Morace to quit after WWC?

[CoachRich]

Paul James gives some excellent views on Carolina Morace, the WNT, Jason de Vos, CSA reform, soccer politics and more. I've not hear him speak before and I was impressed with his understanding and his suggestions/solutions -

http://www.rednationonline.ca/Rednation_Speaks_with_Paul_James_february_14_11_feature.shtml

[Vic]

Paul James is Paul James. One of the few senior members of our soccer community and always entertaining in his directness. It would be interesting to graph out all the 'players' in Canadian soccer. Thanks for the link Neil.

Here's some insight into the German women's incentive plan. We're not the DFB or vested anywhere even near them, but someone should figure out what comparable figures are for all our teams. It's a difficult calculation but it should look at the value added to the game here as a result of the performance, and what is a fair participation for the country and the players. And in the case of the youth teams, if the players can't receive direct compensation it should go into their programs.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14817439,00.html

This part was great:

But the bonus has moved on since the 1989 European Championships, when a posh coffee service was all that was on offer for the women's team.

"It was an unusually nice one," said German coach Silvia Neid, adding that she'd given it to her mother, who brings it out on special occasions.

[Pete K]

Yes hc1, if I was to edit one word in that post it's that one. "Intentionally damaging" would have been a much better phrase. Although if it was the men's program or a federal rep or someone like that hurting our odds I would have used an even stronger word than the first.

A couple of other more moderate articles out there, like the Wheeler one you commented on yesterday Neil. The one that should be read though is Jason de Vos. I find that throughout his commentary on all subjects in Canadian soccer, from reform to the men's program to the ladies, he has never failed to present an intelligent opinion.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/jasondevos/2011/02/canadian-womens-team-dollars-and-sense.html

I'm pretty much 100% in line with his view.

The only add I have to his comments is the timing. Had the women supported our bid (or even just said nothing) and then dealt with their issues a couple of weeks from now it would have been so many times easier to support them in return.

Interesting article by DeVos and some good points made. Alot of interesting articles floating around on the situation with the CWNT. As DeVos made clear, there are two separate issues here.

First is the issue with Morace, which as I understand it, is the reason for the boycott. Correct me if I'm wrong, but her issue is control over the budget. Not that she wants more money in the budget, or that she has some secret agenda in place. Simply, she wants her x dollars and she wants to spend them as she sees fit. I don't see the CSA's problem with that. I think the woman has proven that she can run a team, and shouldn't have to spend her energy, as an expert, arguing with a bunch of suits about where she puts her dollars into the program. She is judged on wins and losses, and should be able to have the freedom to not be micro-managed. A reasonable request I would say, and if the CSA truly cared about the FIFA bid and resolving this situation, I don't understand why they don't just allow for that freedom. I have heard the Pellerud "running over the budget" argument, but sure in that case, let the CSA step in and say, sorry no more money, but otherwise, just let the woman have a chance, headache free, to do her thing and spend her money as she sees fit. Hell I'd trust the dollars in her hands a lot more than the CSA. Maybe the boys at the CSA are just worried that their soccer holidays on the women's dime, wouldn't be pencilled into the budget by Morace.

So on that point, I say Morace is spot on, and the CSA doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'd like to know from the CSA what the problem is on that point.

The compensation issue, however, is where things get sticky, and I think DeVos makes a lot of good points. My gut is that it gets a bit prickly when comparing the men and the women, as really it is apples and oranges. The argument will always be made that the rate of investment on the men's side is higher than on the women. But for those of you arguing that it will benefit the women's program if the men were to make the World Cup, I think you only need to look at countries such as Brazil, to know that a fantastic men's program doesn't necessarily translate into dollars for the women's team.

