The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[snake]

How did Nick Bontis think that sueing the players on the womens national team would be a sound choice of a decision ?

 

it’s like Gary Bettman sueing the NHL Players for not taking a 50 percent pay cut.

 

thank god Bontis is gone 

[SthMelbRed]

1 hour ago, snake said:

How did Nick Bontis think that sueing the players on the womens national team would be a sound choice of a decision ?

 

it’s like Gary Bettman sueing the NHL Players for not taking a 50 percent pay cut.

 

thank god Bontis is gone 

Those two things are in no way analogous. 

[shermanator]

Good on GE for sponsoring $100k towards the WNT. But thinking it's a flex shows why Canadian soccer is in this mess in the first place. There just isn't a lot of money being invested in the game in this country. And some of those who have invested are being vilified.

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^have this guy on ignore because he is more interested in picking fights than in respectful discussion. He's so eager to score a petty point on this that he is spectacularly missing the point of why things have reached the current mess on gender equity. Until the big bonanza of 2026 the CWNT had to be bundled in as well to make the CSB deal worthwhile and help prop up a men's pro league. 

I'd never think of putting you on ignore, it wouldn't be fair--to myself.

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Perhaps, but I have to wonder if the deal is contingent on CSB doing the work to line up the sponsorship. This is indeed a donation in all but name only, and perhaps it would fall outside the deal.

If GE really wanted to designate specifically under the current set up, they could perfectly well set up an awards program they run themselves. Likely through whatever foundation they may have, or however it benefits them fiscally. 25k each yearly for the top 4 emerging players, on the condition they are fully dedicated to playing the game. Just an example.

If you want total control and the recipient can't guarantee that, then keep total control. 

[MM3/MM2/MM]

3 hours ago, snake said:

How did Nick Bontis think that sueing the players on the womens national team would be a sound choice of a decision ?

 

it’s like Gary Bettman sueing the NHL Players for not taking a 50 percent pay cut.

 

thank god Bontis is gone 

Isn't Bontis known to be extremely anti-union (as well as the former CPL boss) not the best person to be "negotiating" a deal with the players.

[narduch]

A lot of commenters don't know how Ontario labour laws work with respect to unions.

There is a certain warning period a union must give before they strike.

It's the reason why they were forced back.

[grigorio]

4 minutes ago, narduch said:

A lot of commenters don't know how Ontario labour laws work with respect to unions.

There is a certain warning period a union must give before they strike.

It's the reason why they were forced back.

Also the reason why the same threat wasn't made to the men back in June of last year. They weren't unionized therefore they could have not played with no repercussions. 

Doesn't mean it was a good idea to force them to play given the optics, nor would it have been a good idea for the women not to play... but we were well on our way to crazy town by that point. 

[Bison44]

What kind of reprecussions would we have faced for defaulting on the SheBelieves cup?  Would we ever get invited to one of these again?  

[3DMan]

Been a long time since I've been here, but things are getting "interesting"...

A few legal and other things that I would point out that are wrong or missed from many posters:

1. The men's players individually could still have been sued, the only difference was the women's union.  The men's players, individually, each were under contract to play.  Unequal treatment on this level is a serious problem for the CSA and any of its officers, as all officers are criminally liable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The deal between the CSA and the CSB is very likely illegal on a few fronts:
   1. the deal clearly benefits males over females as the CSB runs the CPL and no women's league so, in effect, the profits from the deal are going either to the CPL or to the people who own teams in, and run, the CPL.  Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have clearly shown that they will prosecute unequal treatment of anyone representing the country, and it is less about the CSA getting federal funds and more about it being the nation's representative organization that declares national teams, hires coaches, etc.
   2. this type of contract is also likely illegal as it restricts the freedom of contracts with an organization that does receive federal funds.  For example, GE Appliances (maybe a bad example b/c they might've had a previous agreement, but pretend in this case it did not) has not signed a deal with CSB, but the contract CSA made effectively involuntarily signs contracts with all organizations that have any potential to sign any sponsorship agreement with CSA.  As such, it over-reaches its rights by imposing on others' rights.
3. The CSA has a bigger legal issue with not budgeting evenly.  Again, it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and again, officers are specifically criminally liable.
4. The argument that the men had to play more qualification games really is meaningless b/c those games also prepared them for the WC, and it is not as if they didn't play any prep games after they qualified.
5. Lastly, I think that the CSA has a serious chance of being gutted by the Heritage Committee.  They have that power (they have bizarrely far-reaching powers), and the CSA has either shown incompetence in budgeting for equal treatment for WC preparation, or they have premeditated treating the teams unequally, which is, again, against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My gut tells me that, in the very least, these upcoming hearings are going to result in the gutting of the CSA.  Maybe it comes down to who-knows-who...d

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

5 hours ago, grigorio said:

You’ve gotta think that the CSB’s ability to bring on future sponsors after all this is going to be pretty brutal up until maybe the lead up to the 2026 WC...

