Meh, I agree with you but there's an important difference. The "soccer community" decided 40 years ago that their primary goal was to saturate the landscape with youth soccer players, fields, coaches, and refs. Large parts of the country had HS with no soccer program well into the 1980s. "Developing Olympic Talent" became more of a niche moneymaker, much like club lax. But everyone in soccer (in this country) is onboard with "growing the game." That requires, among other things, fairness on the field.
I disagree with all of the following, but here goes............
That is just not so in lacrosse (in this country), where the majority of coaches and I'd bet half of USL employees have a vested interest or deep belief in keeping lacrosse elite and hard to access....."growing the game" is seen as important only to the extent that it serves to identify elite talent that King Krab, Millon, or Maddux can put on a plane from TX or TN or Utah on a friday afternoon.
High level youth lax is a status symbol ithat youth soccer has never been and never will be (except for womens Olympic Development stuff or the occasional American HS kid working out in England, Germany, or Spain). Making it fair would make it less elite, because the lax-specific holdback scenario (and ability to pay for travel) are the result of earning money (or the privilege of inheriting it). | 