I agree with DeVos, that the women can't expect to be compensated on a per game basis, or in that sense compare with the men. Its just not realistic based on the differing programs and length of time in camp. But I just can't feel sorry for the CSA when currently, they give no money outside of the budget for the team, to player compensation, (since the $18,000 the women receive is from Sport Canada) On the other hand, the fact that the women are in camp for much of the year, thus have no living expenses, and receive that $18,000 tax free, wouldn't make that CSA compensation number have to be absurdly high. But it makes sense that its a pre-negotiated number, as the idea that the women have to be fighting for money during major tournaments is ridiculous. If they win an event, and there is prize money, they should get the majority of the windfall.

But front and centre of all this debate, is the question, where exactly is all the money being spent? If anything, I hope this whole debacle causes the CSA to have to be at least a little bit transparent as to where all the money is going.

[Vic]

Good post Pete.

On the control issue...

Not that she wants more money in the budget, or that she has some secret agenda in place. Simply, she wants her x dollars and she wants to spend them as she sees fit.

Do we know that? I hadn't read that anywhere. If you do have a link it would be a good reference. There have been a lot of cliches thrown but without more information any type of clinical analysis is pretty speculative.

All we really know is Morace feels strongly enough about something to cause a scene during the bid weighing, and it's something the CSA obviously feels concerned about the best interests of Canadian soccer over or we wouldn't be where we are.

Fair game. I doubt there's a coach in the history of the country who hasn't had their own perspective on the way the association should be run. It would be nice if it was all revealed in it's entirety so everyone could draw their own conclusions, but I really don't think that's going to or can happen. Fighting in the press never works out to well for anyone.

That leaves everyone, from you and I to the players and the media, with limited amounts of the story people want us to have. Not much to make a leap of faith on. The only leap I can make is that without more information about what we're talking about it's pretty difficult to say either side is right or wrong.

[hc1]

I can't find a direct quote from Morace about not being able to control her own budget but here is a newspaper article, and a quote from her that sure points in that direction:

"Canada tied China 1-1 on Sept. 30 in Toronto, but when South Africa withdrew from a second friendly, Morace wasn't able to schedule another game, or use the money elsewhere, as is was redistributed by the CSA." from http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/backofthenet/archive/2011/02/04/control-funding-at-root-of-morace-s-complaints.aspx

"I asked to play but, unfortunately, we cannot play. I asked to play another match at home but it was impossible to organize." from http://www.allwhitekit.com/?p=3304

[Vic]

Possibly, presuming the money wasn't spent somewhere else and we weren't over-budget. Again, without all the information we're left to speculate and it's hard to be comfortable convicting people on that.

Time to break out the Elvis. The scenes are from Wim Wenders' Paris, Texas - a pretty moving and powerful film about being lost in North America. And as the comment say's - there is and will only be one Elvis.

[CoachRich]

Great link Vic as it shows how other Associations deal with things such as bonuses - .

"The association agreed on a performance related bonus. If the women reach the quarter-final, they will get 15,000 euros. An appearance in the semi final earns them 25,000 euro. The women would receive 30,000 euros for third place and if they were defeated in the final, 40,000 euros."

I wonder what other compensation they get being that this article is talking about bonus. What their base compensation is the other question? What sort of insurance coverage do they have for career finishing injuries.....yes, it's been unknown for years what sort of insurance the CSA has on the players?

For the CSA not to acknowledge other Associations and Leagues have CBA with their women players is just another case of poor management and sexism. The days of the CSA running the WNT on a on call honorarium type basis needs to end.

[Vic]

I was actually a little surprised at their bonus plan. The numbers reflect their 7 million players, tv contracts and professional revenues, but they apply a somewhat marginal gradiation and you wonder about the value of the carrot. If 4th is 25, 3rd is 30 and 2nd 40 - is that really much motivation? Especially for the Germans! Fourth at home would be a national disgrace.

[CoachRich]

^

Compared to the USA WNT not much motivation at all but as a bonus on top of what they already make it might be. Sadly what comes out of the WWC in the way of bonus money might be tied to FIFA's lack of commitment to the female game.

