Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC (California) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $48,051 in grants to it, the largest being Norcal Premier Soccer ($28,931). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC has grown faster than half of the 5,357 youth development nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 5,357 youth development nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
7% of EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (82% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
$2k from 1 funders in 2023, up from $30k and 2 in 2018.
2 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 12% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 60% of grant income and the top three 94%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 97% · 2019 100% · 2020 100% · 2021 83% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
EMPIRE SOCCER CLUB INC is locally rooted: 65% of its grant income comes from California funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
82% of spending goes to programs.
100%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2020–2024), and the filings of 6funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing