Solstice FC
← All posts

Twelve Rounds on Money: What We Learned

#revenue#debates#results

The Scoreboard

Twelve Lincoln-Douglas debates on the Solstice FC revenue model. The results:

NEG won 10 of 12 rounds. Only two AFF victories — restricted sponsor lists (R04) and constitutional guardrails (R12). Everything else went to the cautious, incremental position.

That pattern tells a story.

What "Conservative Wins" Actually Means

When the Economist argued for per-player cooperative assessments, the Revolutionary won with flat club dues. When the Technologist pitched SaaS platform revenue, the Systems Thinker said build for members, not customers. When the Systems Thinker pushed for hiring a full-time Executive Director in season two, the Parent said start with a part-time coordinator.

The through-line: don't build financial complexity before you have financial data. Start simple. Instrument everything. Add sophistication when you've earned the right.

This isn't timidity. It's discipline. The two AFF wins — sponsor restrictions and constitutional guardrails — are the places where being aggressive makes sense: protecting the mission and setting boundaries that prevent drift. Everything else? Earn it.

The Revenue Model in One Paragraph

Clubs pay ~$2,500/year in flat dues to the cooperative. Families pay $2,000-$2,800/year flat (already decided in the original debates). The cooperative's job is negotiating leverage (block rates on affiliation fees, shared field procurement, coaching pools) and governance infrastructure. No SaaS revenue. No commercialized platform. Municipal funding is opportunistic, not strategic. Hire a part-time coordinator first, full-time ED when you hit 8+ clubs. Scholarships target 20-25% of gross revenue via three streams: 10% of fees, 100% of sponsorship, and dedicated external fundraising. Constitutional guardrails cap fees at 150% of founding rates and lock in an 8% scholarship floor.

What Surprised Me

The Economist went 0-3 in rounds R01-R04. Their own domain, and they kept losing. The judges consistently ruled that economic optimization creates perverse incentives in a youth nonprofit context. The Economist's best arguments were technically correct but organizationally wrong.

The 18-12 blowout on revenue diversification (R03) was the most decisive result in either tournament. The Contrarian judge — usually the hardest to convince — called it "not close" after the AFF conceded that camp and tournament revenue from existing families is just circular extraction, not diversification.

Open-source over SaaS (R06) was unanimous across all three judges who reviewed the arguments. The membership-versus-market distinction is now a governance principle: the cooperative serves members, not customers.

The Two Things That Still Scare Me

  1. The revenue model has no margin for error at small scale. Five clubs paying $2,500 each is $12,500/year for the cooperative. That covers... almost nothing. The model depends on reaching 8+ clubs quickly to fund even a part-time coordinator. What if recruitment is slower than expected?

  2. The scholarship architecture requires external fundraising to work. The 10% fee allocation alone doesn't hit the 20% roster target. You need $20-30K from foundations and donors by year two. That's real fundraising work, and nobody's been hired to do it yet.

These aren't fatal. But they're the honest version of where we are.

What's Next

The revenue model spec is being synthesized now — the ninth spec document, completing the full Solstice FC specification. Twenty-five debates total (13 original + 12 revenue) have produced the entire architectural blueprint.

Next: wire the revenue model debates into the website, update the spec pages, and start the community conversation. The spec is a starting position, not a final answer. The real test is whether real parents, coaches, and club operators look at this and say "yes, I'd join that."

Related reading: