Sonic Sport Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 825365005
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 9209802605
- Rating
- 95
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Soccer
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $107,984
- Expenses
- $94,887
- Assets
- $29,050
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- GUIDO PODESTA (CHAIR)
- PHILLIP MATTSSON-BOZE (VICE CHAIR)
- HILLARY PLUMB (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide opportunities for diverse populations to engage in the joy of soccer through high quality training while building community among member families. Through accessible, cost-conscious, and inclusive programs, we aim to empower young athletes, promote physical and mental well-being, and create meaningful connections that transcend the boundaries of the soccer field.
What it reported doing in 2024
Developing skillful and competitive players, advancing them through various levels of play. Focusing on improving their technical, tactical, physical, and psychological skills, while fostering responsibility, confidence, teamwork, and communication.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 31% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 53.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $117K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.