Sportsnet.ca column on Black Wednesday

[beachesl]

The Crawford Report was a report for internal reform. I believe the Australian governemnt twas very careful to exploit the crisis without actually getting involved in any direct action against the Association. The Association board was basically forced to reform from within due to public and funding pressure, they bascially voted to hand control over to caretakers, in particular a millionaire man of action who was voted over the power and took over and had a revolution.

I do not have the full details, perhaps someone more familiar with the Aussie scene can enlighten us on what actually happened.

[Richard]

FIFA very much disapproves of government interference in the administration of the game. There are many recent examples of FIFA suspending a country because of same.

[beachesl]

Yes, and the Australian governemnt was acutely aware of that dilemma. That is why they entitled the Inquiry an "Independent " one said to be giving recommendations (without sanctions or government action). It had become such a public spectacle that the Associations, National and state, were forced to revamp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Report

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

Problem: FIFA does not like governments to directly interfere with running of national associations (we have seen suspensions because of this around the world). Just refuse to give them grants, or investigate them for criminal misuse of funds. The sports ministers (provincial too) can also express their desire for positive reform.

I agree that perhaps sport fans contacting personal sponsers with concerns may cause impetus for reform. Obviously, money is the key.

Yes, but the corporate sponsors are just the icing on the cake. There is government funding for the CSA (9 million?)& money collected from player registrations, which I believe is where the majority of the funding comes from. Sponsorship is needed so that the team's can play more friendlies & have more training camps etc. The reason the women's team are not playing any home friendlies prior to the World Cup is allegely because the sponsorship for the team is so pitiful. I'd rather not see the same thing happen on the men's side, thank you very much.

I also doubt that the sponsors are going to care if some fan from wherever thinks the CSA are doing a poor job. I suspect they will only care if they feel that an insufficient audience is there to view their advertisement in the product they are sponsoring. And that means that to get their attention, we would have to boycott the games & the team itself. Which of course is unthinkable.

Canadian soccer needs more sponsors & more money, not less. We also need more owners of more clubs. Rather targetting the sponsors & asking them to pull out, why not target the clubs and ask them to pull in even more?

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Yes, but the corporate sponsors are just the icing on the cake. There is government funding for the CSA (9 million?)& money collected from player registrations, which I believe is where the majority of the funding comes from. Sponsorship is needed so that the team's can play more friendlies & have more training camps etc. The reason the women's team are not playing any home friendlies prior to the World Cup is allegely because the sponsorship for the team is so pitiful. I'd rather not see the same thing happen on the men's side, thank you very much.

I also doubt that the sponsors are going to care if some fan from wherever thinks the CSA are doing a poor job. I suspect they will only care if they feel that an insufficient audience is there to view their advertisement in the product they are sponsoring. And that means that to get their attention, we would have to boycott the games & the team itself. Which of course is unthinkable.

Canadian soccer needs more sponsors & more money, not less. We also need more owners of more clubs. Rather targetting the sponsors & asking them to pull out, why not target the clubs and ask them to pull in even more?

I did not say we should be asking the sponsors to pull out. Those are your words, not mine, and talk of programs being cut is as a result are unecessary fear-mongering on your part.

What I am saying is that by targetting sponsors with our concerns, they could start asking questions about the direction our sport is going, as well as CSA accountability that hithertofor the CSA has ignored from the media and the Voyageurs. Money talks, and when sponsors ask why there are protests going on at events they have paid to be associated with, and why the target audience is directly expressing concerns to them, the CSA will be forced to provide answers.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

I did not say we should be asking the sponsors to pull out. Those are your words, not mine, and talk of programs being cut is as a result are unecessary fear-mongering on your part.

What I am saying is that by targetting sponsors with our concerns, they could start asking questions about the direction our sport is going, as well as CSA accountability that hithertofor the CSA has ignored from the media and the Voyageurs. Money talks, and when sponsors ask why there are protests going on at events they have paid to be associated with, and why the target audience is directly expressing concerns to them, the CSA will be forced to provide answers.

