The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Ottawafan]

2 minutes ago, SF said:

I think it's reasonably well established that the CPL does not exist absent the CSB transaction. Even rich people won't run a business as a charity (see Edmonton). Nor should they be expected to.

Whether it's a good investment by the CSA is another matter and open for debate. 

It's not a surprise that the players want more money and they're not even wrong in that stance - in fact, they're almost certainly right.

The issue is the CSA simply cannot afford their demands because (a) the CSB deal impaired their ability to realize some of the revenues associated with the on field success and (b) the CSA has done a poor job of leveraging that success into new or expanded revenue streams.

It's a pretty clear case of financial and communication (with the players dating back a very long time) mismanagement by the CSA.

 

CSA seemingly has determined what’s more important. They’ve put the players second otherwise they would have worked with them in good faith towards resolving the issues that have persisted for a year now. 

[Gian-Luca]

As embarrassing as that two-page Q &A released by the women is, or the character assassinations being done of Charmaine Crooks is, to take their complaints seriously for a mopment, the main question that they don't ask is one of motivation.

What would Charmaine Crooks motivation be for wanting to harm, do damage or refuse to help the women's team and women's soccer players?

With Bontis, even though I don't believe it to be the case, at least the women could imply a slight whiff of "old boys misogyny" or the fact that he's man prioritizing the men's game over the women or what have you. But in their statement they are saying Crooks is the same as Bontis and has done nothing but harm the women's game. So what is her supposed motivation for this - she hates women? She has no respect (the favourite word the women keep throwing out) for female athletes? She's just in this to line her own pockets with imaginary volunteer funds at the expense of the women? Or are they saying that she's a mindless woman with no will or thoughts of her own who will continue to be brainwashed by Bontis after he's gone?

Or maybe, just maybe, there are some good reasons why the CSA did a deal with the CSB for the good of the game, and maybe, just maybe, it's incredibly silly to compare the extra demands made upon the CSA by Men's World Cup qualifying vs. the 2-game WCQ "cycle" for the women, and the extra funds provided by FIFA for successful Men's World Cup qualification?

For the people who think that the people on this board are against the national teams or didn't cheer for them in Qatar, the truth is that people on this board want what is best for Canadian soccer. The actions and comments of the players off the field are not conducive or helpful - and often detrimental if they want to destroy the CPL - to what is best for Canadian soccer as a whole. That is why, instead of just being mindless soccer fans who automatically support anything the players say or do (which is what social media seems to be full of, although that's in part because they are less informed than your average poster here is), we're criticizing the actions, comments or apparent motivations of the players where it seems appropriate. The women's team taking a preemptive strike at Charmaine Crooks before she's even had time to scratch her nose doesn't make them look good at all, and the pundits like Kyle & Walsh are only exacerbating the problem with their comments. It's incredible that they keep talking about a lack of "respect" and then continue to show a far greater lack of respect than announcing a Nations' League home match for the men's team could ever possibly be.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, gator said:

Seems that some of the women are not happy with Crooks already:

They are the ones not supporting the first woman in the post, albeit interim, not giving her any credit, not accepting that a board is not always based on consensus, and notably, jumping on and insulting a person who is from a racial minority. That shows an incredible lack of solidarity and repeats a classic pattern of judging certain people very quickly and turning a blind eye for others.

I find it distasteful, and I'm understating.

I'm sorry if I am not using the right term, but I am trying to make a point. Would they support her if she were a former WNT player? 

It is not lost on me that the only players designated to "speak on behalf" before the Heritage Committee, are Sinclair, Beckie, Quinn and Schmidt, the old guard, and not exactly a reliable cross section representing the diversity of the WNT.

[SF]

28 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

CSA seemingly has determined what’s more important. They’ve put the players second otherwise they would have worked with them in good faith towards resolving the issues that have persisted for a year now. 

Think that's fair.  The CSA has many stakeholders to balance, they NT players being one of them. Clearly, they've lost the plot with respect to the NT players.

