The criticism of the USSF is warranted based upon their lack of attention to youth soccer, failed attempts to take over youth soccer, and their creation of the Boys DA which is the genesis of the current market structure, which many on this forum rightly criticize. So the USSF has a lot to answer for and the latest "Pathways" strategy is not going to satisfy to many people it it certainly will not achieve the PR speak of lowering costs, creating local play, and unifying the soccer ecosystem. By appointing of the US Club league operators to run the league and approval of a NPL rebrand, is early proof of that. But the structure of US youth sports overseen by the USOC - which is wrong in so many ways, but we can leave that for another thread - which appoints the NGB of each sport. The USSF (as the NGB) feels empowered perhaps more than in any other sport. The Mens and Women's National Team sits at the top of the tree, FIFA speaks to and gives the money to the USSF, so unlike football where the NFL is the north star for the sport and the NGB bows down to the NFL, the USSF sees itself above MLS even if many know the MLS brand more than the USSF brand. So the USSF feels emboldened, is flush with cash and has used it to take control of youth soccer - deal with US Club, and now USYS - which it has wanted to do since 1999. But in the interest of fairness many USYS State Assoc were a pain in the you no what and many believe they held youth soccer back the way they did/do things. But the fix will not come from above, it will come from the grass roots. It will not come from the clubs who like the way things are - but don't think all the coaches at these clubs are happy - it will come from the "majority" of clubs who are frustrated with the current model, believe it is a political money making racket, and are frustrated. But instead of trying to "break in" to the system they need to build something that ADDS to the current model. Don;t try to change it, don't try and join it - they don't want you in - create something that is the alternative. Most parents are not happy paying large sums of money, traveling all over the place, and living in fear that if they say something their child will lose playing time or get kicked out. Clubs, coaches and teams need to build another model based upon, open access, local to regional play, more affordable and offering both player development and life skill development. It is better to build your own path than try to knock down the current one or keep hoping that one day "they" will let you in.
The example of one team being successful but ultimately picked off is support for the idea that those unhappy with the current options need to band together and create the better option. If 100 clubs/teams/coaches repeat the Conejo example it will first be much harder to pick apart and it would be impossible for the success to be ignored. There is no doubt that playing on quality fields is preferable, but that should not come at the cost of the frustration highlighted over and over again on this Forum. Having an open access platform, that's independent, has rules to maintain the integrity of games, where the results on the field determine where you play - rather than politics. That seems like a better option. When clubs, coaches and teams unite as a grassroots network they don't need to fight the system or wait for permission to reform it. They create the opportunity to build a better, higher-retention model that serves 100% of our families - not the 2%.