Unionizing

[Rheo]

Saw this came out during the game last night and haven't read the article yet but just putting it out here

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2016/11/30/canadas-top-women-want-younger-soccer-players-to-have-a-kick-at-fair-pay.html

[Rheo]

Finally read this and it's really good.  Glad to see the leadership stepping up.  Hopefully it's smooth between them and the CSA.

[Vic]

I have no idea what the economics are but I see no reason to disbelieve female compensation is an issue. But compared to the lack of opportunities for women domestically it's a dwarf.  It certainly would have been game-changing and powerfully effective if they had pressed on that front.

You wonder if it would not just be easier to go to a traditional national team model like on the men's side where we pull in the best players for friendlies and major tournaments.  Give them an suitable appearance fee equal to the gate and their merchandising power.

Get rid of all the salaries we are paying the players, get rid of the long residencies, get rid of all the meaningless tournaments.

On a global scale Canada has done an amazing job with the management of our national women's team.  Top 5%.  But in terms of management of the women's game, we are bottom 5%.

Pay the players well for their time as they have requested, take the surplus and start to right the ship.

[rkomar]

The advantage of the current system is that the favoured women have a chance to play regularly in the NWSL.  Get rid of that system, and I'm not sure most of they would have the same kind of opportunities.  The men have far more opportunities to play at the club level than the women do.  So, I don't think it makes sense to give women the same kind of pay system as the men have at this time.

I get that you're saying that we should develop a club system here to give them those opportunities, but I don't think taking their salaries away from them now and putting that piddling amount into leagues is going to accomplish much good.

[Vic]

Credit for the thought and interest in this.

Do they play regularly in the NWSL?  I haven't looked for a couple years but back then they didn't.  

What happens if we stop paying salaries?  The top women in Canada go to Europe instead of south.  If we want lengthy residencies that's an issue, but if we want to run the women's program like the men's program it's not.

To be compensated similar to the men means a transformation in the program that goes along with it.

If the women's program can turn a profit (and by that I mean net gate profit share and merchandising and not kids registration fees and government handouts) then definitely pay them what is deserved - salary or bonus, doesn't matter.  But the money paid should be representative to what is generated, and that after proper funding for the association and development of the women's game has been allocated.  Let alone to speak of the override needed in that to catch up for decades of neglect.

[rkomar]

I seem to recall that FIFA is boosting the money being paid to national organizations for women considerably (something like 50%?; I can't be bothered to google it).  So, that should help with the money being paid players.  The amount also depends on the country's ranking.  I remember Herdman saying that a drop in our rankings was going to hurt a lot of the programs we had in place.  I would guess that keeping a high ranking is a priority for the CSA.  Without it, there's a lot less cash to spread around.  So, any changes to the program are going to have to keep the senior team competitive in the near future until there's money from another source coming in.

[Vic]

I don't believe the FIFA money is earmarked for national teams, i think you had to meet requirements to seed it for advances in your coaching, leagues, etc.  The money they were giving was to use your word, piddling.  I think it was like $20K US if you had a 6-team national league.  So now it is piddling and a half.  I don't remember anything about it being tied to your ranking though.  Things like Own the Podium factor ranking in, I think they pumped in about two million dollars a year.

 

 

[rkomar]

I tried to google about the funding increase, and can't find a thing about it anywhere.  So, now I'm wondering what it was I saw?  Anyway, I guess the development funding bonanza isn't there like I thought it was.  You're probably right about OTP being the source they were worried about losing.

[Rheo]

17 hours ago, Vic said:

What happens if we stop paying salaries?  The top women in Canada go to Europe instead of south.  If we want lengthy residencies that's an issue, but if we want to run the women's program like the men's program it's not.

From what I've heard and read it's tough for the women to get into Europe.  Highly protective quotas to speed up the development curve.  I know CSA  (not sure of the right word pays/supports/subsidizes?) the NWSL to get players in.  Mexico was doing it but they pulled out of it.  If I wasn't at work I'd google it.  Maybe when there's a break lol

[Vic]

Mexico pulled out because the players they paid for didn't play a single minute all year long.

In some European countries they keep foreigners out by demanding you to be a national team player.  But the players in question are all national teamers.

 

[Vic]

17 hours ago, rkomar said:

I tried to google about the funding increase, and can't find a thing about it anywhere.  So, now I'm wondering what it was I saw?  Anyway, I guess the development funding bonanza isn't there like I thought it was.  You're probably right about OTP being the source they were worried about losing.

You may find this interesting:

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/women/02/43/90/64/wfguidelineinhaltenweb_neutral.pdf

[Rheo]

Another article from Sportsnet on this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/women-soccer-canada-players-association-diana-matheson-erin-mcleod/

[CanadianSoccerFan]

On 12/9/2016 at 2:25 AM, dsqpr said:

Interesting article but at the end of the day I'm afraid it is just a big wages whinge. When you mention the discrepancy between prize money at the men's and women's World Cups, a balanced article must also mention the MASSIVE revenue discrepancy between the two tournaments -- but it doesn't.

The men's and women's programmes should really be totally separated and each work with the revenue they individually generate, and pay their players accordingly. That would be fair. And it would not be bad for our women as they attract some fantastic crowds. If they generate more revenue than the men then they should be paid more than the men!