I'm sure there would be a national inquiry if the Germans finished out of the top 2. I do think the German bonus is still miles ahead the $4K Kara Lang says she made in her time with the WNT.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer-body-hopes-to-end-womens-soccer-impasse/article1901232/?cmpid=rss1

In a decade playing soccer internationally for Canada, Kara Lang first saw a paycheque last year after she helped the women’s national team qualify for this summer’s World Cup.

Grand total? Less than $4,000, she says.

[Vic]

What? No tea set?

I wonder if the Germans top-end load performance over appearance fees. Now that would be smart.

[dvst8]

First is the issue with Morace, which as I understand it, is the reason for the boycott. Correct me if I'm wrong, but her issue is control over the budget. Not that she wants more money in the budget, or that she has some secret agenda in place. Simply, she wants her x dollars and she wants to spend them as she sees fit. I don't see the CSA's problem with that. I think the woman has proven that she can run a team, and shouldn't have to spend her energy, as an expert, arguing with a bunch of suits about where she puts her dollars into the program. She is judged on wins and losses, and should be able to have the freedom to not be micro-managed.

So on that point, I say Morace is spot on, and the CSA doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'd like to know from the CSA what the problem is on that point.

But front and centre of all this debate, is the question, where exactly is all the money being spent? If anything, I hope this whole debacle causes the CSA to have to be at least a little bit transparent as to where all the money is going.

I think getting a forensic breakdown of how the CSA spends the WNT money is the only way to get the real story of what is happening within the CSA and what Morace seems to be so pissed off about. She's keeping quiet and not violating the terms of her contract. I also heard she's a lawyer and would hazard a guess that if the CSA is in violation of HER contract that she'll go after them legally once she's gone.

It's about time that Sport Canada and/or Own the Podium ensure their valuable funding isn't being mismanaged and they go after the CSA.

[BrianW]

^

In a decade playing soccer internationally for Canada, Kara Lang first saw a paycheque last year after she helped the women’s national team qualify for this summer’s World Cup.

Grand total? Less than $4,000, she says.

Just curious, but as a collegiate athlete for most of her career, would Kara have even been eligible for any type of payments? I know college hockey/baseball players aren't allowed to accept anything from pro teams including transportation costs but I'm not sure if national teams would get an exception.

[CoachRich]

What? No tea set?

I wonder if the Germans top-end load performance over appearance fees. Now that would be smart.

That's a great questions. Also, as most of the German players are embedded in pro EUFA clubs how their NSO compensation and bonuses are peeled back due to club compensation. That's what the USSF does in their USWNT CBA where the pro players are involved.

[terpfan68]

I've heard that some of the German women are full time military who are assigned "light" duties during their training. Does anyone know if that is true or not. I know that my daughters playing for the Canadian Women's Military Soccer team said that the German team had three or four National Team members.

[tmcmurph]

I've heard that some of the German women are full time military who are assigned "light" duties during their training. Does anyone know if that is true or not. I know that my daughters playing for the Canadian Women's Military Soccer team said that the German team had three or four National Team members.

You see that is thinking outside the box. The old "Red Army" hockey team was totally pro and if true then the Germans are smart. So what is stopping Canada from setting up a "combined forces fitness and conditioning squad" to help teach other recruits soccer? That would pay the bills for quite a few ladies and if they just happened to be stationed where the women's national team was based? How convenient.

[The Ref]

I think we should start a discussion as to who could be a good new coach for the women. I am sure Carolina will be leaving as I can't see the CSA changing. They never have and never will. Some sort of agreement will be reached with the players but Carolina will leave just the same.

[Vic]

I think the results in the summer will go a long way to determining that ref.

tmcmurph, it may be outside the box but it's a hack so I doubt the CSA would be interested. The problem is it's a slippery precedent for the rest of sport in Canada. The next thing you know there are hundreds of sport bodies lined up at the door of DND. It's fair game to question that, but I hope as a country we can come up with a better place to line athletes up than the military.

