I think the better question would be which club has the worst money to value ratio.
And even then, at these big clubs if you're a starter on an elite team, you're probably getting a good value for whatever you're spending. It only starts becoming a possible issue if you're a bench warmer on these elite teams.
However it is indeed a huge issue if you're on a "B", "C", or "D" team at these big clubs while paying $2,500 - 3,000+ just to be on a branded bronze/silver team. Most of the complaints from this forum come from parents in the latter situation. Parents buy into or get conned into the hype in Jan. - March that these lower teams will be a spring board into an elite team and they'll get superior coaching compared to a local club. After a year most parents realize the former is an outright lie and the vast majority of the elite teams at these big clubs never give their B teams a second glance for opportunities and advancement. The latter is a crapshoot. Sometimes the bigger clubs can offer more experienced coaches compared to your local offering depending on how good or bad your local teams are. But even then the coaches at the bigger clubs are often over-burdened with 2-3 other teams or they give the lower teams the least experienced coaches.
We're seeing a high turnover everywhere because the lower team parents/families are disgruntled so they jump ship (ironically to another big club's "B", "C", "D" team). And then the elite teams have a high-turnover because the big clubs just keep poaching players from each other's elite teams like a big merry-go-round. None of them promote from within unless they have a roster shortage. The only teams that don't have a high turnover are the league winners and state/national cup finalist.
As for improving the money/value ratio, the big clubs could make a huge improvement in parent satisfaction if they just lowered the price for lower teams and be upfront about the teams capabilities/level of play and set realistic expectations. From a business perspective, instead of using high-pressure sales techniques, aim for long-term customer satisfaction. I wish I had real statistics to back it up, but it definitely feels like there is a much higher turnover the last 3-4 years compared to 6-7 years ago. I thought the whole "B", "C", "D" team scheme would have collapsed by now but it looks like the shell game continues with DAII/DPL, ECNL, Boys ECNL, ENPL, EGSL, and etc.
The only way to unwind this madness would be if CalSouth and/or US Soccer mandated all clubs to only have two teams per age group. An "A" and a "B" for all leagues combined. No spreading 5-6 teams across 2-3 different leagues. You get two teams and that's it. Of course this would never happen because that's why SCDSL came into existence, so big clubs could expand and spread like the ebola virus. But going back to a 2 team limit would breath life back into local clubs and avoid silver/bronze level players getting completely burnt out and broke playing at overpriced "C", "D" teams at the big clubs. It would also force the big clubs to bring some quality back to their "B" teams, which typically have some good players with a lot of potential albeit still raw or undersized. These type of players used to have a path forward and played in leagues with solid competition, but now they get lumped in with the kiddie table with the other "C", "D", and "Z" teams or play in watered down faux elite leagues that not even their own DOC pays attention to after registration fees are secured.
