Economics of club volleyball

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

I think the assumption that MVSA made no profit was the point the PP was referencing. They do make a profit.

MD Juniors is one the higher cost clubs in MD, with fees easily topping 5,000+ for their 1s teams and 4,000 for their 2s and 3/4 teams, so I’m not surprised they make so much. Seems like they could be much more affordable but choose not to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

I think the assumption that MVSA made no profit was the point the PP was referencing. They do make a profit.

MD Juniors is one the higher cost clubs in MD, with fees easily topping 5,000+ for their 1s teams and 4,000 for their 2s and 3/4 teams, so I’m not surprised they make so much. Seems like they could be much more affordable but choose not to be.

They handle money, so they could be in the green or in the red. The question is how deep they are in the green or in the red. Let's imagine they would use that profit to pay the volunteers (75 of them according to the document). Their profit would allow them to pay less than $1000/volunteer, which is peanuts. On the other hand, MD JRs get $383k profit after they pay their coaches more than $1k/team (I don't know their coach stipend). So yes, they make a profit, but the profit is negligible. They navigate a tight ship and it is not fair to compare the profit as a percentage of a revenue to claim that they make more profit than MD JRs.

[Anonymous]

You can always use statistics to make outrageous claims. Let's consider the VA Elite 2023 filing that is available here:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203370051/202420509349300982/full

With a profit of 19,788 and a revenue of 953,382, their profit/revenue ratio is 2%, which is much smaller than MD JRs (13%) and MVSA (16%). If you sort clubs based on that kind of statistics, MVSA is the greediest club of them all (look what a profit margin they have!), while clubs like MD JRs and VA Elite charge closer to what their actual expenses are (look how they manage their money to provide a good value to their players!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can always use statistics to make outrageous claims. Let's consider the VA Elite 2023 filing that is available here:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203370051/202420509349300982/full

With a profit of 19,788 and a revenue of 953,382, their profit/revenue ratio is 2%, which is much smaller than MD JRs (13%) and MVSA (16%). If you sort clubs based on that kind of statistics, MVSA is the greediest club of them all (look what a profit margin they have!), while clubs like MD JRs and VA Elite charge closer to what their actual expenses are (look how they manage their money to provide a good value to their players!).

Somehow I think you lost the point of the PP. they didn’t say MVSA was greedy, just that they do make a profit. They even said MVSA does a good job of keeping costs low. And that 4,000+ for a team was too high.

The fact VA Elite can’t make money at their price point is crazy. 450K for travel? Thats 75000 in travel spend per team. 49000 for uniforms and equipment? That’s 8000+ per team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always use statistics to make outrageous claims. Let's consider the VA Elite 2023 filing that is available here:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203370051/202420509349300982/full

With a profit of 19,788 and a revenue of 953,382, their profit/revenue ratio is 2%, which is much smaller than MD JRs (13%) and MVSA (16%). If you sort clubs based on that kind of statistics, MVSA is the greediest club of them all (look what a profit margin they have!), while clubs like MD JRs and VA Elite charge closer to what their actual expenses are (look how they manage their money to provide a good value to their players!).

Somehow I think you lost the point of the PP. they didn’t say MVSA was greedy, just that they do make a profit. They even said MVSA does a good job of keeping costs low. And that 4,000+ for a team was too high.

The fact VA Elite can’t make money at their price point is crazy. 450K for travel? Thats 75000 in travel spend per team. 49000 for uniforms and equipment? That’s 8000+ per team.

And - for some reason - I think you lost the point I am making. When I say that MVSA doesn't make a profit, I didn't claim that their bank account is at $0. I meant that they are pouring almost all the money they earn into making volleyball accessible to their players. They have 75 volunteers working evening, nights, and weekends and their entire profit is less than the salary of a middle class worker. Yes, they are making a profit, but not really.

I also commended the PP for their analysis - that was great work. However, I felt like they used poor statistics to ridicule my position: MVSA making more profit than MD JRs as a fraction of revenue is true, but ridiculous at the same time.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of ways to keep profits down and still make money. Per diem, higher salaries, etc. Profit isn’t the best way to analyze this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of ways to keep profits down and still make money. Per diem, higher salaries, etc. Profit isn’t the best way to analyze this.