Sport funding in Canada is really spastic (i.e. spasms, convulsive motions, etc). To take soccer for example, we have things like military and paralympic programs with more resources than our youth national teams this year.

Twenty years ago a funding aberration like that or a coach/player fiasco would have all been below the water line. If soccer was still culturally in the minor leagues like baseball or volleyball, would anyone care? Would it have anywhere even near the national media coverage?

By world growth rates soccer has exploded in Canada. In 20 years the participation rate has tripled, and the culture of the game is probably closer to ten times. That's a pretty massive and fast transformation from an amateur fringe sport to one of the country's prime sports. A god analogy would be what happens to the human body when it goes through something similar. We're still catching up to what it all means and how to cope with it, let alone optimize things. And as far as problems go it's a nice one to have. We'll get out of our teen years soon enough.

[Pete K]

Good post Pete.

On the control issue...

Do we know that? I hadn't read that anywhere. If you do have a link it would be a good reference. There have been a lot of cliches thrown but without more information any type of clinical analysis is pretty speculative.

All we really know is Morace feels strongly enough about something to cause a scene during the bid weighing, and it's something the CSA obviously feels concerned about the best interests of Canadian soccer over or we wouldn't be where we are.

Fair game. I doubt there's a coach in the history of the country who hasn't had their own perspective on the way the association should be run. It would be nice if it was all revealed in it's entirety so everyone could draw their own conclusions, but I really don't think that's going to or can happen. Fighting in the press never works out to well for anyone.

That leaves everyone, from you and I to the players and the media, with limited amounts of the story people want us to have. Not much to make a leap of faith on. The only leap I can make is that without more information about what we're talking about it's pretty difficult to say either side is right or wrong.

Hey Vic- Carmelina Moscato was interviewed on CBC TV, before she left the next day for Italy. In the interview she said that the problem was with Morace not having control over the budget (trying to find the link, failing miserably) However, Moscato was also interviewed in Our Game Magazine (www.ourgamemagazine.com). The article is 3 pages in and is an interview with Moscato about the boycott.

From the article "Moscato said that reports that Morace is looking for more money are “not true,” but that she wants control over the money in the budget, to make decisions, and ultimately have the resources in place for the betterment of the team."

I think that states pretty clearly from someone that is a chosen spokesperson of the group what the problems are. In some ways, I think bringing up the compensation issue at the same time is a bit of a shame, because although I can see the point in bringing it up now, while they really have the CSA and public's attention, at the same time, it takes the focus away from what is the central issue in the boycott. Again, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone whose job and career is judged in wins and losses, to be able to have full control over her budget, and be able to put things into place to allow her team to succeed. As I said before, if she runs over that budget, then I have no problem with the CSA stepping in, but at the very least she should be able to use and stretch her budget in whatever manner she feels is best.

But again, the shady manner in which the CSA operates in terms of transparency with that budget may be why the CSA are holding their cards so close. And to be honest, I would take a transparent CSA and a chance for the game to grow in our country over a Women's World Cup any day. I don't say that lightly, as a very passionate supporter of the women's game in this country, but I think more than the compensation issues that have been raised, more than even keeping Morace around as a coach, I really think the central hope that comes out of all this, is that the CSA is called on their bluff and forced to open their books. I think the lasting impact that that transparency, accountability and integrity that has been lacking at the upper levels of the game in this country, would out trump anything that a World Cup could give us.

At the end of the day, having this situation rectified and getting the World Cup, would be ideal. And that being said, even with this "mutiny" going on, if we don't get awarded the WWC over Zimbabwe with Mugabe and their human rights records, I think boycott or no boycott, we weren't going to get it anyways.

[Pete K]

Just curious, but as a collegiate athlete for most of her career, would Kara have even been eligible for any type of payments? I know college hockey/baseball players aren't allowed to accept anything from pro teams including transportation costs but I'm not sure if national teams would get an exception.