[SF]

2 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

They are the ones not supporting the first woman in the post, albeit interim, not giving her any credit, not accepting that a board is not always based on consensus, and notably, jumping on and insulting a person who is from a racial minority. That shows an incredible lack of solidarity and repeats a classic pattern of judging certain people very quickly and turning a blind eye for others.

I find it distasteful, and I'm understating.

I'm sorry if I am not using the right term, but I am trying to make a point. Would they support her if she were a former WNT player? 

It is not lost on me that the only players designated to "speak on behalf" before the Heritage Committee, are Sinclair, Beckie, Quinn and Schmidt, the old guard, and not exactly a reliable cross section representing the diversity of the WNT.

Agree that the players are not covering themselves in glory. They have an important perspective and some legitimate complaints, but their approach to communications has been wanting and, at times, offensive and idiotic.

I don't know what is happening behind the scenes, but it really feels like they need some good professional advice (communications, financial, legal).

All that said, things are probably trending toward their preferred outcome (complete CSA blowup), so maybe they do know what they're doing. 

[kacbru]

1 minute ago, SF said:

Agree that the players are not covering themselves in glory. They have an important perspective and some legitimate complaints, but their approach to communications has been wanting and, at times, offensive and idiotic.

I don't know what is happening behind the scenes, but it really feels like they need some good professional advice (communications, financial, legal).

All that said, things are probably trending toward their preferred outcome (complete CSA blowup), so maybe they do know what they're doing. 

It's almost like they are just as dysfunctional as the CSA.  They deserve each other!

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, SF said:

The issue is the CSA simply cannot afford their demands because (a) the CSB deal impaired their ability to realize some of the revenues associated with the on field success and

Historically, did the CSA ever had the experience and/or competence to do that? When the women were winning medals and we were hosting WWC, how would you rate the CSA ability to capitalize on it?

Did we get a league? Were they swimming in sponsorship? How did the semi-pro women scene looked like?

No one wanted the media rights and not many wanted to invest in soccer which is the CSA responsibility to make happen in the first place - perhaps they aren't very good at business case?

Even if they do cut some deals, the Nike deal just demonstrates how ill-equipped they are handle that size of the business. They are a small and understaffed organization with little to no expertise in that area.

In a nutshell, they contracted out the marketing side to another party that got the business community on board, got deals done, got ALL the games on TV, started a D1 league plus expanding/revamping D3. They do it at a fee/percentage and pay a flat fee to the CSA - money they didn't got initially 

That being said, I fully acknowledge that in retrospect - they undervalued their properties and it seems that CSB valuation was accurate. It's called business and further proof that the CSA has some growing up to do in that area before being ready to do this themselves.

It's the same process as the USSF and now they believe they can do all of this themselves without SUM. The CSA isn't capable yet.

1 hour ago, SF said:

(b) the CSA has done a poor job of leveraging that success into new or expanded revenue streams.

According to footy prime podcast, the CSA still have areas that aren't in the CSB deal that they could use to get more revenues.

There's also the grey zone of using player's likeliness who could be a good place to start some negotiations or clarifications which could lead to more money to players (this get the players paid more, not solving CSA issues)

Before trying to rip appart the CSB contract (which won't be), the CSA needs to explore ALL avaliable tools at their disposal to add more revenues 

There's so much nuances about the CSB deal but unfortunately, the players don't care to grasp all of its multiple nuances 

1 hour ago, SF said:

It's a pretty clear case of financial and communication (with the players dating back a very long time) mismanagement by the CSA.

Everyone agrees with this

Edited March 4, 2023 by Ansem

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, SF said:

The issue is the CSA simply cannot afford their demands because (a) the CSB deal impaired their ability to realize some of the revenues associated with the on field success

I feel like I keep asking this without ever receiving an answers but where is this assumption coming from if we don’t know how much any of the sponsorship deals bring in, what the terms are, what the durations are, whether it’s cash or simply merch/goods, whether they are intended for national teams, CPL teams, CPL league, parateams, youth team, League 1s etc?

Is it entirely based on national team assumptions?