Thank you! A really good example is VA Juniors: they have little profit, but it's ridiculous how much money they charge and waste. It would be disingenuous to blame MVSA for having money in the bank to sustain their operation - they need the money to pay in advance for space and tournaments (and whatever equipment they need to buy / replace). They are not running a profit to enrich themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

Thank you. DCUM threads on volleyball have taught us a lot, and I hope the info helps others.

For the record, I have no problem with MVSA earning a profit. Running any business, even a non-profit, where you have no cash reserves is a recipe for a disaster. They do a great job of keeping costs low and finding ways to subsidize the remaining costs through other sources of revenue (tournament fees).

The point of the percentages comparison was not to imply MVSA is greedy. The percentages were just additional data to compare other clubs of different sizes and they cut both ways—larger clubs with scale efficiencies should be making more profit, not less, than MVSA. Or they could use their scale to compete on price, but most of them choose not to do so.

But it is true that the MVSA model really isn’t replicable. Finding coaches that coach for free is the product of their 20-30 years of history. And other than MDJrs, no other club has the ability to host that many tournaments. And even if there was another club that could host 40+ tournaments a season, I’m reasonably sure neither of those clubs would see it as a good thing for their business models.

MVSA only takes 20-30 players per age group. Their teams are a limited resource, especially when there are 1,000+ players in the DMV area looking to play at the most popular ages (U14/U15). The vast majority of players will play volleyball somewhere else. The question for our family was, where else do we tryout?

Based on the MVSA math, I believe that there are other clubs that try to keep costs low and charge a reasonable price, even though they don’t have the advantage that MVSA does of no coaching costs and a lot of tournament revenue.

As a family, we’ve used the info in this discussion to help educate our DC on the value of money. We used data from other threads on recruiting to discuss with DC how we would need to spend 50K+ during her club career to play at a recruiting focused club, and that it’s never guaranteed you’ll play in college. And even if you do play at one of those clubs, ~1/3 of the players on those teams leave every year, either by their choice or the clubs. And, if you become a player that can be recruited and potentially get a scholarship, those clubs that focus heavily on recruiting will probably want you anyway—even if you didn’t play for them in prior years.

So when we look for clubs this year, we are only comfortable with teams with a cost below 4K for highly competitive travel and around 3K or less for regional competition with a bit of travel. That seems fair. It does limit our choice a lot though, and we hope to make a team at one of those clubs.

Thanks to DCUM for all the info, it’s been invaluable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of ways to keep profits down and still make money. Per diem, higher salaries, etc. Profit isn’t the best way to analyze this.

Officer salaries usually consumes all profits in these sports non profits. Look at the officer salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

But it is true that the MVSA model really isn’t replicable. Finding coaches that coach for free is the product of their 20-30 years of history. And other than MDJrs, no other club has the ability to host that many tournaments. And even if there was another club that could host 40+ tournaments a season, I’m reasonably sure neither of those clubs would see it as a good thing for their business models.

The tournament part might not be replicable, but - according to your analysis - their price would go up by about $200-400 per player. Even paying $200-400 more in club feed would be an excellent deal if a club would replicate the rest of the MVSA model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

I think the assumption that MVSA made no profit was the point the PP was referencing. They do make a profit.

MD Juniors is one the higher cost clubs in MD, with fees easily topping 5,000+ for their 1s teams and 4,000 for their 2s and 3/4 teams, so I’m not surprised they make so much. Seems like they could be much more affordable but choose not to be.

Mdjrs used to only carry 12 players and at one point, director said they’re considering only taking 10 players for elite teams (like MVSA) but now they’re taking 14-15 players easily even for their regional teams. Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can find MVSA with a revenue of $0 if you search for "Montgomery Village." I would be surprised if they make any money, but that's not their goal.

That's not MVSA volleyball. Here's the link to MVSA VBC reporting history: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976. And their 2023 return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/811916976/202332439349301478/full

They didn't have any donations from the county or any other entity disclosed on their forms for 2023.

