CSA Financial Statements - Dec. 31, 2017

[Binky]

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/canada-financial-statements.pdf?cloudid=uozsijkzqrikkdubqiln

[Reign]

So uh... what does this all mean ? I’m no accountant haha.

[SkuseisLoose]

Here’s 2018’s all I’ve gotten from it is that, I think, the CSA has lost 4 million over the last 2 years which could be a reason for lack of friendlies for the men’s side. The above statement is only true if having higher expenses then revenues actually matters in the end. Because it says later on they had almost $4,000,000 in cash at the end of the year.

https://www.canadasoccer.com/files/The_Canadian_Soccer_Association_Incorporated.pdf

[BuzzAndSting]

So the CSA lost $1.6M in 2018. Down from a loss of $2.2M in 2017. 

[JamboAl]

The other telling thing is that the balance sheet shows the CSA is not this huge organization with oodles of cash to blow.  In fact, for an FA in an industrialized country, it’s pretty bare bones.

[SF]

The CSA has taken to posting these documents on its website (there was a time when they were very loathe to do so) and I think they should be commended for this kind of transparency.

As far as how to read the financials, I think the story is quite telling around both the CSA and soccer in general in our country.  The statement that this is a small organization is spot on - very bare bones and limited in what it can achieve. In effect, this is a body that runs national team programs (and they are clearly not expansive programs) and sets standards (though they lack both the means to ensure execution).

Further, the revenue base is largely dependent on grass roots fees (approx 40% after you adjust for the revenue items detailed in note 7).  This financial model will never allow to the CSA to properly execute a long term national vision/strategy.  The financial architecture of the system simply won't allow for top down leadership, which in most successful countries is what you will encounter.  

So, how do you fix this?  That's the million dollar question and likely rests on (a) the sustained success of the mens program and (b) the ability to monetize any success.  

[Binky]

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/jamaica-financial-statements.pdf?cloudid=dvoretmdotk6mokju78o

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/saudi-arabia-financial-statements.pdf?cloudid=kua4oxkawpmk9u8b6lkg

Edited August 6, 2019 by Binky

[Bison44]

On 8/6/2019 at 10:25 AM, BuzzAndSting said:

So the CSA lost $1.6M in 2018. Down from a loss of $2.2M in 2017. 

So we lost less money than 2017, but spent an extra million on the WC bid, shaved a million off the marketing/stagin/communication expenses and all other expenses were down a few % from 2017.    Extra 1.4mil in CONCACAF grants (assuming this is to help with the nation league expenses?).  

The big change was the commerical revenue...down 2.3mil...I am assuming this is sponsorship and revenue from games??  Less games in 2018, less revenue??  Overall net assest are only down slightly. ???? Help me out Buzz...what conclusions am I to draw from all this??  Are we as bad off as some would leave us to believe?  

[Lansdude]

As long as the CMNT sucks, this is a vicious circle. Some success will lead to revenue that doesn't require extra ad spending.

Maybe Hockey Canada can throw them a ten million dollar loan or something.

[BuzzAndSting]

5 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

So we lost less money than 2017, but spent an extra million on the WC bid, shaved a million off the marketing/stagin/communication expenses and all other expenses were down a few % from 2017.    Extra 1.4mil in CONCACAF grants (assuming this is to help with the nation league expenses?).  

The big change was the commerical revenue...down 2.3mil...I am assuming this is sponsorship and revenue from games??  Less games in 2018, less revenue??  Overall net assest are only down slightly. ???? Help me out Buzz...what conclusions am I to draw from all this??  Are we as bad off as some would leave us to believe?  

All accurate observation however the drop in commercial revenue is noted as "primarily attributable to sponsorship and international television rights." That could be either to MNT, the WNT or both.

As far as conclusions, I'm not sure, I've never looked at another federations FS so it's hard to gauge what's normal.

From a business standpoint the CSA does seem very conservative based on the amount of cash they keep on hand and what they invest in GICs.

Also the distribution between both senior programs is almost evenly split, which I would guess a lot of our Central American and Caribbean counterparts don't do.

The expenses for both senior programs represents about half of all revenue and the total expenses for all youth programs represents another quarter. That seems like a good ratio, 75 cents of every dollar goes directly to running NT programs.

Based on how narrow the margins are it makes sense that the CSA is risk averse to hosting friendlies. Risking 5-10% of your total revenue on one games is not prudent especially when you consider we're prone to a major fail every now and then, see Curacao in Montreal.

Overall they spend more money then they bring in which is fine to a certain extent because they know they have guaranteed and predictable revenue every year through player registrations. But it also makes sense why we don't see more camps and games because whatever they spend on the MNT they have to spend on the WNT to maintain equality.

[Kadenge]

It's interesting that commercial revenue has been in steady decline for the past 3 years. The CWNT has received an extra $1M approx $500K/yr in funding over 2 years 2018/17. I recall reading a report which indicated boys youth registrations were higher than girls? Can't remember where. Very difficult to analyze without more details as is the case with most financial statements. The CSA are holding about 3 years of cash requirements in net current assets; so clearly we need to boost revenues if we are going to see friendlies 😯

[Bison44]

Do we really lose money on a friendly? Say we are having a camp anyway....a second game in a window kind of thing?  

[BuzzAndSting]

24 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Do we really lose money on a friendly? Say we are having a camp anyway....a second game in a window kind of thing?  

I don’t know exactly how they work but from my understanding you have to pay for all expense for the visiting team and potentially an appearance fee. Considering we operate on a loss, even a less popular team like a Caribbean minnow would be a risky balance between an attractive opponent and an affordable one.