Edited March 4, 2023 by Aird25

[grigorio]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

I feel like I keep asking this without ever receiving an answers but where is this assumption coming from if we don’t know how much any of the sponsorship deals bring in, what the terms are, what the durations are, whether it’s cash or simply merch/goods, whether they are intended for national teams, CPL teams, CPL league, parateams, youth team, League 1s etc?

Is it entirely based on national team assumptions?

Come on everyone knows it’s 18 million in cold hard cash (which of course only came in cause of the NTs) which is now lining the pockets of the CSB billionaires for them to upgrade their yachts to mink fur seats. At least that’s what I heard on Twitter. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

12 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

As embarrassing as that two-page Q &A released by the women is, or the character assassinations being done of Charmaine Crooks is, to take their complaints seriously for a mopment, the main question that they don't ask is one of motivation.

What would Charmaine Crooks motivation be for wanting to harm, do damage or refuse to help the women's team and women's soccer players? ...

Personal advancement is what motivates a lot of people first and foremost when they get into a position like that. That means rocking the boat is very much off their agenda. Beyond that given who votes on who gets to be a board member in the first place, anyone who was likely to rock the boat in a big way was unlikely to ever get anywhere near one of those bespoke suits.

As for it somehow being embarrassing that the CWNT would have the temerity to express an opinion about the current state of affairs with the CSA now that the CSB deal is in place, let's consider whether the national team programs are actually tangibly benefiting in some way from CanPL's existence? Marginal at best on the men's side when there can be a 60 man provisional roster for the Gold Cup without a single CanPL player on it:

https://canpl.ca/article/canmnt-names-60-man-preliminary-roster-for-concacaf-gold-cup

and non-existent on the women's side when there is no women's pro league linked into that. Did it make sense to sign away 10+10 years worth of sponsorship related revenue streams without first seeing how the rhetoric surrounding CanPL's launch was going to translate into reality? 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Gian-Luca]

2 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Personal advancement is what motivates a lot of people first and foremost when they get into a position like that. That means rocking the boat is very much off their agenda. Beyond that given who votes on who gets to be a board member in the first place, anyone who was likely to rock the boat in a big way was unlikely to ever get anywhere near one of those bespoke suits.

As for it somehow being embarrassing that the CWNT would have the temerity to express an opinion about the current state of affairs with the CSA now that the CSB deal is in place, let's consider whether the national team programs are actually tangibly benefiting in some way from CanPL's existence? Marginal at best on the men's side when there can be a 60 man provisional roster for the Gold Cup without a single CanPL player on it:

https://canpl.ca/article/canmnt-names-60-man-preliminary-roster-for-concacaf-gold-cup

and non-existent on the women's side when there is no women's pro league linked into that. Did it make sense to sign away 10+10 years worth of sponsorship related revenue streams without first seeing how the rhetoric surrounding CanPL's launch was going to translate into reality? 

 

It is not the fact that the women's team (and its former members now acting as pundits) are expressing an opinion which is embarrassing, it is the content of the "opinions" being expressed which is embarrassing.

Let's take a moment to dissect the statements being made.

Charmaine Crooks - leaving aside the poor optics of their personal attack on her in their statement, it is embarrassing to publicly call for change in leadership and then, once they receive it, pre-emptively attack the new leader before she's had barely even had a chance to scratch her own rear end. "We're prejudiced against her and we proudly admit it" isn't exactly a good look.

Reasons for their strike - they now admit that the men's team is also having their funding cut in 2023, so the source of their ire is that the women's team isn't getting the same funding and resources in 2023 that the men got in 2021 and 2022 in the lead-up to the World Cup. They have yet to acknowledge even once the disparity in funding provided by FIFA for the Men's World Cup vs. the Women's, nor the astronomically-greater demands imposed upon the CSA by the men's qualification program as well as the Gold Cup given these greater demands were (CSB deal or no CSB deal) 5 times that of the women's WCQ & Gold Cup (which, unlike the men were one and the same). The women's inability to acknowledge this (or that the women's nations league hasn't started up yet but it had for the men during this period), is at best disingenuous. And attempting to strike for disingenuous reasons is also embarrassing.

