If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?
After your child has been playing a few years, it gets easier to assess their skill level relative to flights and nearby clubs. But for the first couple of years, it may not necessarily be obvious. I don't think the average U8 or U9 parent is scouting dozens of U-Little games before picking a club to try out at. Most parents rely on the clubs to accurately place (or refuse) a spot on a team for their child.
In the past, most competitive/travel team coaches had a single team per age group and only selected players that could meet the level. But now with many clubs their try-out process is just about filling out a quota of roster spots. The try-out process has become so rudimentary (endless big scrimmages) that many players are poorly placed. And often times clubs ask parents to sign contracts and pay huge club fees before even the first practice, so parents have no idea really how their kid measures up to the rest of the team.
Also to complicate things further, even if you know for sure that your kid is a "Silver" level player, on one Flight 2 team he might be a starter but on another Flight 2 team, he could be a bench warmer. A lot depends on the coach. I remember 5-6 years ago with my son, during the try-out season we tried out at 4 different clubs. Two clubs wanted my son on their bronze teams. One of the bigger clubs wanted my son on their strong Silver team. And another club recommended that my son play in their Rec league and forget competitive. My son had good technique and vision for his age, but he also was very small. Some coaches saw a pip-squeak rec/bronze player, others saw a potential impact playmaker. For a normal parent who may not have much knowledge of soccer, how would they know who's right?
I'm not going to get into the poor talent identification ability of many US youth coaches. That's another topic. But coaches and clubs get it wrong many times. So I definitely think at least in the Silver/Bronze levels, clubs should have a minimum 50% playing time policy for youngers. If a coach feels a player isn't capable of playing at lease half a game, then they shouldn't pick them in the first place period. Having 3-4 ten year-olds sitting on the bench playing less than 40% is just lazy coaching. If parents are paying $1500-2500 in club fees, expensive training kits, and a half-dozen tournaments, then they are entitled to a minimum of development for their child.
Save the short sub rotations for the Gold levels and olders. And even with guaranteed 50% playing time, the kids can still earn starting spots and 60-100% playing time with good performances and focus in training. Having guaranteed 50% playing time alone doesn't turn soccer into an entitlement program. But it may ease the trend of clubs essentially swindling naive uLittle parents to fund elite programs. If Silver/Bronze teams are going to fund elite teams, then parents should at least get their money's worth. And local Silver/Bronze teams should be jumping at the chance to offer full development of their entire rosters instead of mimicking the big clubs short sub rotations.