[SoccMan]

Don’t know how much it would help financially but I think in terms of friendlies the CSA should schedule more games against national teams that might be cheaper to bring over in terms of appearance fees and can draw a big crowd . For instance Toronto has a huge Iranian population why not schedule a game versus Iran at BMO , yes I know it would be 90 percent pro Iran but who cares the money the CSA could make in such a friendly would out weigh that. Even a South Korea would pack them in at BMO . I can’t remember when Canada last played a friendly in say Toronto against a country that  would almost guarantee a full BMO.

Edited October 5, 2019 by SoccMan

[Bison44]

1 hour ago, SoccMan said:

Don’t know how much it would help financially but I think in terms of friendlies the CSA should schedule more games against national teams that might be cheaper to bring over in terms of appearance fees and can draw a big crowd . For instance Toronto has a huge Iranian population why not schedule a game versus Iran at BMO , yes I know it would be 90 percent pro Iran but who cares the money the CSA could make in such a friendly would out weigh that. Even a South Korea would pack them in at BMO . I can’t remember when Canada last played a friendly in say Toronto against a country that  would almost guarantee a full BMO.

It might do the team some good, facing a hostile crowd, HAHA!!  But with the quality of team that we have now, we shouldnt be worried about 4-5000 road fans showing up.  Now just have to find someone cheap, willing to come, popular with our fans, and over rated in the rankings so we get a ton of points after we beat them.  Shouldnt be too hard eh?  

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

17 hours ago, Kadenge said:

It's interesting that commercial revenue has been in steady decline for the past 3 years.

1) Didn't the CSA load up on well-paying sponsors in 2014 & 2015 for the U-20 WWC & especially the WWC?

2) We sold out BC Place in 2016 for the Mexico game.

3) You can tell there is less money coming in now.

-When you buy a Powerade bottle now the CSA's logo isn't there anymore (no longer any money coming in from Coca Cola like there was a few years back?)

-Amway doesn't sponsor the Canadian Championship anymore. In fact there was no sponsor at all this year!

[red card]

The CSA now only has 3 primary sponsors: AllState, Toyota & Nike. Teck & Christie are secondary partners. Powerade is an associate partner. 

CSA used to have Bell & BMO as primaries +a bunch of secondaries. A healthy number of primary sponsors should be 5-6. Part of it is the hangover post WWC but the CSA has never been very good at getting tier 1 sponsors. They don't even bother putting up a sponsor board up on the pitch when players are interviewed - at least the CPL does this.

Though, Canadian national sports bodies aren't much better except for Hockey Canada. The pro sports teams take up too much oxygen and corporate Canada doesn't seem comfortable with "international" sports ex Olympics (but only every 4 years).

The CSA is basically a penny stock f it was listed on the TSX Venture. Except it is managed conservatively and they don't own any physical assets of note.

Looking at Jamaican fed statements posted above, they're at a different level. They own $180M in property, have $61M in cash (yet didn't pay the women's team this year) but have been mismamanged in the past given the accumulated deficit of $216M.

Looking at the US statements ending March 2018, they had $103M in revenue (applying the 10x rule, the CSA revenue generation looks good). About 50% of the US revenues came from sponorship, licensing, royalties & tv. But in the year ended March 2017, the US generated $291M in revenue of which $190 came from game revenues. Not national teams game revenues which were $49M. So, this looks like revenues from Copa America. No wonder the US is begging to want have another combined Copa tourney. 

[BuzzAndSting]

1 hour ago, red card said:

The CSA now only has 3 primary sponsors: AllState, Toyota & Nike. Teck & Christie are secondary partners. Powerade is an associate partner. 

CSA used to have Bell & BMO as primaries +a bunch of secondaries. A healthy number of primary sponsors should be 5-6. Part of it is the hangover post WWC but the CSA has never been very good at getting tier 1 sponsors. They don't even bother putting up a sponsor board up on the pitch when players are interviewed - at least the CPL does this.

Though, Canadian national sports bodies aren't much better except for Hockey Canada. The pro sports teams take up too much oxygen and corporate Canada doesn't seem comfortable with "international" sports ex Olympics (but only every 4 years).

The CSA is basically a penny stock f it was listed on the TSX Venture. Except it is managed conservatively and they don't own any physical assets of note.

Looking at Jamaican fed statements posted above, they're at a different level. They own $180M in property, have $61M in cash (yet didn't pay the women's team this year) but have been mismamanged in the past given the accumulated deficit of $216M.

Looking at the US statements ending March 2018, they had $103M in revenue (applying the 10x rule, the CSA revenue generation looks good). About 50% of the US revenues came from sponorship, licensing, royalties & tv. But in the year ended March 2017, the US generated $291M in revenue of which $190 came from game revenues. Not national teams game revenues which were $49M. So, this looks like revenues from Copa America. No wonder the US is begging to want have another combined Copa tourney. 

What currency do figure those JFF statements are in? I assumed it was the Jamaican dollar which makes their revenue closer to ours in real dollers.

[red card]

1 hour ago, BuzzAndSting said:

What currency do figure those JFF statements are in? I assumed it was the Jamaican dollar which makes their revenue closer to ours in real dollers.

Yes I assumed it was in J dollars based on the notes section. But given the much smaller Jamaican economy, their association is a larger player in Jamaica than the CSA in Canada. 

With the huge econ and currency difference of C$1 equal to about J$100, comparisons will usually show JFF lagging the CSA. JFF revenues are more dependent on FIFA handouts but they actually got less in C$ terms than the CSA in 2017.

Plus, structural differences means different revenue drivers. The CSA is more relaint on govt handouts and player fees than JFF. Something called match fees accounted for 30% of JFF revenues while it is hard to find something similar with the CSA.