered on game day. Math works fine on game day. And the club should rotate the kids who sit out - given injuries it's usually either zero or one, or occasionally two kids who end up sitting out in any case. If the club has many more than 20 kids on the roster then the same applies - club is ripping you off.

And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)?

The point of a top tier league is to get the best players together to play - not everybody - the best players. So either the kid is on that level and deserves to play a reasonable amount, or they are too weak and they significantly impact the performance of the team - in which case the club should not have offered them a spot and taken their money in the first place.

Sure not all the kids deserve to play identical minutes - and there needs to be room for the coaches to incentivize effort and improvement etc. But the club is obligated not to take money from kids who aren't good enough to be on the field.

If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

Indeed. That is likely the best solution if the kid is not good enough - but the kid would have been far better served if the club told them that upfront instead of taking the money and then giving the kid no playing time. If the club had said ot the kid "We're making you an offer for the top team but you're not really good enough so you'll only be playing ten minutes a game", do you think the kid would have forked over the cash - or gone to that lower level team? Since the club wanted the cash, they offered the kid the spot - knowing full well that he wasn't really good enough and that he wouldn't play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too?

Yes. It's a competitive team so playing time shouldn't be equal, but the club has an obligation to place kids on a team where they can get a reasonable amount of playing time - which I put at about 50% as a minimum. If you tell me 45% is OK then I won't quibble with you - but if a kid is getting 10 or 20 minutes a game the club should not have offered the kid a spot on that team - they're just taking your money and not giving the kid value in return.

Note that I'm not making a blanket statement that any kid should get 50% playing time on a highly competitive team. I am making the dual statement that one of the following is true:
EITHER (a) the kid should get 50% playing time,
OR (b) the kid is not a strong enough player to justify 50% playing time, in which case THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THEM A SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to.

18 rostered on game day. Math works fine on game day. And the club should rotate the kids who sit out - given injuries it's usually either zero or one, or occasionally two kids who end up sitting out in any case. If the club has many more than 20 kids on the roster then the same applies - club is ripping you off.

And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)?

The point of a top tier league is to get the best players together to play - not everybody - the best players. So either the kid is on that level and deserves to play a reasonable amount, or they are too weak and they significantly impact the performance of the team - in which case the club should not have offered them a spot and taken their money in the first place.

Sure not all the kids deserve to play identical minutes - and there needs to be room for the coaches to incentivize effort and improvement etc. But the club is obligated not to take money from kids who aren't good enough to be on the field.

If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

Indeed. That is likely the best solution if the kid is not good enough - but the kid would have been far better served if the club told them that upfront instead of taking the money and then giving the kid no playing time. If the club had said ot the kid "We're making you an offer for the top team but you're not really good enough so you'll only be playing ten minutes a game", do you think the kid would have forked over the cash - or gone to that lower level team? Since the club wanted the cash, they offered the kid the spot - knowing full well that he wasn't really good enough and that he wouldn't play.

Your whole thesis is based on the assumption that ECNL teams add kids to be subs. What generally happens is over time better players occasionally join and they push starters down the pecking order. Top teams generally look to add impact players who can become starters first and foremost. Just know that as an incumbent player there is a kid out there looking to take your spot.

[Anonymous]

Look, this is never fair. At young ages, what makes the best player? Lots of times it is growth and size. Those kids will play more and get even better, plus gain confidence. Yes, little kids can also be great of course, usually really fast ones. So it is physical gifts, not always skill, that prime kids from a young age. Time on game, touches on ball, and confidence will elevate them even more. It is life, not always fair. If your kid is playing 10 minutes, which mine was, you are on the wrong team, which mine also was. The step back was the best thing ever in terms of growth and confidence. Just my observations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too?

Yes. It's a competitive team so playing time shouldn't be equal, but the club has an obligation to place kids on a team where they can get a reasonable amount of playing time - which I put at about 50% as a minimum. If you tell me 45% is OK then I won't quibble with you - but if a kid is getting 10 or 20 minutes a game the club should not have offered the kid a spot on that team - they're just taking your money and not giving the kid value in return.

Note that I'm not making a blanket statement that any kid should get 50% playing time on a highly competitive team. I am making the dual statement that one of the following is true:
EITHER (a) the kid should get 50% playing time,
OR (b) the kid is not a strong enough player to justify 50% playing time, in which case THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THEM A SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to.

18 rostered on game day. Math works fine on game day. And the club should rotate the kids who sit out - given injuries it's usually either zero or one, or occasionally two kids who end up sitting out in any case. If the club has many more than 20 kids on the roster then the same applies - club is ripping you off.

And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)?

The point of a top tier league is to get the best players together to play - not everybody - the best players. So either the kid is on that level and deserves to play a reasonable amount, or they are too weak and they significantly impact the performance of the team - in which case the club should not have offered them a spot and taken their money in the first place.

