Virginia Soccer Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541920454
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chantilly, VA, US
Phone
703-378-0700
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,869,583
Expenses
$3,293,145
Assets
$3,278,214
Liabilities
$28,938

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN LOVELL (PRESIDENT)
  • JACQUELINE STILES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW T LACEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW T LACEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $228,624 total reported compensation
  • NICHOLAS FOGLESONG (DIRECTOR OF COACHING): $102,400 total reported compensation
  • TIM KROUT (DIRECTOR OF COACHING): $101,538 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our purpose is to be a community based soccer club that is committed to providing players of all levels and backgrounds the opportunity to play the beautiful game of soccer!

What it reported doing in 2024

House/suburban friendship league (sfl)& rec - players (boys and girls as well as adults) from the ages of 3 to 85 who live in haymarket, gainesville, catharpin, bristow, and neighboring communities in Virginia. The vsa organizes a recreation/instructional league during the spring and fall seasons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 54.7% of revenue deployed · 64.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.