Clubs need to guess how many will remain dedicated, allow for some injuries, and it’s always better to have too many than not enough. Not to mention each extra player means thousands in extra revenue at virtually no extra cost.

If you have a dedicated group of players, you don't need the large roster size. I see a lot of teams carrying higher player counts due to not all players dedicated to show up - so if a team has 19-20 but can only get 15-16 to a game they do it.

The issue is see if you have a dedicated group of players that show up, no reason to have more than 15-16 on a roster. Putting 17-19 kids on a roster and then having only 3 or 4 of those kids play 10-15 minutes doesn't due any one any good. They would be better off going with 15 players and have 2-3 have the option to play on the 2nd team with moving up as needed.

If a player is playing less than 30 minutes a game and the roster is 18-20 kids, find another team that you can play meaningful minutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I have seen over the years, it's very common for the highest level, but not common for lower level (NCSL or ECNL RL).

The level shouldn't matter for the roster size. In fact for lower level teams, it should be more players since many won't show up. HS ages, if you're not the star or on a high level team, the kids find other things to do.

Ignorant statement of the highest flight. The more players there the less time a player gets on average. Simple math.

Based on my experience in this area, 22 seems to be the common number. When you bake in the 1-3 players are in HS season with private school and a 1-2 players out for injuries by Thanksgiving, the roster issue doesn't seem to much of an issue.

It would be my preference to have 19 on a team and pull kids up from 2nd teams/feeder clubs as needed. Leverage the duel roster system as opposed to sitting kids every weekend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I have seen over the years, it's very common for the highest level, but not common for lower level (NCSL or ECNL RL).

The level shouldn't matter for the roster size. In fact for lower level teams, it should be more players since many won't show up. HS ages, if you're not the star or on a high level team, the kids find other things to do.

Not in our experience. The kids who want to play, keep playing travel even if they aren't "stars" on "high level teams". They still want to play, even if you think its a waste of time.

Anonymous wrote:From what I have seen over the years, it's very common for the highest level, but not common for lower level (NCSL or ECNL RL).

The level shouldn't matter for the roster size. In fact for lower level teams, it should be more players since many won't show up. HS ages, if you're not the star or on a high level team, the kids find other things to do.

From what I have seen over the years, it's very common for the highest level, but not common for lower level (NCSL or ECNL RL).

Our club has 16-18 players per HS team for ncsl and RL HS teams.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks - I had known that top teams had this, like MLS next, but didn't know it became common for lower teams as kids aged. I guess each sport has its pluses and minuses, including the high school one my son now does, but at least it is lower-cost.

You didn't specify "lower level" teams in your OP. MLS next is not the only "top" level team for boys.

Here is a thread that discussed roster size for NCSL.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1293536.page

Thanks - I had known that top teams had this, like MLS next, but didn't know it became common for lower teams as kids aged. I guess each sport has its pluses and minuses, including the high school one my son now does, but at least it is lower-cost.

Anonymous wrote:My son stopped playing soccer a two years ago when high school started and switched to a school sport. We met one of his former teammates out and he said that now his non-MLS-next level team is over-rostered by 4 players, and that 4 people can't dress for/participate in games, assuming everyone is available. Is that common at this age group and level? It wasn't the case 2 years ago.

That scenario is not exactly common, but it does become increasingly common as the kids age, especially the big jump from U16 to U19 -where they start to combine teams. Obviously that is not ideal, but each league has rules that limit the number of players on the field typically to 18 dressed players for the game, however 22 players can be on an approved roster.

I thought this scenario had pretty much always been the case. They tell the kids which will dress for each game. They fight each week for a spot.

HS age rosters are 20-25 players depending on the coach/club. Most are at least 20 players.

My son stopped playing soccer a two years ago when high school started and switched to a school sport. We met one of his former teammates out and he said that now his non-MLS-next level team is over-rostered by 4 players, and that 4 people can't dress for/participate in games, assuming everyone is available. Is that common at this age group and level? It wasn't the case 2 years ago.