Sure not all the kids deserve to play identical minutes - and there needs to be room for the coaches to incentivize effort and improvement etc. But the club is obligated not to take money from kids who aren't good enough to be on the field.

If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

Indeed. That is likely the best solution if the kid is not good enough - but the kid would have been far better served if the club told them that upfront instead of taking the money and then giving the kid no playing time. If the club had said ot the kid "We're making you an offer for the top team but you're not really good enough so you'll only be playing ten minutes a game", do you think the kid would have forked over the cash - or gone to that lower level team? Since the club wanted the cash, they offered the kid the spot - knowing full well that he wasn't really good enough and that he wouldn't play.

Your whole thesis is based on the assumption that ECNL teams add kids to be subs. What generally happens is over time better players occasionally join and they push starters down the pecking order. Top teams generally look to add impact players who can become starters first and foremost. Just know that as an incumbent player there is a kid out there looking to take your spot.

Kids are usually added at the beginning of the season. If a kid that was previously on the roster is no longer good enough to play for whatever reason, the same applies: the club owes the kid a conversation either to cut them, or to offer them a spot on the understanding that they're not going to see the field much. If the club offers a spot (for whatever reason) to a kid who they don't expect to play without explaining that that is the basis of the offer then the club is taking your money in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Practice as much as you want but only live matches will help you develop for REAL games. If your kid does not play much then you either need to move clubs (where he can start and play) or join a second team. I know many boys who are subs on an ECNL team (want the resources and connections) but also play on a team that is part of a lower league and starts for that team. Yes, it is a lot of soccer but that is really the only way to get better and hope that he can move up as a starter on the ECNL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Practice as much as you want but only live matches will help you develop for REAL games. If your kid does not play much then you either need to move clubs (where he can start and play) or join a second team. I know many boys who are subs on an ECNL team (want the resources and connections) but also play on a team that is part of a lower league and starts for that team. Yes, it is a lot of soccer but that is really the only way to get better and hope that he can move up as a starter on the ECNL team.

Can you provide examples of which additional teams these boys play for? Such as...are they NCSL teams? EDP teams? Something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too?

Yes. It's a competitive team so playing time shouldn't be equal, but the club has an obligation to place kids on a team where they can get a reasonable amount of playing time - which I put at about 50% as a minimum. If you tell me 45% is OK then I won't quibble with you - but if a kid is getting 10 or 20 minutes a game the club should not have offered the kid a spot on that team - they're just taking your money and not giving the kid value in return.

Note that I'm not making a blanket statement that any kid should get 50% playing time on a highly competitive team. I am making the dual statement that one of the following is true:
EITHER (a) the kid should get 50% playing time,
OR (b) the kid is not a strong enough player to justify 50% playing time, in which case THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THEM A SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to.

18 rostered on game day. Math works fine on game day. And the club should rotate the kids who sit out - given injuries it's usually either zero or one, or occasionally two kids who end up sitting out in any case. If the club has many more than 20 kids on the roster then the same applies - club is ripping you off.

And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)?

The point of a top tier league is to get the best players together to play - not everybody - the best players. So either the kid is on that level and deserves to play a reasonable amount, or they are too weak and they significantly impact the performance of the team - in which case the club should not have offered them a spot and taken their money in the first place.

Sure not all the kids deserve to play identical minutes - and there needs to be room for the coaches to incentivize effort and improvement etc. But the club is obligated not to take money from kids who aren't good enough to be on the field.

If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

Indeed. That is likely the best solution if the kid is not good enough - but the kid would have been far better served if the club told them that upfront instead of taking the money and then giving the kid no playing time. If the club had said ot the kid "We're making you an offer for the top team but you're not really good enough so you'll only be playing ten minutes a game", do you think the kid would have forked over the cash - or gone to that lower level team? Since the club wanted the cash, they offered the kid the spot - knowing full well that he wasn't really good enough and that he wouldn't play.

Your whole thesis is based on the assumption that ECNL teams add kids to be subs. What generally happens is over time better players occasionally join and they push starters down the pecking order. Top teams generally look to add impact players who can become starters first and foremost. Just know that as an incumbent player there is a kid out there looking to take your spot.

Kids are usually added at the beginning of the season. If a kid that was previously on the roster is no longer good enough to play for whatever reason, the same applies: the club owes the kid a conversation either to cut them, or to offer them a spot on the understanding that they're not going to see the field much. If the club offers a spot (for whatever reason) to a kid who they don't expect to play without explaining that that is the basis of the offer then the club is taking your money in bad faith.

What?

Kids are added at the end of the season and coaches don't have an opportunity to see the whole team together consistently until mid August realistically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Which club ensures 50% of playing time?
My kids got very little time (10 to 20 minutes total max) per game after long hours drive for away games, very frustrated.
I would like to know the club name and try out the club.