Sorry if you feel I was putting words in your mouth (though the response you quote was actually responding to a beachesl post, not yours), but with all of this talk of "money is the key" and "corporations holding the purse strings" it did suggest very strongly to me that the suggestions was to contact the sponsors with concerns in the hopes that they in turn will put some sort of financial pressure on the CSA to shape up (at least in our eyes). If the hope is that contacting the sponsors with our concerns will lead them simply to a dialogue with the CSA without any possibility of the sponsors being discouraged from sponsoring the CSA (because they feel they can't reach the market they are looking for or don't want to be associated with the CSA name), then I honestly don't think that is realistic. Even if they do just want answers from the CSA & the CSA provides them with some (which could be bogus for all the sponsors know), I'm un-clear as to how that really helps us.

One other thing to remember - it was reported before that the women's team couldn't play any games in Canada because they didn't have sponsors, whereas the men's team did (and does). Then recently Winners was announced as a sponsor of the women's teams, not the men's. So it suggests that different Canadian teams have different sponsors, rather than being sponsors of the CSA in general.

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Sorry if you feel I was putting words in your mouth (though the response you quote was actually responding to a beachesl post, not yours), but with all of this talk of "money is the key" and "corporations holding the purse strings" it did suggest very strongly to me that the suggestions was to contact the sponsors with concerns in the hopes that they in turn will put some sort of financial pressure on the CSA to shape up (at least in our eyes). If the hope is that contacting the sponsors with our concerns will lead them simply to a dialogue with the CSA without any possibility of the sponsors being discouraged from sponsoring the CSA (because they feel they can't reach the market they are looking for or don't want to be associated with the CSA name), then I honestly don't think that is realistic. Even if they do just want answers from the CSA & the CSA provides them with some (which could be bogus for all the sponsors know), I'm un-clear as to how that really helps us.

Your answer doesn't surprise me.

[Desigol]

I also believe that more Corporate $$$ will improve Canadian Soccer. However, since alot of Voyageurs support the Greens, I doubt that the $$$ will come from the likes of McDonalds or Starbucks. Maybe a Company like Subway, a more healthy Fast Food option, could be a good sponsor for the CSA.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Your answer doesn't surprise me.

My "answer" shouldn't really be surprising to anyone that either knows me personally or has been on this board for some time, because it is entirely consistent with my views - I am cautious at best, opposed at worst, to any form of protest or action that I believe, to the best of my knowledge, will hurt the Canadian men's national soccer team(s). What you suggested earlier was "unnecessary fearmongering" on my part is actually a genuine, heartfelt concern on my part that targeting the sponsors of the national teams with a protest could very well seriously hurt the men's team.

I'm not saying that your heart is in the wrong place, I know that it's not. But I don't think mine is either. There are certain forms of protest I have agreed with (like liaising with the media to raise national consciousness on what is going on & lobbying for an independant review with a goal of reformation of the CSA), but this idea genuinely causes me some concern.

As I said, I am un-clear as to how this idea (as far as I understand it) would help us, and also how it would work. If we are going to aim protests at sponsors of national teams, how do we ensure that the protest "bothers" (for lack of a better word) the sponsors enough to want to ask the CSA some questions, but not enough to want to consider withdrawing support from the men's team? I also don't understand why the sponsors would want to ask the CSA questions about what is going on with soccer or the CSA's accountability, if the distinct possibility of withdrawing their sponsorship money wasn't on their agenda.

So on the one hand I'm not really sure how this would work & how we would go about doing it - but on top of that, I'm concerned that even if our intentions are the best, the protest may easily have the result that we aren't looking for, which is the players & the team getting hamstrung by a lack of financial support caused by sponsors pulling out, causing a lack of preparation & a lack of a World Cup berth. Given with what has happened with the women's team & their lack of a sponsor (until very recently) giving them next to no preparation prior to their World Cup, it's an area I think we should tread carefully in, if we tread at all.

[VPjr]

Frankly, if the national team doesn't make the World Cup in 2010, then there is no point approaching the sponsors...because they will flee the CSA like roaches when the lights come on.

