Lower Merion Soccer Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232563955
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bryn Mawr, PA, USA
Phone
6106366911
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,611,699
Expenses
$1,985,861
Assets
$1,079,550
Liabilities
$8,958

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONALD STURLA (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONALD STURLA (President): $155,871 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The two primary objectives of Lower Merion Soccer Club are: To provide each and every child with a fun filled experience in a soccer environment. To develop children's soccer skills and knowledge of the game so that they can play at higher levels of play in future seasons.

What it reported doing in 2025

Programs include the Fall, Winter and Spring Intramural Program for children ages 4-14. There are about 1,600 players in this program. For the younger players, it is their first introduction to soccer, they are taught the skills of the game by our very experienced coaching staff, with the help of many parent volunteers and referees. Our referees range in age from 11-20 and provide the first opportunity for many youngsters to earn a paycheck and take on the responsibilities of having a part time job. Most of our referees are current or former players in LMSC. There are over 100 referees who work in the Fall Intramural Program. In addition to refereeing games, they help teach the 4 and 5 year old age groups the skills of the game. For families with financial needs Lower Merion Soccer Club provides assistance to intramural players by waving the registration fees. Annually at least 12 families receive this benefit from Lower Merion Soccer Club.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.2% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.