Of course, the women are also claiming that they aren't getting the same resources in camp for the She Believes Cup as the men did for the World Cup. Leaving aside the silliness of that comparison and the FIFA funding disparity, they also have claimed in their statement that the CSA has advised them that they can't afford to run camps in all of the FIFA windows, and they cite this as one of the factors that "impact the quality" of their preparation for the World Cup. Except that a quick check of the FIFA calendar indicates that their are two windows in 2023 (February & April) ahead of the World Cup and the CSA has obviously scheduled camps for both of those, which means that the 2023 windows without camps are occurring after the World Cup, yet the women are dishonestly citing the lack of camps in FIFA windows in 2023 as an adverse factor in their preparation (and then threatening to not play matches in the pre-World Cup windows anyway). This flagrant dishonesty is also embarrassing, although I suppose it is only embarrassing to people who do their fact-checking first, which likely won't occur with those members of the media who are only there for stirring up the controversy and discord and to further their journalistic careers in the process.

I'm assuming the media and the politicians will also likely be unaware that traditionally the CSA has funded more camps and spend more money on the women than the men, which just takes a quick check of the following cap numbers to get a good idea about. At age 21, Jordyn Huitema - who hasn't yet established herself as a permanent starter on the women's team - has 63 caps. Only 3 players on the men's WC team had more - Piette (age 28) with 66, Borjan (aged 35) with 71 and Atiba (aged 39 at the WC) with 101. Canada's current and all-time caps leader has the same number as 28 year old Janine Beckie. Jessie Fleming has got 124 caps and she's yet to turn 25. These numbers are not outliers - other members of the women's team who have more than 101 caps yet haven't even hit their 30s in age include Kadeisha Buchanan with 131 (she's only 27) and Ashley Lawrence (116 caps by age 27), while Quinn, Prince, Leon, and Zedorsky are closing in on 100 caps and given that they are all in the 28-30 age range, are likely also to surpass Atiba's men's record barring unforseen career-ending injuries. I haven't mentioned the most experienced members of the women's team who have cap numbers that not even our most talented men's players are ever likely to reach half of. Yes, the disparity won't be as egregious going forward due to the growth of the women's professional game, but that still doesn't mean that this historical context should be tossed aside or ignored just because, just for once, the CSA were forced to spend money on the men's team in 2021 & 2022.

The women's team members and pundits are within their prerogative to demand an end to the CPL (which is effectively what they are doing by asking for the death of the CSB deal),  even though there is a future women's league that has been announced which the developers of indicated that they hope to take advantage of CPL facilities in order to make their league feasible. The pundits are within their rights to publicly slam the first ever female President of the CSA by saying she's going to hell for not helping other women, even though by assassinating her character before she's barely begun in the role, they are doing exactly what they are accusing her of doing (not helping other women). The pundits are also within their rights to accuse the CSA of a lack of respect for the women by scheduling a men's team Nation's League home match in, strangely enough, at home. We are however within our rights to point out how hypocritical, stupid or ill-informed these comments are and yes, to point out how embarrassing they are. Perhaps embarrassing isn't the best word to use - shameful might be more apt.

As for whether the term length for the CSB deal made sense, that isn't even an issue that the Women's team are raising, they are complaining about the deal's existence right now.

[gator]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

 

As for it somehow being embarrassing that the CWNT would have the temerity to express an opinion about the current state of affairs with the CSA now that the CSB deal is in place, let's consider whether the national team programs are actually tangibly benefiting in some way from CanPL's existence? Marginal at best on the men's side when there can be a 60 man provisional roster for the Gold Cup without a single CanPL player on it:

https://canpl.ca/article/canmnt-names-60-man-preliminary-roster-for-concacaf-gold-cup

 

 

Another dig at the fledgling league which survived a pandemic and is in its infancy, the 60 man roster you pasted is from almost 2 years ago btw but anything to fit your narrative!

[dyslexic nam]

12 minutes ago, gator said:

Another dig at the fledgling league which survived a pandemic and is in its infancy, the 60 man roster you pasted is from almost 2 years ago btw but anything to fit your narrative!