At this point, let's stay focused with our dissatisfaction with the CSA. Let's start by making our anger known by keeping a close relationship with the sporting media in Canada because they have a bully pulpit that we will never have. Let's also do everything we can to pressure the politicians to consider demanding an independant review of the CSA. This is going to take a long time. We will have to stay patient. Any protest movement that grows out of next Wednesday will not create change tomorrow, next week or next month. It may take years but so does any "revolution".

Remember, Australia had to suffer unnacceptable failure (many Aussies EXPECTED their team to qualify in 2002) before the government paid attention. We need to make it clear to all media and politicians that this group of players is our best chance for World Cup qualification in 20 years. Then, if somehow they don't qualify, the call for reform will become deafening.

[Winnipeg Fury]

Great article, hopefully more media outlets pick up on this.........

[Bill Ault]

The target should be the provincial associations....

[An Observer]

I would pressure the government for a crawford like report here, and threaten the csa with a letter writing campaign to their corporate sponsors. Its risky but their is really no serious alternative. You always hit them in the pocket book and then internally people start taking notice. With a serious threat of reduced government money and less corporate sponsorship, serious reform will come. But people are correct, you may have to start with taking one step backwards (ie.less money for prep) before going forwards. But in my opinionn there is no serious alternative. A call for the board to resign is not really going to get you anywhere other than to show that some of the fans are displeased.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

The best line of action in my view continues to be to call for a dialogue with each and every individual member of the CSA with the Canadian soccer community. And ask for their immediate resignation if they refuse.

There are many ways to do this. One way, apart from the letter I proposed elsewhere, would be to organize an open session or meeting of soccer fans and invite CSA board members to come.

Everything else may have circus value, media value, or be plain fun. But accountability has to be asked for on an individual basis, and has to be asked for personally, and there has to be a consequence for anyone not wanting to be accountable.

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

I would pressure the government for a crawford like report here, and threaten the csa with a letter writing campaign to their corporate sponsors.

Less than 25% of the CSA budget comes from sponsorship according to their 2006 financial statement - just over 44% comes from registration fees which are controlled by the provincial associations...

http://www.canadakicks.com/docs/2006CSAFS.pdf

The changes need to come but they need to come at the level that truly control the finances and that is the provincial bodies.

Bill

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

I would pressure the government for a crawford like report here, and threaten the csa with a letter writing campaign to their corporate sponsors. Its risky but their is really no serious alternative. You always hit them in the pocket book and then internally people start taking notice. With a serious threat of reduced government money and less corporate sponsorship, serious reform will come. But people are correct, you may have to start with taking one step backwards (ie.less money for prep) before going forwards.

I'm ok with the Crawford report idea, but once again I have severe misgivings about a protest aimed at sponsors with the intention & result of having even less funding for the national teams than they already have. It is, as you say, risky - and I think that is an understatement. Even if you succeed in getting the funding reduced, there is no guarantee that either it will cause a reform to take place, and even worse, that a reform would result in the programme being better off than it is now, while you would pretty well be ensuring that we won't make the World Cup.

If, as everybody keeps indicating, the reason for the reform is that the CSA board members don't really care about the national team & only care about themselves and their provincial constituents, then it doesn't follow that less funding of the national teams via sponsors is going to bother them to want to resign or agree to a reform. What does follow is that if they don't truly care about the national teams, the national teams will likely be the first and possibly only people hit by a cut in funding. That's leaving aside the issue that the corporate sponsorship often appears to be tied directly to a particular men's or women's team, so it seems to be they will be directly hit, not the un-paid volunteers, by a corporate pull-out.

Ben writes in this article that the revolution has the full support of the national team players. If that is the case, then perhaps we should be asking them, & the pro clubs, to see if they will lend their voice to the idea of a Crawford report for Canada. The fans can easily be dismissed (sometimes correctly) as a bunch of whining hot-heads. The players & the pro clubs on the other hand are professionals & can have a great influence on the way the CSA operates. Some might say too much. However both the players & the pro clubs speaking out & calling for change is more likely to get the ear of the media. If the media keep spreading the word the change will happen, especially if the key figures on the national & pro scene are behind them.