Brian, that's a good point. I thought the same thing when I saw that figure quoted, that it was somewhat hyperbolic. As you mentioned, for most of Lang's career she was a NCAA athlete, and therefore, not even able to collect the Sport Canada money, unless in the summer break from school. Furthermore, she would have been unable to collect any money that would have come from their performance in the 2003 WWC and other monies the team would have received in her time. I think quoting someone such as a Leblanc, would have painted a clearer picture on the compensation that the players have received over the last 10 years. I was a little disappointed that that figure was thrown out there as representative of the whole team, when many people in the public would not have had that knowledge (re: NCAA compensation rules).

Nevertheless the point stands, the women have never gotten any form of significant compensation directly from the CSA coffers (again with 400,000 girls playing soccer in this country, where is all the money going??), they have the added insult of having to fight for the prize money that they have won at tournaments with the CSA, and they have to be negotiating with the CSA during major tournaments for their prize money, instead of being able to focus on the competition. I would say, all 3 things, need to be addressed.

I spoke with a US National Team member this month, and as a sidenote, in their contract with the USSF, which expires in 2012 I believe, every player that makes the 18 man roster gets $2500/game. With many of the Canadian and US players playing together in WPS etc, no doubt that rubs just a little bit of salt in the wounds.

[CoachRich]

^

Parts of the current USWNT CBA

U.S. Soccer and the Women's National Team have finalized an agreement that will give its top players security through 2012.

The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association ratified a new collective bargaining agreement, U.S. Soccer announced on Wednesday.

The agreement includes the next two Women's World Cups -- 2007 and 2011 -- and Olympics -- 2008 and 2012.

Top players can earn at least $200,000 a year if they win the Women's World Cup or an Olympic gold-medal (they could get more -- $1,000 a game for each player -- for every international friendly won in a WWC or Olympic year, depending on the number of matches that year).

This makes the U.S. Women’s National Team the highest paid women's side in the world.

This was the second major agreement U.S. Soccer made with its National Teams within 16 days. On Dec. 19, the organization and the U.S. National Soccer Players' Association, which represents the men, approved a contract that runs through the 2010 World Cup.

If the men won the World Cup and every first-round match, they would be compensated more. The 23 players would receive $748,533 apiece. Winning the men's World Cup, which has a 32-team field, brings more prestige and brings in more money.

It also is much more difficult to win the men's World Cup than the women's. In fact, only seven countries have taken the last victory lap with the trophy in the 17 tournaments since 1930.

The women, however, have two tournaments to earn big pay days as opposed to the men's one, due to the WWC and Olympics.

The highlights of the women's agreement, according to a U.S. Soccer spokesman:

* A minimum of 14 players with earn a base salary $70,000 a year. A minimum of six players will make $50,000 a year and up to four more will earn $30,000.

* Players will get $50,000 apiece for finishing first or earning a gold medal in either the WWC or Olympics, $20,000 for second place or a silver medal and $10,000 for a bronze medal.

* If the U.S. wins the WWC or in the Olympics, they will have a 10-game victory or celebration tour in which the 20 players will split $1.2 million ($60,000 per player). If the U.S. finishes second, three games will be played for a total of $3,600 per player. If the Americans take third, a three-game tour will follow, which each performer getting $3,333.

* Each player will receive $10,000 for qualifying for either tournament and another $10,000 if they make the roster.

* Players will make $1,000 per win for all non-World Cup and Olympic games

* Depending on the team’s performance, there will be a minimum increase of 20 percent a year or a maximum hike of 27 percent.

* There will be a residency camp every year for the next three years. The camp will not exceed six total months.

* There also will be a housing allowance and stipend for moving expenses.

* If the Women's United Soccer Association returns or a Division I caliber league is launched during the course of the contract, U.S. Soccer would pay a reduced fulltime salary.