Playing time should be earned, not just given because you showed up. If your kid doesn't get the level of playing time you hope for, I would suggest you do look elsewhere (either level down, or another club), and I don't mean that to come across harshly. Development occurs at practice and outside/additional training, not during official matches.

Playing time is earned when you pay the fees. If the kid is not good enough to play more than ten minutes a game then the club should not have taken your money - and having taken your money the kid should be given more minutes.

And while development certainly occurs outside matches, it absolutely occurs in matches as well and match minutes are a very important part of development.

However I agree that you should look elsewhere if the club treats your kid this way.

Absolutely true for Rec programs, and lower level travel. Not true for ECNL.

It's true of ECNL too. The club should not make offers to players who will not get a reasonable amount of playing time. Not necessarily completely equal playing time, but 50% of the game is a perfectly reasonable expectation. 10 minutes, or even 20 minutes, is not reasonable for a kid paying full price. If the club takes money from kids they know aren't good enough to play that's just wrong.

Why? Just because you paid too?

Yes. It's a competitive team so playing time shouldn't be equal, but the club has an obligation to place kids on a team where they can get a reasonable amount of playing time - which I put at about 50% as a minimum. If you tell me 45% is OK then I won't quibble with you - but if a kid is getting 10 or 20 minutes a game the club should not have offered the kid a spot on that team - they're just taking your money and not giving the kid value in return.

Note that I'm not making a blanket statement that any kid should get 50% playing time on a highly competitive team. I am making the dual statement that one of the following is true:
EITHER (a) the kid should get 50% playing time,
OR (b) the kid is not a strong enough player to justify 50% playing time, in which case THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THEM A SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some of these ECNL rosters are more than 20 players, so you're math doesn't work even if the coach wants to.

18 rostered on game day. Math works fine on game day. And the club should rotate the kids who sit out - given injuries it's usually either zero or one, or occasionally two kids who end up sitting out in any case. If the club has many more than 20 kids on the roster then the same applies - club is ripping you off.

And if the goal was just everybody gets to play (regardless of their capability, regardless of their skills, regardless of the effort they put it, regardless of their attitude, etc.), then what's the point of having a top tier league (which is what ECNL is supposed to be)?

The point of a top tier league is to get the best players together to play - not everybody - the best players. So either the kid is on that level and deserves to play a reasonable amount, or they are too weak and they significantly impact the performance of the team - in which case the club should not have offered them a spot and taken their money in the first place.

Sure not all the kids deserve to play identical minutes - and there needs to be room for the coaches to incentivize effort and improvement etc. But the club is obligated not to take money from kids who aren't good enough to be on the field.

If you want more playing time, go somewhere else (where presumably your kid would be in the top half of the team) or move to a lower level of travel.

Indeed. That is likely the best solution if the kid is not good enough - but the kid would have been far better served if the club told them that upfront instead of taking the money and then giving the kid no playing time. If the club had said ot the kid "We're making you an offer for the top team but you're not really good enough so you'll only be playing ten minutes a game", do you think the kid would have forked over the cash - or gone to that lower level team? Since the club wanted the cash, they offered the kid the spot - knowing full well that he wasn't really good enough and that he wouldn't play.

Your whole thesis is based on the assumption that ECNL teams add kids to be subs. What generally happens is over time better players occasionally join and they push starters down the pecking order. Top teams generally look to add impact players who can become starters first and foremost. Just know that as an incumbent player there is a kid out there looking to take your spot.

Kids are usually added at the beginning of the season. If a kid that was previously on the roster is no longer good enough to play for whatever reason, the same applies: the club owes the kid a conversation either to cut them, or to offer them a spot on the understanding that they're not going to see the field much. If the club offers a spot (for whatever reason) to a kid who they don't expect to play without explaining that that is the basis of the offer then the club is taking your money in bad faith.

What?

Kids are added at the end of the season and coaches don't have an opportunity to see the whole team together consistently until mid August realistically.

That's irrelevant to my point for a host of reasons.

The coach doesn't (or shouldn't, and if he does, he shouldn't be in the job) need to see the whole team together to know whether a kid who was on the roster the previous year is too weak to play on the team. The coach has seen this kid for at least an entire year. If the kid's play is sufficiently below the level of his teammates that he is significantly affecting the outcome of games negatively then the kid should not be made an offer to come back.

Does that mean the coach has to be certain who his starters are? No. It might be that there are some new kids who are similar in ability to some of the existing starters and the coach isn't quite sure how that will play out. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about a kid who basically shouldn't be on the same field as the rest of his teammates - because that's the only reason to give a kid almost no playing time.

And if the kid is of similar ability - just a little bit worse - there is no reason not to give him a decent amount of playing time. Not identical playing time - sure. And he doesn't start the game - again sure. But enough playing time that he gets the experience he needs to develop - yes. If he's not getting that then he should not be asked to pay the fees because he is simply subsidizing another kid's fees which is not fair unless it was agreed upfront. And clearly in this case it wasn't.