It is a perfect example of the “logic” he uses.   He cites a roster from the GC two years ago as proof that the CPL is providing no tangible benefit for the CMNT, while ignoring the fact that a CPL alumni (Waterman) went to the World Cup as part of the 26-man roster. It is such a blatantly and undeniably biased take on things - and yet he will cry victim when people accuse him of that bias.   

[Gian-Luca]

9 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

It is a perfect example of the “logic” he uses.   He cites a roster from the GC two years ago as proof that the CPL is providing no tangible benefit for the CMNT, while ignoring the fact that a CPL alumni (Waterman) went to the World Cup as part of the 26-man roster. It is such a blatantly and undeniably biased take on things - and yet he will cry victim when people accuse him of that bias.   

It seems a strange time to be complaining about the CPL providing no tangible benefit given that a couple of weeks ago it was confirmed that Canada has qualified for the 2026 World Cup which is on the back of the CPL being formed as part of the bid documents. Meanwhile last night one third of Canadian MLS teams didn’t start any Canadians (and still lost for the second week in a row) and the only Canadian they did play late in the game is a veteran who is unlikely to feature for the national team again, while of the two teams that did field a bunch of Canucks last night, one of them started two youngsters who have CPL experience (while this doesn’t include the injured aforementioned Waterman).

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

1 hour ago, gator said:

Another dig at the fledgling league which survived a pandemic and is in its infancy, the 60 man roster you pasted is from almost 2 years ago btw but anything to fit your narrative!

The narrative when the league was launched was that MLS wasn't providing enough opportunities for the CMNT so there was a need for a domestic league to provide more opportunities not necessarily for the regular starters but at least for players on the fringes of CMNT inclusion. No more Unattached FC on CMNT roster announcements was a much repeated refrain.

Around 2018 if I had suggested on here that there would be 0 out of 60 CanPL players on a Gold Cup provisional roster in 2021 I would have received a barrage of personal abuse and ridicule from the usual suspects. I didn't actually do that because I would not have believed that was actually possible at that time.

If there were CMNT players actually playing in CanPL at the moment and there was a women's division starting up as well to do something similar for the CWNT after things had gone really well on the men's side in that regard then it would be a lot easier for the CSA to justify having CMNT and CWNT driven sponsorships flowing in that direction.

In the absence of those things happening you wind up where we are at right now and a lot of very unhappy campers some of whom have gone as far as labelling CanPL as a "minor league" in a press release.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

51 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

It seems a strange time to be complaining about the CPL providing no tangible benefit...

Try responding to what I actually write rather than dishonestly distorting what I have written like this and building misleading strawman arguments:

4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

... let's consider whether the national team programs are actually tangibly benefiting in some way from CanPL's existence? Marginal at best on the men's side ...

I am well aware that some fringe CMNT players like Waterman benefited from time spent in MLS. That's why I wrote "marginal at best".

Edited March 5, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Copes]

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

It is such a blatantly and undeniably biased take on things - and yet he will cry victim when people accuse him of that bias.   

 

16 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Around 2018 if I had suggested on here that there would be 0 out of 60 CanPL players on a Gold Cup provisional roster in 2021 I would have received a barrage of personal abuse and ridicule from the usual suspects on here. I didn't actually do that because I would not have believed that was actually possible at that time.

 

Less than an hour! 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Copes
Shorten

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

...and what's your point? Are you able to respond to the substance of my argument? There's a reason why the CMNT view it as a "minor league". If a lot of them were playing in it, they would have a very different perspective and the CSB deal would be a lot less controversial in an MLS/SUM and the USMNT sort of way as originally envisaged.

[Copes]

5 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

...and what's your point? Are you able to respond to the substance of my argument? There's a reason why the CMNT view it as a "minor league". If a lot of them were playing in it, they would have a very different perspective and the CSB deal would be a lot less controversial in an MLS/SUM and the USMNT sort of way as originally envisaged.

