OYSA Clubs Nonprofit Status

[Unregistered]

Seems pretty straight forward. If SCA is attaching itself to another club to play OYSA, then the board for that new club needs to be able to make decisions for the SCA portion. If it can't, then the SCA portion is a for profit and does not fit the requirements to play in OYSA.

'Non-profits are permitted to engage for-profit companies to provide services. Those services can include coaching, training, and event logistics services. The fees the non-profit club charges to its members can be used to pay invoices, but the owners of the non-profit are not permitted to keep the profits after expenses, those profits can only be used for additional youth soccer related programs. But a for-profit soccer club can provide any range of services to any non-profit it wishes. Doing so does not jeopardize your non-profit partner’s status.'

Not how I read the above?

But OYSA should protect the big clubs that have been here. Any new clubs should have some sort of probation period to see if they are well run and serve the soccer community.

[Unregistered]

Rule #1 for nonprofits is they don't HAVE owners. Nobody owns them--either outright, or via equity shares (stock). They just exist as entities; but they cannot be sold or liquidated.

Instead, a board of directors provides governance. Such boards can either be self-perpetuating (board members appoint their successors) or elected by a community that the non-profit serves (for most soccer clubs, that's the dues-paying membership). But everyone who is employed at the club should answer to the board.

In practice, even at the established clubs, that doesn't always happen--powerful DoCs are often able to keep the board under their control. (Just as OYSA limits the amount of coaches that may serve on a board; I think parents should be limited, simply because the temptation to show favortism in this case is too great).

[Unregistered]

Rule #1 for nonprofits is they don't HAVE owners. Nobody owns them--either outright, or via equity shares (stock). They just exist as entities; but they cannot be sold or liquidated.

Instead, a board of directors provides governance. Such boards can either be self-perpetuating (board members appoint their successors) or elected by a community that the non-profit serves (for most soccer clubs, that's the dues-paying membership). But everyone who is employed at the club should answer to the board.

In practice, even at the established clubs, that doesn't always happen--powerful DoCs are often able to keep the board under their control. (Just as OYSA limits the amount of coaches that may serve on a board; I think parents should be limited, simply because the temptation to show favortism in this case is too great).

You should send this to OYSA. I think they might appreciate the help.

[Unregistered]

Curious how OYSA and IRS view DOCs that create a “consulting firm” to hire for “consulting services” to run their own club. Double dipping?

LOL. Pretty sure there won’t be a statement released on this revelation.

[Unregistered]

'Non-profits are permitted to engage for-profit companies to provide services. Those services can include coaching, training, and event logistics services. The fees the non-profit club charges to its members can be used to pay invoices, but the owners of the non-profit are not permitted to keep the profits after expenses, those profits can only be used for additional youth soccer related programs. But a for-profit soccer club can provide any range of services to any non-profit it wishes. Doing so does not jeopardize your non-profit partner’s status.'

Not how I read the above?

But OYSA should protect the big clubs that have been here. Any new clubs should have some sort of probation period to see if they are well run and serve the soccer community.

I think thats part of the problem though. if SCA was willing to subject itself to the board for the club they look to join, then thats fine. So for example a DOC still has to answer to the Board and can be terminated. In this situation it sounds like SCA wants to come in and do their own thing, with no oversight from the board. Thats where this breaks down a bit. Part of being a non profit is following all the By laws that have been established for that non profit. I doubt those are set up to deal with SCA in this current situation, and would have to be written specifically for them, voted on, and put into action. This isn't hiring a coach, this is bringing in a seperate club that wants to run things their own way, not based on the club structure.

Hiring coaches is far different than bringing in a completely different club, that is where the difference lies.

[Unregistered]

I think thats part of the problem though. if SCA was willing to subject itself to the board for the club they look to join, then thats fine. So for example a DOC still has to answer to the Board and can be terminated. In this situation it sounds like SCA wants to come in and do their own thing, with no oversight from the board. Thats where this breaks down a bit. Part of being a non profit is following all the By laws that have been established for that non profit. I doubt those are set up to deal with SCA in this current situation, and would have to be written specifically for them, voted on, and put into action. This isn't hiring a coach, this is bringing in a seperate club that wants to run things their own way, not based on the club structure.

Hiring coaches is far different than bringing in a completely different club, that is where the difference lies.

Totally understand your points which are valid. However this non profit only happens to be the rules in just 2 US states? Seems strange that the OYSA has not evolved.

And through experience here lets be honest. The board does not control most clubs, the executive director or technical director does. The board are there in lots of cases on paper only. These directors tend to earn six figure + sums and have absolute power at a club.

The OYSA and it's non profit stance means well, but in reality doesn't play out that way.

[Unregistered]

The OYSA would have been better off not sending this statement out as it is their league and they can have final say of who enters and who doesn't. Now it appears they are incompetent and worse still not legally accurate with the statement.

OYSA has broader standards for admission; what was above is only one piece.

[Unregistered]

Totally understand your points which are valid. However this non profit only happens to be the rules in just 2 US states? Seems strange that the OYSA has not evolved.

And through experience here lets be honest. The board does not control most clubs, the executive director or technical director does. The board are there in lots of cases on paper only. These directors tend to earn six figure + sums and have absolute power at a club.

The OYSA and it's non profit stance means well, but in reality doesn't play out that way.

Quite a few DOC and TD have been terminated, not renewed or reassigned over the last few years. THUSC, Washington Timbers, and Eastside have gone through multiple leaders over the last 5 years.

[Unregistered]

Quite a few DOC and TD have been terminated, not renewed or reassigned over the last few years. THUSC, Washington Timbers, and Eastside have gone through multiple leaders over the last 5 years.

Leaving PCU, WT as the longest serving and most influential

[Unregistered]

I think thats part of the problem though. if SCA was willing to subject itself to the board for the club they look to join, then thats fine. So for example a DOC still has to answer to the Board and can be terminated. In this situation it sounds like SCA wants to come in and do their own thing, with no oversight from the board. Thats where this breaks down a bit. Part of being a non profit is following all the By laws that have been established for that non profit. I doubt those are set up to deal with SCA in this current situation, and would have to be written specifically for them, voted on, and put into action. This isn't hiring a coach, this is bringing in a seperate club that wants to run things their own way, not based on the club structure.

Hiring coaches is far different than bringing in a completely different club, that is where the difference lies.

This is spot on

[Unregistered]

Leaving PCU, WT as the longest serving and most influential

I like them both and they have served the game honorably, even if I disagree with them some times.

[Unregistered]

Is OYSA having a review of their relationship with the Timbers to make sure that there aren’t any issues??

[Unregistered]

Is OYSA having a review of their relationship with the Timbers to make sure that there aren’t any issues??

That sounds like a very good idea.

[Unregistered]

Is OYSA having a review of their relationship with the Timbers to make sure that there aren’t any issues??

No. This is obviously GPS related which makes sense now. The question is whether HSC will comply because they still list GPS as a partner.

[Unregistered]

Is OYSA having a review of their relationship with the Timbers to make sure that there aren’t any issues??

Is that what the emails were referring to? Non profit join venture with a for profit?