Ummmm, no. Surf cares about #1 $$ and #2 expanding its brand across the country. Their care for the kids is only through the lens of how can they help us with #1 and 2.
You can't tell me that holding a tournament, out of state, at the peak of the pandemic, against state travel bans, after AZ field closures, after other tournaments in the area had been cancelled, and during a D1 recruiting ban was for the kids. No. That's called trying to do everything possible to make up for a revenue shortfall, including thwarting laws and rules that most other CA soccer clubs rightly decided to follow, and then using that defiance to try and recruit players from other clubs that made the difficult decision to follow the law.
And now, though I agree with their position that kids should be able to resume playing. If their primary concern was for their kids and the rest of our soccer playing kids and kids playing other sports, then they wouldn't have thrown everyone else under the bus in their written reply nor would they fan the flames with personal attacks directed at local homeowners and politicians. The judge down there looks like he may have thrown all SD clubs a lifeline to get reopened sooner (Surf not involved in that lawsuit), but picking fights with groups that can completely shut down your business (and keep your customers off the field) is not an astute strategy if your #1 care is the kids.
