Everyone Blames Pay-to-Play. Here’s What the Youth Soccer Conversation Is Missing.

Few topics in American youth soccer generate stronger opinions than pay-to-play.

We hear that soccer in the United States is too expensive. That talented players are being missed because their families can’t afford the system. That kids in other countries simply grow up playing in the streets while American families spend thousands of dollars on clubs, private training, travel and tournaments.

There are legitimate issues underneath those criticisms.

Youth soccer can be incredibly expensive. Access isn’t equal. And no talented child should be overlooked simply because his or her family doesn’t have the financial resources of another family.

But after spending years around youth soccer — as a soccer parent and through the conversations I’ve had with players, coaches and leaders on The Soccer Ladder — I’ve also come to believe that the pay-to-play conversation is far more complicated than we sometimes make it sound.

Before we debate how to fix American youth soccer, we first need to understand how the system actually works.

Because identifying the problem is the easy part.

Building a realistic alternative is much harder.

First, an Important Distinction: MLS NEXT ≠ MLS Academy

One of the biggest misconceptions I hear in the pay-to-play conversation is the tendency to use “MLS academy” and “MLS NEXT” interchangeably.

They are not the same thing.

MLS NEXT is Major League Soccer’s youth development platform, but playing in MLS NEXT does not automatically mean a player is part of an MLS professional club academy.

For the 2026–27 season, MLS NEXT is structured across two divisions: the MLS NEXT Allstate Homegrown Division and the MLS NEXT Academy Division. Across both divisions, MLS NEXT says the platform will include 318 clubs and more than 53,000 players.

The Homegrown Division is the top tier. It includes all MLS club academies, but it also includes more than 120 independent MLS NEXT Elite Academies. In other words, even at the top level of MLS NEXT, “MLS NEXT” and “MLS academy” are not interchangeable terms.

A true MLS professional-club academy — such as the New York Red Bulls Academy — is part of an MLS club’s professional player-development pathway and does not operate under the traditional pay-to-play club tuition model.

Independent clubs can also compete within MLS NEXT, and those clubs may charge families tuition, travel costs and other fees. The newer Academy Division expands the platform further and is regionally managed by outside youth-soccer operators that follow MLS NEXT technical standards and program guidelines.

That distinction matters enormously when we talk about the cost of elite youth soccer.

When someone says, “It costs thousands of dollars to play MLS NEXT,” that may be completely true for that player’s club. But it does not mean a player at an MLS professional club academy is paying those same club tuition fees.

MLS NEXT is not one club type, one pathway or one financial model. And beginning in 2026–27, even the two MLS NEXT divisions will use different age-group structures: the Homegrown Division will remain birth-year based, while the Academy Division will use school-year age groups.

So when we debate pay-to-play, we should be precise about what families are actually paying for, which pathway a player is entering and what “MLS NEXT” really means in that context.

The Bigger Question Is What Happens Before the MLS Academy

Of course, saying that MLS professional academies do not charge traditional player tuition does not solve the larger access problem.

A player has to reach that environment first.

Families may spend years paying for club soccer, private training, camps, travel, equipment and transportation before a player is ever identified by a professional academy.

And some talented players may never reach the environments where they are most likely to be seen.

To me, that is where the pay-to-play conversation becomes much more important.

The question isn’t simply what happens once a player reaches an MLS academy.

The question is whether talented kids from every economic background have a realistic opportunity to get into the pathway in the first place.

Paying for Youth Development Isn’t Unique to Soccer

This is one part of the conversation I rarely hear discussed.

I grew up as a competitive gymnast in a small town.

More than 40 years ago, my parents were already spending significant money for me to train, take lessons and travel around the United States for competitions.

There was nothing unusual about it.

Serious gymnastics required coaching, facilities, equipment, competition fees and travel.

The same is true in countless activities.

If your child wants to become an accomplished pianist, you probably pay for lessons. If your child is a serious dancer, there are classes, costumes and competitions. Tennis players need coaching and court time. Gymnasts need gyms and trained coaches. And young soccer players need fields, coaching and competition.

None of this means we should shrug our shoulders at the cost of youth soccer.

But there is an important distinction between saying children should have access to soccer regardless of income and saying high-level athletic development shouldn’t cost anything.

Those aren’t necessarily the same conversation.

We Romanticize the Idea of “Just Go Play”

I’ve had some fascinating conversations about this on The Soccer Ladder.

When I interviewed Tab Ramos, he talked about wishing there were places where kids could simply go one day a week and play pickup soccer.

I love that idea.

But my immediate thought as a parent is: How?

Where are they playing? Who is providing the field? Who is maintaining it? Who organizes access? Who supervises younger children? And perhaps most practically: how are the kids getting there?

Parents still have to get them to that field.

Someone still has to create the environment that allows “free play” to happen.

Jesús Pérez has also talked about something I strongly agree with: kids need to play more.

Not every touch needs to happen inside a structured practice. Not every soccer experience needs cones, drills and a coach giving instructions.

There is enormous value in kids simply playing.

But we also have to acknowledge that the world many former players describe from their childhood isn’t necessarily the world kids are growing up in today.

We hear stories about players spending hours playing soccer in streets, parks and neighborhoods. That’s wonderful.

