Jump to content

CSA Financials 2007


CoachRich

Recommended Posts

Since programming is a cost, I'm not sure why it would improve. In 2006 they took a 3.1 million dollar hit, in a year where I don't recall any significant programming. With Women's World Cup (and Canada's participation in U-20) there was another $4 million hit.

One question that comes to mind is the Canadian Olympic Committee's support of the Women's team going to Beijing. I would hope that all Olympic qualifying, all Olympic expenses, and maybe even an event like the Canada-Brazil friendly last Thursday, were paid for in full or in part by the COC and its partners. That would (presumably) reduce the burden that the Women's program puts on the CSA this fiscal year.

Quite honestly, anything less than a $5 million loss this year would be a welcome sight IMHO. Agree?

Next year...next year is when you can finally make some of that back. Maybe push that Sponsorships line past $5 million...? And that merchandise number is down-right scary....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WNT Seniors exist on their Sports Canada & COC $. Also the Kerfoot donation for the residency camp. One of the reasons the WNT Seniors went to the media in 2007 was the CSA was only giving them $150K out their $1M needs. Don't know how you can say that is a burden.

I'd be more than happy if it was under $5M but it's going to be interesting to factor in Nykamp settlement & a few other things. Hopefully the CSA will work smarter & get more business like so the sponsorship & event $ help run the programs vs the registered players paying more again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That merchandise number is odd! Even the sponsorship looks low. Is there possibly another division within the CSA that handles licensing or a "for-profit" model?

My assessment: In 2007, 62% of both revenues and expenses went towards the U20 WC.

That is $37million in turnover in '07 compared with $13million in '06 (of which 15% was to u20wc). Does anyone know turnover in 2005? Is the low teens a standard revenue/expenses number for our national soccer association?

These numbers feel ridiculously low scale. I understand soccer is not big money, esp at the national level. It could be of interest to compare other national associations, say, Curling, Baseball, and Basketball.

Taking it even a step further, how would our revenues compare to a comparable soccer nation like Australia?

Sweden is not comparable to Canada whatsoever although it was an association who's annual report was easy to find. It would seem that the Svenska fotbollsförbundet (this is the football arm, not the for-profit division) had revenues of $64.8million. It is just a number I throw out there.

http://www.svenskfotboll.se/files/%7B1C3F9E38-9A17-4B71-AEFF-A7422972A00B%7D.pdf (only in swedish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CSA didn't publish to the public their financials for 2004 & 2005.

Comparing to other countries soccer NSO's would be an interesting project but my bet is that it would show the CSA isn't doing a good job to get corporate sponsorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the marketing (person?) at CSA, there's not much of value to sell.

1. The #1 property, by a landslide, is their youth soccer program. (And what does that tell you!) And while there's some value in associating yourself with competitive youth sport (see BMO and figure skating) it's not something you have to spend a lot of money on to buy the sponsorship.

2. The #1 program is the women's program...the same one that didn't play in Canada for two years. You can't sell what you can't see...especially when what you're selling is brand visibility. Kudos to Winners, but that's as much a charitable donation as a marketing investment. Which is a real shame, because when you look at the demos for interest in our women's programs relative to the men, it's a pretty strong program worthy of national-level sponsorship.

3. The men's program is utterly worthless in the marketing world. Thank goodness value can change quickly - two wins in three weeks (and maybe a draw on the road?) could be worth millions. But the reality is that a team that loses three times (especially at home!!!) in six matches over three months once every four years, and then disappears off the face of the earth (again), isn't something you want to be associated with. Present company excluded. :) The U-23, U-20, and U-17 have been better, but only the U-23 program has any marketing value here in Canada (and limited amounts at that, since the COC owns all of the useful marketing rights for the Olympics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire, CSA has plenty of assets market, they just couldn’t recognize them if they hit them in the face.

In 2006 Rugby Canada raised 268k / 48k in players leaving sponsorship per person at $6.20 per participant. (for anyone taking score Rugby Canada is a very well run organization in comparison).

CSA on the other hand: 2775 / 865 = 3.20 per person.

If anything the CSA should be earning more per participant for a number of reasons. Soccer has a wider scope, it has more people around the participants, by all accounts is more popular on TV, is growing faster in the country.

These are all facts that the CSA should be bringing to the table when they negotiate with sponsors. Do they have a clue? Probably not. They’d be happy with a few free t-shirts from Winners and a jar of Nutella to fatten up the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ag futbol

Au contraire, CSA has plenty of assets market, they just couldn’t recognize them if they hit them in the face.

In 2006 Rugby Canada raised 268k / 48k in players leaving sponsorship per person at $6.20 per participant. (for anyone taking score Rugby Canada is a very well run organization in comparison).

CSA on the other hand: 2775 / 865 = 3.20 per person.

Demographic of a CSA member - 13 year old female

Demographic of a Rugby Canada member - 22 year old male

I don't disasgree that Rugby Canada seems to be a well-run organization - perhaps you have personal knowledge. They might even be significantly better at marketing. But don't compare sponsorship per member. It's an irrelevant comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ag futbol

Au contraire, CSA has plenty of assets market, they just couldn’t recognize them if they hit them in the face.

In 2006 Rugby Canada raised 268k / 48k in players leaving sponsorship per person at $6.20 per participant. (for anyone taking score Rugby Canada is a very well run organization in comparison).

CSA on the other hand: 2775 / 865 = 3.20 per person.

Demographic of a CSA member - 13 year old female

Demographic of a Rugby Canada member - 22 year old male

I don't disasgree that Rugby Canada seems to be a well-run organization - perhaps you have personal knowledge. They might even be significantly better at marketing. But don't compare sponsorship per member. It's an irrelevant comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. You know what that kid has that the 22 year old rugby player doesn't? Parents that watch them play, with tons of disposable income.

Regardless of the metric you want to use, soccer has the advantage over Rugby. Yet we can't produce any related revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...