2023: Revenue: $455,915, Net Income: $73,106

MVSA actually makes more income as a % of revenue than most of the other non-profits listed above. So consider the PP surprised. For comparison, MVSA income=16% of revenue, Md Juniors=13%, NVVA=8%

According to their filings, MVSA making a profit is a recent phenomenon, with total assets (think cash in an account) growing from $65K in 2020 to $248K in 2023. Where does this profit come from? They aren't required to break out revenue based on team revenue (club fees) vs. tournament hosting revenue vs. rec league. But you can get a decent idea of where they make their money if you calculate their team revenue based on their published fees. For their 2024 fees, they should earn ~$350K from their team fees. They did raise prices this year, so that number was likely less last year. A reasonable guess is that in 2023 70% of their revenue is team fees, 30% is all other. Most of the other is likely tournament hosting.

Earning revenue from tournaments is not a bad thing, and its a service the region absolutely needs. But MVSA does benefit from avoidance of the tournament fees ($350-$550/team per tournament) and collecting equivalent fees from other teams that attend their tournaments. If the situation was reversed, MVSA players would probably pay ~$200-$400 more for tournament costs on their top teams based on their typical MVSA tournament schedules. Regional team players would likely pay more because they do more local tournaments. The other club hosting the tournament would have their players paying less. There are a limited number of tournament slots each weekend, and MVSA and MD Juniors have the vast majority of them, so no other clubs have the opportunity those two clubs have. Even if there were a lot of interest from other clubs to host tournaments (most don't) there would likely be some pushback from the clubs that benefit the most from the current CHRVA system in this way, because every lost tournament means less profit or higher fees for their players.

Also, since their profit last year is less than their estimated tournament fee/other revenue, they may be also further subsidizing their team fees. Its impossible to know without more data, but another 100-200/player could come from this.

Putting this info together, a team at another club that doesn't host tournaments, has the same tournament schedule as an MVSA team and pays coaches could pay ~300 more in tournament fees, ~400 more in coaches salary and ~200 in coach travel/expenses. Add in higher facility costs, an extra practice each week, nationals costs for the team and coaches and then reduced the costs for a lower profit margin and carrying 1-2 more players and you get to a price point of ~3-4K for a travel team. That's very close to the price points for some of the MD clubs that are generally seen as having reasonable prices, and its probably not a coincidence.

TLDR: MVSA has a unique model with volunteer coaches and low facility rates but they also make more profit than most clubs, at least the last two years. This could be a direct result of their tournament hosting along with a commendable desire to keep expenses low in other areas. For other clubs that don't have the advantages of their model, they will have a higher price or lose a lot of money and disappear quickly. But there is a reasonable limit to that fee. Based on the data it would be very hard to explain why a club needs to charge $4000+ for a player for a high performing travel team.

I really appreciate you digging into this and I hope others do as well. I am the PP who you figured would be surprised, but I am not really. I prefer to compare $73,106 (MVSA income) with 383,074 (MD JRs income) rather than calculate it as a percentage of the revenue. Without implying that you lied or anything, someone once said "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I don't believe the income as a ratio of revenue is a meaningful way to compare clubs, especially when we are talking about $73k (which will benefit the MVSA players rather than make any of the MVSA volunteers rich).

I think the assumption that MVSA made no profit was the point the PP was referencing. They do make a profit.

MD Juniors is one the higher cost clubs in MD, with fees easily topping 5,000+ for their 1s teams and 4,000 for their 2s and 3/4 teams, so I’m not surprised they make so much. Seems like they could be much more affordable but choose not to be.

Mdjrs used to only carry 12 players and at one point, director said they’re considering only taking 10 players for elite teams (like MVSA) but now they’re taking 14-15 players easily even for their regional teams. Smh

You would expect the fees to go down if they take more players, but most clubs simply take advantage of the environment where people are willing to pay whatever they charge. Sounds counter-intuitive, but some people who fail placing their kids in decent clubs with decent fees, end up paying more to place their kids in mediocre clubs that charge more.

[Anonymous]

Here is a reasonably priced club in VA: GoVolley. Fees for their national teams at $3150, and for their regional teams at $2800
https://govolley.biz/national-lv
https://govolley.biz/regional-lv

Apparently clubs can have reasonable club fees in Virginia, it's just that they prefer to rip off their families.