But cities are different. Suburbs are different. Families’ schedules are different. Open space isn’t equally available everywhere. In many communities, children can’t simply walk outside and find a group of kids playing soccer until dark.

The nostalgia is appealing. Replicating the environment is harder.

Free play may be free. Access to free play isn’t always free.

Someone needs to provide the space. Someone needs to make it accessible. And somehow, kids need to get there.

Criticizing Pay-to-Play Youth Soccer Is Easier Than Replacing It

Some of the biggest names in American soccer have criticized pay-to-play over the years, and many of their criticisms are valid.

But this is where I sometimes find the conversation frustrating.

It’s easy to say the system costs too much.

It’s much harder to answer the next question: What replaces it?

Fields cost money. Qualified coaches need to be paid. Facilities have to be built and maintained. Leagues need administrators and referees. Teams travel. Equipment costs money. Insurance costs money.

None of those expenses disappear simply because we decide families shouldn’t be responsible for them.

So if parents aren’t paying, who is?

Professional clubs? U.S. Soccer? Sponsors? Municipalities? Foundations? Local businesses? Wealthier clubs subsidizing players? A combination of all of them?

That’s the conversation I’d like to hear more often.

Not simply: “Pay-to-play is the problem.”

But: How do we build a financially sustainable system that gives more children access to quality soccer?

Cost and Transparency Can Both Be Part of the Conversation

Acknowledging that youth development costs money doesn’t mean parents shouldn’t question how that money is being spent.

If a youth club is generating substantial revenue from family-paid fees, parents have every right to ask what those fees support, how resources are allocated and whether more can be done to create scholarships or subsidize talented players who otherwise could not participate.

Revenue is not the same thing as profit, and operating a large youth soccer organization comes with significant expenses.

But transparency matters.

The conversation can hold two ideas at once: quality development has real costs, and the organizations collecting those fees should be able to explain the value families are receiving and how they are expanding access.

There Are Organizations Already Doing the Work

I’ve been fortunate to feature nonprofit organizations through The Soccer Ladder that aren’t simply talking about access — they’re creating it.

One example is Soccer in the Streets.

Programs like these matter because they bring the game into communities, create opportunities for children to play and work to remove some of the barriers that can prevent kids from participating.

I have tremendous respect for people doing that work.

And I’d love to see more of it.

More partnerships. More sponsors investing at the grassroots level. More accessible fields. More opportunities for pickup soccer. More pathways connecting underserved communities with higher-level clubs and academies.

The answer probably isn’t one sweeping solution.

It’s likely hundreds of solutions working together.

We Also Need Perspective on How Far U.S. Soccer Has Come

There’s another side of this discussion that I think gets overlooked.

American soccer is constantly criticized for what it hasn’t accomplished yet.

But look at the timeline.

Major League Soccer began play in 1996.

In the history of global soccer, that’s incredibly recent.

Many of the leagues, clubs and soccer cultures we compare the United States to have existed for generations.

Their systems weren’t built in 30 years. Their soccer cultures weren’t created in 30 years. Their player-development pathways weren’t perfected in 30 years.

American soccer is still evolving.

And despite that relatively short history, look at where American players are now.

Many U.S. Men’s National Team players compete for major clubs in Europe. American players are entering European academies and professional environments, and young players growing up in the United States can see pathways that barely existed for previous generations.

More and more young American players are receiving opportunities at levels that once seemed incredibly difficult to reach.

Does that mean the development system is perfect? Absolutely not.

But it does mean something is working.

We should be capable of recognizing progress while still demanding improvement.

The Real Issue Is Access to Opportunity

For me, this is where the conversation ultimately lands.

I don’t think the realistic goal is creating a world where no family ever spends money developing a talented young athlete.

Parents have invested in their children’s passions for generations, whether that passion is soccer, gymnastics, music, dance, hockey, tennis or something else.

The problem is when money becomes the gatekeeper to opportunity.

A child shouldn’t need wealthy parents to be discovered.

A talented player shouldn’t disappear from the pathway because his or her family can’t afford thousands of dollars in club fees or travel.

And families shouldn’t have to choose between enormous financial strain and giving a gifted child the chance to see how far he or she can go.

That’s where American soccer still has work to do.

But solving that problem requires more than criticizing pay-to-play.

It requires investment. Infrastructure. Transportation. Fields. Coaches. Community programs. Professional clubs willing to invest earlier in development. Sponsors willing to put money into grassroots soccer instead of only at the top of the pyramid. And organizations willing to create opportunities in communities where they don’t currently exist.

Someone ultimately has to build the field.

Someone has to open the gate.

And someone has to make sure the kid with talent has a way to get there.

Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Question

Instead of endlessly asking:

“How do we eliminate pay-to-play?”

Maybe the better question is:

“How do we make sure a family’s ability to pay doesn’t determine how far a talented child can go?”

Those are two very different questions.

The second one forces us to talk about solutions.

And that’s the conversation I think American soccer needs more of.

About Megan Linke

Megan Linke is a soccer media personality, host and founder of The Soccer Ladder, and the parent of an MLS academy player. Through The Soccer Ladder and MeganLinke.com, she shares conversations and firsthand perspectives on youth soccer development, the academy pathway and the people shaping the game.