Of course, if you ask the players if they want to get on board for a plan that calls for less funding, less prep, and an even greater chance of screwing up the possibility of making the World Cup, you can forget it.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

Less than 25% of the CSA budget comes from sponsorship according to their 2006 financial statement

Thanks for this. I had indicated (in the post at the top of the page) that I believed this was the case, so nice to have it confirmed.

[ag futbol]

25% is a sizable chunk of revenue for any organization. Definately enough to rock the boat if it disapeared. National teams would be hurt the most but that doesn't mean it would just be business as usual for the CSA if that money went away.

I looked at the CSA financial statements again and I'm going to compare them to some other sports financials which i found. Results should be pretty interesting.

[An Observer]

I for one have not bought the idea that the csa does not care about the national team. From my point of view, the problem is with the stucture. They have 12 provincial reps on the board and a few others. This is an unmangeable body by any standards. They need either an executive board with 4 or 5 and a majority independent reps with the full board essentially only approving a budget. The staff need independence and are accountable to the board only for hiring and firing.

The problem with targeting the prov assocs is that you don't really have any leverage there. You target the feds and the corps as that is the bulk of the rest of the funding. Any as someone already said here, losing 25% is significant leverage. corp sponsors are likely already asking questions.

I think the crawford report and the funding go hand in hand. You call for the report but signal that if its not forthcoming, you arer going after the funding. Its the classic carrot and stick. No stick. No change.

Of course, if you believe that having an association that is governed and beholden to the 12 prov assocs is fine and you just need tinkering (ie. Finding the right ceo), than you don't need a crawford report or threatening thw funding. If you believe the prov assocs control needs to go, this will not happen with a few negative media articles and some letter writing. You need to threaten the lifeblood of the assoc which will force their hand. And then you push for the reform you want. Sure its risky, but frankly gianluca your way will result in business as usual and we will be in the same position 10 years from now.

[Moosehead]

The Sponsorship would be a lot more if the organization was properly structured, had a clear mandate with a qualified Ceo to carry out that mandate. Look at the budget of Ski Canada now up to 13 million from 5 with the excellent work of Ken Read. Not to mention or skiers are improving and are now 4th in the world as a team.

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Originally posted by RealGooner

Your answer doesn't surprise me.

My "answer" shouldn't really be surprising to anyone that either knows me personally or has been on this board for some time, because it is entirely consistent with my views

Well.....there you go.

[RealGooner]

25% is enough to warrant contacting sponsors about this situation. I do also agree that clubs should also be a pressure point too. We need an approach that applies pressure from many angles. Simply dissmissing the idea of approaching sponsors because one is 'un-clear as to how that really helps us' is at best rather lazy, at worst closed-minded. I think An Observer's comments bear careful thought folks.

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

You target the feds and the corps as that is the bulk of the rest of the funding.

The bulk of the funding (just under 45%) comes from registrations controlled by the provinces...

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Moosehead

The Sponsorship would be a lot more if the organization was properly structured, had a clear mandate with a qualified Ceo to carry out that mandate. Look at the budget of Ski Canada now up to 13 million from 5 with the excellent work of Ken Read. Not to mention or skiers are improving and are now 4th in the world as a team.

Of course, Ken Read got rid of the idea that getting results will bring in sponsorship.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

I for one have not bought the idea that the csa does not care about the national team. From my point of view, the problem is with the stucture.

Well if the problem is simply the structure of an association and not the individuals involved, in my view that makes the "risk" of going after the sponsors even less justifiable (and would be less persuasive to the sponsors as a reason that they should pull out of any sponsorhip deal they have). If we are going to potentially be sabotaging our own World Cup Qualifying campaign, I want it to be for a better reason than that.

In any event, if you agree that the report should come first, then that is the first step that would need to be taken, advocating for the report. And to do that we need to keep spreading the word through the media. And I still think the clubs & the players are the best vehicles to do that because the media is pretty well reporting everything they say on the matter.