The real question someone is asking when they ask "am I in a cult" is not about whether you can mark your religion as "cult" on your taxes. The question is "am I in danger of harm", and it is better to ask yourself that question directly -- is there sexual or physical abuse among the members; is there a financial obligation; does the group engage in abusive punishments or penalties. If it does those things who cares if it's a cult or not; get the hell out!
For the soccer team analogy a simple colloquial reading is fine -- "delegitimizes former members" : "quitters" -- "paranoid about the outside world" : "refs are crooked" -- "shame cycles" : well, that one is pretty bad, but it is not unusual for people to get significant personal gratification and the respect of your teammates for excellent performance, and to feel shame for failures.
Sure, subjectivity is part of it too. But if you're looking for diagnostic criteria in that list, you have to implicitly add "in a cult-like manner" to all of the criteria, and rely on the common subjective understanding of what a "cult" is to determine if they apply.
I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful.
Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors.
(Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)