Any argument that looks at a 4 year old league, and says "See! See! It isn't working!" is just outright foolish in my opinion. Of course the CMNT-roster wasn't going to be jam-packed with CPL players immediately. 

The fact that there was any CPL-alum on the Qatar team... the first WC cycle in the league's existence should be a feather in the league's cap. Let's see how many CPL-alum are on the team in 2026. It should be more than 2022. That'll tell us if the league is indeed contributing as a pathway for player development (which is the intent). 

It's like planting a sapling in a forest and coming back a year later and pointing out that the lack of new 24-foot tall trees is proof that planting new trees is a waste of time. No shit, it takes some time.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Copes
missed a word

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

8 minutes ago, Copes said:

...Of course the CMNT-roster wasn't going to be jam-packed with CPL players immediately...

There's plenty of space between jam-packed with CanPL players and 0 out of 60 on a Gold Cup provisional roster. The expectations on here around 2017 and 2018 revolved around significantly higher salary budgets from the get go than what subsequently happened that could have sustained at least some low 6 figure salaries.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ivan]

7 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

...and what's your point? Are you able to respond to the substance of my argument? There's a reason why the CMNT view it as a "minor league". If a lot of them were playing in it, they would have a very different perspective and the CSB deal would be a lot less controversial in an MLS/SUM and the USMNT sort of way as originally envisaged.

A lot has changed in the 2 years since that list came out a year and a half into the league actually getting up and running.  Aside from Waterman and Pantemis on the 2022 WC team, it can be argued that McNaughton, Loturi, Zator, Tabla, Farsi, Abzi, Rea and Sirios (who else am I missing) are now on the fringes of the full NT with most of those players under 23 years old.  The minor league comment was very bush league.  MAK, one of the leaders of the PA played in a league of similar quality until he got his MLS break and he has the balls to let a comment like that get published? Disgusting.

The point about the women's league is valid from the WNT perspective.  But further perspective is needed.  The owners funded the league through 2.5 year of zero attendance revenue.  They need time to regroup after incurring what was probably massive loss.

[Ivan]

16 hours ago, Ottawafan said:

First and foremost I want our national team players to be treated with the respect they deserve. At this point they don’t feel that way. 

 

Question for you.  Should the players get WC qualifying bonus money for 2026 even though they did nothing to qualify for the tournament?

Disclaimer - I don't begrudge the men getting bonus money for 2022 qualifying.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

1 minute ago, Ivan said:

...The owners funded the league through 2.5 year of zero attendance revenue.  They need time to regroup after incurring what was probably massive loss...

You'll find the argument pushed by Rick Westhead & Co is that the owners failed to make the $3 million payment at that time and the CSA board should have used that as an opportunity to terminate the CSB deal. If CMNT players were involved with CanPL and had jobs on the line in that context the outlook would probably be different, but they're not so it isn't.

[Copes]

16 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

There's plenty of space between jam-packed with CanPL players and 0 out of 60 on a Gold Cup provisional roster. The expectations on here around 2017 and 2018 revolved around significantly higher salary budgets from the get go than what subsequently happened that could have sustained at least some low 6 figure salaries.

There's also plenty of space between the 2021 Gold Cup provisional roster and the much more recent and relevant 2022 World Cup Roster. 

Look! Progress! It's as if these things take time!

Edited March 5, 2023 by Copes

[Ivan]

2 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

You'll find the argument pushed by Rick Westhead & Co is that the owners failed to make the $3 million payment at that time and the CSA board should have used that as an opportunity to terminate the CSB deal. If CMNT players were involved with CanPL and had jobs on the line in that context the outlook would probably be different, but they're not so it isn't.

With the "Co" being the NT players?  Westhead is the only reporter pushing that agenda, other than the ex-player pundits like the horrifically badly informed Kyle. Otherwise, your point is valid. But perhaps the powers that be (CSA?) see the CPL as vital to the growth of the game in this country and allowed them to regroup during the zero revenue pandemic.  And the fact that the current players couldn't care less about the CPL (your words, which I really can't believe is true) further illustrates the point about the disgusting minor league comment.