Parent experience. Clear rules.

Not yet accepting ratings

Coach ratings are not live. These are the standards the service must meet before submissions open, not a claim that every review or appeal process is already available. Privacy terms, operator contact details, verification, and moderation procedures must be finalized first.

Parents’ opinions, not our verdict

Results will be labeled “Ratings submitted by parents.” They describe families’ reported experiences for a particular season, not an objective measure of a coach’s ability, safety, or character. Editorial guidance, coach biographies, and verified credentials remain separate.

A verified reviewer label means a parent or guardian’s relationship was checked. It does not mean every answer was independently proven. There will be no public written reviews or individual rating pages.

Firsthand experience, one household

Only adults 18 or older who are parents or guardians with direct experience of the coach during the selected season may participate. Families who left a team are eligible on the same terms. Relationship and household checks take place privately.

One household may submit one rating per coach per season. Updating it replaces the household’s previous answers; it does not create another vote. Coaches, their households, and people acting for a coach, club, or competing business may not rate that coach. Employment, ownership, family ties to the coach, or other business interests in the coach or club must be disclosed during verification. Ratings with those conflicts will not enter the anonymous parent aggregates; disclosure alone does not make them eligible.

No fake accounts, fabricated experience, self-ratings, paid or incentivized ratings, or coordinated campaigns to raise or lower scores. Do not pressure families to participate, demand favorable answers or proof of a rating, or retaliate for feedback. Invitations must be neutral and open to all eligible families, not just those expected to be positive.

Our no-incentive rule includes money, discounts, gifts, free training, or other benefits offered for submitting, changing, or removing a rating. Fabricated submissions are prohibited whether created by a person, AI, or another automated tool. These are site participation rules, not a claim that every incentive is unlawful.

Show the evidence, separate quality from fit

Each satisfaction question uses the same five-point scale, from very dissatisfied to very satisfied, plus “Not enough experience to rate.” Unanswered questions are excluded from calculations, not counted as zero.

A category average will be the sum of its eligible numerical answers divided by the number of households answering it, with equal weight for each household. Fit questions will show answer shares, not quality scores. All eligible answers will contribute regardless of whether they are favorable. Results will not be selected, ordered, or delayed to favor positive feedback.

Each displayed category or fit question needs at least five distinct eligible households who answered that question in that season. The same minimum applies to every filtered result. Show its response count and season. Five is a privacy and publication threshold, not proof of reliability; voluntary responses may not represent every family.

Demandingness, individual versus group instruction, expected commitment, and whether a family would choose the coach again remain separate fit information. They do not increase or decrease satisfaction scores. A demanding environment is not automatically a poor-quality one. There will be no overall coach leaderboard or combined quality-and-difficulty score.

Fair moderation, never paid removal

The same rules must apply to positive and negative submissions. A low score, a coach’s disagreement, commercial pressure, sponsorship, or payment is not a reason to remove or hide a rating. Payment cannot buy removal, better scores, or favorable treatment. Moderators do not rewrite a parent’s answers.

Reports must identify a specific rule issue, such as ineligible experience, duplicate households, conflicts, manipulation, or privacy violations. A report alone does not establish a violation. Moderators must assess relevant evidence, document the applicable rule and decision, and record removals and restorations. Moderation is not a determination of every disputed fact.

Authenticity checks must continue after publication, with investigation of suspicious activity and reports. Positive and negative submissions must face the same checks and processing standards. Corrections must flow through to affected aggregates. Review practices and any changes to calculation or eligibility rules must be explained where results appear.

Parents and coaches must be able to report an issue and request reconsideration privately. The affected reviewer must receive a privacy-safe reason and an appeal route. A coach may challenge a rule violation but may not obtain reviewer identities or individual answers through the process. Appeals must be reviewed without personal or commercial conflicts; an alternative reviewer is needed if the original moderator is involved.

Participation terms must not prohibit honest reviews elsewhere, impose penalties for them, or require reviewers to transfer ownership of their feedback. Intimidation, false accusations made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and groundless legal threats must not be used to prevent or suppress feedback. These rules do not prevent legitimate legal claims.

Private does not mean absolutely anonymous

Public results will omit reviewer names and individual answers. Verification information, reports, and moderation notes are not public. Access should be limited to authorized people who need it to run the review process. Do not submit children’s names, jersey numbers, medical details, identifying disputes, or unnecessary documents.

Small-team context may still reveal who participated. We cannot promise complete anonymity or immunity from legal disclosure. Any legal request must be assessed for validity and scope before a response; these standards do not promise that information can never be disclosed or that every request will be challenged.

Before collection begins, the account privacy policy must explain what is collected, why, who can access it, retention and deletion, and how to contact the operator. See the current account data-control notice.

Safety reports belong in the right channel

Ratings are not a channel for allegations of abuse, discrimination, crimes, or other misconduct, and they are not monitored as an emergency service. No public misconduct labels will be offered. A high or low score is not a safeguarding finding.

For immediate danger, call 911. For other safeguarding concerns, follow the official reporting directions in our player safety guide. A private rating dispute is not a substitute for reporting to the responsible authority.

Our standards and consumer protection

Our planned approach considers the FTC guidance for review platforms, the Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule guidance, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act guidance. Numerical ratings are reviews even without written comments.

These references are not FTC approval or a compliance certification. Working safeguards, operator-specific terms and legal review are still required before ratings launch.