I think that as long as the philosophy is discussed beforehand, there is no wrong answer. If a doc or coach lets parents/players know that playing time is earned and not even, that works. Conversely , if they communicate that equal playing time is their thing, that's great too. It's about expectations--then families can choose for themselves what works for them.

I agree with that last post. Expectations are huge, and communicating them even moreso. One of the main things that I enjoy best about our club is that it has always kept a smallish size roster for its top teams. Having 4-5 subs is perfect IMO and that has been the case for my kid's teams all the way through, including on my child's top team that played this weekend. Lots of playing time for everyone.

My D played for a top team when they were still playing 8v8. They had a large roster for that # of field spots, so the coach played them evenly throughout the regular season. By the end of the spring season it had become a real problem, because some kids were clearly no longer working as hard as others. The kids (I drove 4-5 of them in a car pool and I kept the radio low in order to hear the buzz from the back seats) got more and more frustrated when they realized that it didn't matter how hard they worked or how well or poorly they played - they were going to get x amount of minutes no matter what. It was de-motivating for all of them, especially at the end of a long season.

The coach announced that he would be changing the rotation when they entered the tournament at the end of the year, and it completely changed the practice dynamic. Several of the kids (my kid included, to my proud psycho dad satisfaction) jumped all over the chance to earn extra playing time and were much more excited and animated about those last few weeks of the season.

From my view, establishing a system where nothing but simply making the team and attending practice impacts playing time can be a drag on effort and development. By the same token, I think that any family paying fees and traveling to tournaments should expect to play a minimum of 33% of the game time (assuming they're healthy and going to practices).

FWIW - the next year they moved to 11v11 and the roster didn't grow much, so the concept of even playing time disappeared.

If your kid is a playing time afterthought (at any age before high school which should be entirely about their development), getting something like 1/3 of the total minutes in a game or less -- you should think about two things:

1. How did your kid get placed on that team? It's possible they shouldn't have been.
2. Why are you at the club you're at? It's not uncommon for a club's actual development philosophy in practice to be inconsistent with what they say it is in words, because talk is cheap.

If any part of your response explaining the lack of playing time includes the phrase "It's a really good team" then you've been conned.

Hate to say it but if your team enters Stars they are there to win. Playing time should be earned. Top clubs will have the depth to play all players. Local clubs won't.

This last point is a great one. Being part of "a really good team" is good for the ego and can be good competitively in practices and all, but if your kid is not playing a lot and is clearly not helping drive the team's success, she should get ready to move. Because if the team is good, then more good players will be on their way, and your daughter will be the one they replace.

Is it better to be a top 1-3 player on a B team, practice and play against lesser talent, or be a back end player on the A team, where the player is with a better coach, practicing with stronger players and playing against top teams?

Depends on the kid's objectives, but at the U-Little ages (U9-U12), if development (as opposed to just playing for fun) is the end game, I'd opt for the more challenging environment. JMO.

This is not necessarily true. It depends on the nature of the team: how long they've been together, their previous season's success, the bracket they're in, etc.

My daughter played for Stars for many years, but the team never played their best soccer at Stars Cup. The coaches certainly weren't happy if they lost, but it was often their first games together as a unit, they were often working in new players, they were playing with new formations or learning to make in-game adjustments. While this is true for many teams, I was impressed with the patience our daughter's coach showed toward the team's development and his willingness to experiment early on in the season - as long as the kids competed like hell. They sometimes struggled at Stars Cup against teams that they beat easily by the following spring.

I agree, unless the coach plays the back end players only 10-12 minutes a game. At that point, it means he doesn't trust them at all and will be looking to replace them soon.

It also means he doesn't care about their development. Your kid won't get much out of the year. If you can it may be better to bail for a better fit

When you think about this question in the context of who the paying customer is and the supposed objective being player development, it's remarkable to me what some parents put up with in terms of having their kid placed on a team where they don't play, aren't enjoying their experience, and aren't likely being developed.

coming from a different angle

Your kid tries out for a team and is selected. The club charges you a lot of money. You are the customer and the club is the seller. The club has now sold something to you and owes you/your child a complete service and guarantee to satisfy.

Unless, the contract (verbal or written) specifically says that playtime will not be equal and/or earned only, then the club owes each and every player selected for that team equal playtime....since each family pays the same amount i.e. get the same guarantee and quality service.

One can addend that if the player is not showing up to practices or being disruptive at practices then, perhaps, they are not holding up their end of the bargain.

Practices are important and games are equally so. For a club to state that player development is excellent regardless of playtime is, for the lay person, fraud. Any coach knows that if the goal of the player is to be able to play in games, then they need to play in games for a significant amount of time. After all, it takes more than 5,10, or even 20 minutes to get into a rhythm and get touches of the ball.

To not play players in games is, at best, discouraging. Kids get to the fork in the road and, while some work harder others might be so discouraged that they are afraid to play for fear of making a mistake and getting less playtime.

The coach and club have to be supportive and encouraging while providing opportunity. If you, as a coach, are not going to be able to do that then don't place the kid on the team. Roster fewer players so that all can get on the field for significant periods of time (i.e. 50% or more).

Once the money is paid and the contract is signed then it is the club/coach that has to make the guarantee.

Crazy to think players under say U13 shouldn't get a decent amount of PT. Doesn't have to be equal, but it has to be substantial enough for a player to be able to utilize what is being taught in practices. And to have a family travel and spend a small chunk of change for a tourney and have their kid play 20 minutes all weekend? Yeah I'd be pretty ticked off. Even DA is supposed to be about "development"

Amen to this, Kids were getting no time and a few under 5 minutes in the League sections. Maybe in Premiership White/Blue I can see it happening but league. Really??
Nice way to piss 1/3 of the team off before the season even started.