I wonder how you feel when the best player(s) plays the entire game? I've been filling in as coach when main coach can't make it. He tends to play the best player(s) the entire game (and play the worst kid sparingly). But we have a lot of subs and I'm trying to get everyone some meaningful playing time. So I sub out all players, even the best ones. These parents paid to have their kid play so I feel all the kids should play. But yes doing that does reduce our strength (and chances of winning). I do favor the best players a bit, maybe play them about 75% of the game. A lady yelled at me for taking out the best kid. But to me, if you want everyone to play more minutes you need a smaller roster. You can't have lots of subs just sitting there at U8/10. Just let them play. idk, it makes me not want to coach, I don't want to make those decisions because no matter what decision you make you get criticized. If you barely play the weak kids then their parents complain, if you take out the strong kids the the overly-competitive parents complain because it hurts the chance of winning the game.
Every kid should be on the field for at least 50% of the game in the u-little brackets. Sometimes that is going to cost you the game, but these games don't matter really (although in the moment it doesn't feel that way).
I agree with the others - at that age, playing time should be fairly equal and unless you're short on players, nobody should be playing the whole game (except your goalie, unless you switch that position up).
The older they get the more you will have starters playing the entire game, especially on defense. This actually works well for U-little ball too, because parents always see their kid as a goal scorer. Keep the defensive spine in the game and put their kids on wing or striker. Let's see what they've got. The one's who don't play as much will be isolated more 1v1 or 1v2. It will show how smart they are with the ball. The other thing you can do is take the best players and put them at CB or even goalkeeper at that age. It will help that player develop a full game as well as open up space up top to put the complaining parents' kids.
I'm actually in the same boat. The main coach is all about his son, ego, and winning, that he even brings in players from other teams when we have plenty of subs to keep it 'competitive.' Now, there are things I agree and disagree with, but my main goal as co-coach is to make sure we're developing and giving kids a chance to grow their love of the game. You have to try and play kids somewhat equally, even if it's giving away the game. You also have to have kids play different positions. If parents get made, it's team meeting time and all the parents should get on the same page, or find a team that fits their needs. Everyone is paying and giving up their time, it's only fair that their kids get somewhat of a fair shot.
Was looking back at your post and wondered, what do you mean about the ones who don't play as much? Is that because they are getting into tight situations or some other reason? Also are you saying keep the defenders on the field because most parents are less likely to fight for playtime there anyway?
Yes. You rarely see U10 parents happy that their kid is playing in the back. Some of these clubs keep way too big of rosters though at younger age groups and it doesn't help anyone. You can try to be a very fair coach with playing time, but the lesser performers are bound to have less minutes as the game/season goes on. Keeping a smaller roster limits this. Smaller rosters mean less money for the club though. On the flip side, if you have a star player who can run circles around other kids up top, putting him in the back for a while will bring his benefit to the team more through control and passing. Help bring other kids into the game. It will also develop them to be well rounded.