“This is a groundbreaking contract for U.S. Soccer and the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Player’s Association and allows these athletes to work professionally as elite soccer players in the United States while focusing on earning results on the field," U.S. Soccer president Dr. Bob Contiguglia said in a statement. "With this long-term agreement running through the year 2012, we are confident that our Women’s National Team program will maintain its position as the best in the world.

"This contract is a positive first step in continuing to integrate the Women’s National Team with the efforts to re-launch a women’s professional soccer league, which remains a focus for everyone involved in women’s soccer.”

U.S. captain Kristine Lilly, who is training with the rest of the team at The Home Depot Center in Carson, Calif. for the Four Nations Tournament in China that begins on Jan. 18, was happy things were settled.

“It is wonderful to have the contract signed and behind us," Lilly said in a statement. "This is an important year for the team as we begin focusing first on qualifying for the next Women’s World Cup and then winning a world championship in China in 2007.

“Our focus and goals have always been to be the best and that means winning world championships. We know that staying on top of the world is important in continuing to strengthen and grow women’s sports in the United States, which is part of our mission

[paul-collins]

At the end of the day, having this situation rectified and getting the World Cup, would be ideal. And that being said, even with this "mutiny" going on, if we don't get awarded the WWC over Zimbabwe with Mugabe and their human rights records, I think boycott or no boycott, we weren't going to get it anyways.

Quoted for emphasis. If we don't get it, it's because FIFA has judged that the CSA isn't ready for it and won't be by 2015. That's damning all on its own.

[Vic]

I don't agree with that Paul. We were miles ahead of Zimbabwe. The others pulled out because they knew it too. If we lose this bid it's 100% the result of this.

Pete, it appears you're pretty comfortable with Moscato having all the relevant information in the dealings and relationship between Morace and the CSA. I'm not comfortable she even has half of it, but I would agree 100% with this statement:

"I think that states pretty clearly [Morace's issues related to control] from someone that is a chosen spokesperson of the group what the problems are [from the information they have received]."

For the WPS players, we have 4. The Americans have an entire team of players in the league for every one we do. Also as Jason de Vos pointed out, that $2500 would cost us close to a million dollars a year. And again, if our players wanted that form of appearance fees allocated out of their program costs, did they ask Carolina Morace for it, and did she ask the CSA to execute on it? Those are pretty important questions when extreme measures are being taken.

It's all well to want the kid next door's allowance, but it's never as simple as "they got it, I deserve it." I would really like to see our women get appearance fees. They work damn hard for it and deserve it. But there's a process to that where things are planned and balanced in our budgets. The money moving there has ramifications to other things in the program.

Never enough Valentine's Day in Canadian women's soccer these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuFoMgP4IPot=00m39s

[paul-collins]

I don't agree with that Paul. We were miles ahead of Zimbabwe. The others pulled out because they knew it too. If we lose this bid it's 100% the result of this.

Again, I come back to "if this is enough for FIFA to dropkick our bid..." I fail to see this as a cause of basic unworthiness, but rather a symptom. CSA and the women have had years to sort this out, and the last time anyone tried to move the mountain they got hung out to dry. But the underlying problem hasn't gone away.

Let's put it this way: If FIFA were ok with the women pursuing this without any sort of protection offered by a CBA (regardless of appearance fees) but are not ok with the women trying to rectify it, do we as a country want to follow the example of FIFA? Or would we prefer a society that allows collective bargaining and openness?

I'm with CoachRich here. The goal isn't the WWC 2015. The goal is proper management of the game for all its participants. The WWC would be a manifestation of that, but should not be confused with the goal itself.

[Vic]

Sure, with the caveat that the Women's World Cup in 2015 is an absolute, whereas "proper management of the game for all its participants" is a subjective.

[paul-collins]

Sure, with the caveat that the Women's World Cup in 2015 is an absolute, whereas "proper management of the game for all its participants" is a subjective.

As in life in general... Although I prefer "evolving in understanding" rather than "subjective".