The reason it is hard for women to make a career out of football (in my opinion) is that the fan interest, and hence the revenue generating possibilities, is so much lower for women's club football. This is where their beef about wages should be directed! (But obviously that wouldn't get them anywhere.)

Cheering for your country is an entirely different thing from club football and the men certainly don't make their living off what they are paid by the CSA!

Men's and women's football are so completely different that it doesn't even make sense to compare them.

I think the nature of the discussion is a major reason why the Canadian MLS teams have avoided starting NWSL teams.  People are already bashing them for not starting teams, but even if they did it would inevitably lead to another equal pay dispute.  Considering TFC has a $25 million dollar payroll do they really want to take the public relations tarring for paying the women's team a small fraction of that?  Then they'd have to choose between financial disaster of equal pay or the public relations disaster of either paying them less or canning the team altogether.  

[rkomar]

Is it whinging to point out that you're going to lose players if they can't survive at it?  If you want them to behave like professionals, then make it possible for them to be professionals.

[rkomar]

Well, the "whinging" has been about compensation for national team play, not at the club level.  The article is worth a read.  Here's an excerpt: "McLeod and her teammates don’t know the details of the Canadian men’s compensation structure, so unlike their American counterparts they aren’t looking to compare themselves to the men. Instead, they use the top teams in the women’s game as a reference point."

[rkomar]

Maybe I missed something, but isn't it the American women who are comparing themselves to men, not the Canadian women?

[Vic]

If the women want more money godspeed in a fair reflective amount calculated on net profits after proper allocations to the association and domestic game have been made.  That goes for women's basketball, volleyball, hockey, softball, etc.  

For the past decade we've had one of the best funded programs in the world.  It's the reason our program and players excelled.  We have had players in camp for the better part of years, we've paid their salaries for years, etc. 

As a country (public support and registration fees) we have spent tens of millions of dollars on the top 20 women in this country over the past decade.  It appears this has not trickled down sufficiently into the wallets of the top 20, which is understandable.  There was probably a lot of things they had to attend/commit to that were part of the whole package they didn't enjoy.

A good exercise would be to examine the funding and resources invested in the 21st to 250th senior women in the country over the similar past decade.  Because the imbalance there on a global comparative for a country of our stature is enormously disproportionate.

[Lord Bob]

In the article they (Matheson especially) don't sound especially militant. They're forming a structure to look after their interests and that's fair enough; maybe it will lead to American-style ridiculousness, but if that was their immediate goal they'd be shooting a lot hotter fire. After all, this team did get in legal fistfights with the CSA in years past and didn't need a union to do it.

There's just nothing to judge right now.

[Complete Homer]

On 23/12/2016 at 4:31 PM, Benjamin Massey said:

In the article they (Matheson especially) don't sound especially militant. They're forming a structure to look after their interests and that's fair enough; maybe it will lead to American-style ridiculousness, but if that was their immediate goal they'd be shooting a lot hotter fire. After all, this team did get in legal fistfights with the CSA in years past and didn't need a union to do it.

There's just nothing to judge right now.

Have to agree with this. I think it's easy to jump the gun and assume they are going to going to go over the edge like USWNT, but all they are doing is exercising their right to bargain collectively 

Considering CSA is apparently pursuing some sort of SUM-like entity, revenue from CWNT games might be directed into a very different looking structure, and the players really should look ahead to ensure they can negotiate their fair share of the revenue generated by their matchs

[Lord Bob]

22 hours ago, dsqpr said:

Totally agree with that. Revenue from women's matches should be directed 100% to the women's programme, and ditto for the men.

But I think their objective goes further and this is implied in the Matheson quote I posted above.

The only implications in that direction are from ToStar mittenstringer, not Matheson's actual words. To an extent McLeod was speaking in those terms as well, but she was speaking more in the automatic parlance of somebody who's learned "inequality!" is the best way to get results than somebody with both ground and plans for a crusade.

[rob.notenboom]

The words 'equality' and 'inequality' don't even appear in the article. Equity does however. But that can mean a whole bunch of different things depending on the interpretation of those involved.

[rob.notenboom]

5 hours ago, dsqpr said:

Actually, the phrase in the article is "gender equity", and it is in a sentence that also mentions "women's compensation":

“It’s an issue across the globe right now,” Matheson said about gender equity and women’s compensation in soccer.

And "gender" is the key word. If this is simply the women players banding together to negotiate with the CSA then gender has nothing to do with it. However, if this is going to turn into a wages whinge about how much the women are paid compared to the men then it has everything to do with it.

I posted the definition of "equity" below. It seems pretty clear to me from the context that the first definition is the one intended.

eq·ui·ty

ˈekwədē/

noun

1. 1.

   the quality of being fair and impartial.

   "equity of treatment"

   synonyms:

   fairness, justness, impartiality,egalitarianism; More

    
2. 2.

   the value of the shares issued by a company.

   "he owns 62% of the group's equity"

   synonyms:

   value, worth;

I agree with all of that. My point was simply that ascribing the word 'equality' to either what Matheson said or to what the author of the article wrote is incorrect and could lead to a misinterpretation of what was said in the article. Equity is another matter entirely, and as you've pointed out above, it could easily be a fair interpretation that compensation would be based on the revenue they generate.