Even CIBC who signed up as a sponsor through CSB in the run up to Qatar are now listed as a founding parther by Project 8 and are releasing statements like this:

 

 

[SthMelbRed]

1 hour ago, 3DMan said:

Been a long time since I've been here, but things are getting "interesting"...

A few legal and other things that I would point out that are wrong or missed from many posters:

1. The men's players individually could still have been sued, the only difference was the women's union.  The men's players, individually, each were under contract to play.  Unequal treatment on this level is a serious problem for the CSA and any of its officers, as all officers are criminally liable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The deal between the CSA and the CSB is very likely illegal on a few fronts:
   1. the deal clearly benefits males over females as the CSB runs the CPL and no women's league so, in effect, the profits from the deal are going either to the CPL or to the people who own teams in, and run, the CPL.  Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have clearly shown that they will prosecute unequal treatment of anyone representing the country, and it is less about the CSA getting federal funds and more about it being the nation's representative organization that declares national teams, hires coaches, etc.
   2. this type of contract is also likely illegal as it restricts the freedom of contracts with an organization that does receive federal funds.  For example, GE Appliances (maybe a bad example b/c they might've had a previous agreement, but pretend in this case it did not) has not signed a deal with CSB, but the contract CSA made effectively involuntarily signs contracts with all organizations that have any potential to sign any sponsorship agreement with CSA.  As such, it over-reaches its rights by imposing on others' rights.
3. The CSA has a bigger legal issue with not budgeting evenly.  Again, it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and again, officers are specifically criminally liable.
4. The argument that the men had to play more qualification games really is meaningless b/c those games also prepared them for the WC, and it is not as if they didn't play any prep games after they qualified.
5. Lastly, I think that the CSA has a serious chance of being gutted by the Heritage Committee.  They have that power (they have bizarrely far-reaching powers), and the CSA has either shown incompetence in budgeting for equal treatment for WC preparation, or they have premeditated treating the teams unequally, which is, again, against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My gut tells me that, in the very least, these upcoming hearings are going to result in the gutting of the CSA.  Maybe it comes down to who-knows-who...d

I'm not a lawyer, but I am reasonably well-read, in a general sense. And I'm pretty sure that most of this post is utter bullshit.

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

8 hours ago, snake said:

How did Nick Bontis think that sueing the players on the womens national team would be a sound choice of a decision ?

 

it’s like Gary Bettman sueing the NHL Players for not taking a 50 percent pay cut.

 

thank god Bontis is gone 

Bontis did not have the power of sole decision making. If the CSA were to sue the women, it would have needed a majority support of the board. So it doesn’t really matter Bontis is gone if the majority of the board were in favour of legal action. 

[Ottawafan]

8 hours ago, MM3/MM2/MM said:

Isn't Bontis known to be extremely anti-union (as well as the former CPL boss) not the best person to be "negotiating" a deal with the players.

He was perfect for the CSA in that he was able to drag it out without a resolution. 

[Califax]

8 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

 I am reasonably well-read, in a general sense

This is my new twitter bio 

[Ivan]

9 hours ago, 3DMan said:

Been a long time since I've been here, but things are getting "interesting"...

A few legal and other things that I would point out that are wrong or missed from many posters:

1. The men's players individually could still have been sued, the only difference was the women's union.  The men's players, individually, each were under contract to play.  Unequal treatment on this level is a serious problem for the CSA and any of its officers, as all officers are criminally liable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The deal between the CSA and the CSB is very likely illegal on a few fronts:
   1. the deal clearly benefits males over females as the CSB runs the CPL and no women's league so, in effect, the profits from the deal are going either to the CPL or to the people who own teams in, and run, the CPL.  Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have clearly shown that they will prosecute unequal treatment of anyone representing the country, and it is less about the CSA getting federal funds and more about it being the nation's representative organization that declares national teams, hires coaches, etc.
   2. this type of contract is also likely illegal as it restricts the freedom of contracts with an organization that does receive federal funds.  For example, GE Appliances (maybe a bad example b/c they might've had a previous agreement, but pretend in this case it did not) has not signed a deal with CSB, but the contract CSA made effectively involuntarily signs contracts with all organizations that have any potential to sign any sponsorship agreement with CSA.  As such, it over-reaches its rights by imposing on others' rights.
3. The CSA has a bigger legal issue with not budgeting evenly.  Again, it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and again, officers are specifically criminally liable.
4. The argument that the men had to play more qualification games really is meaningless b/c those games also prepared them for the WC, and it is not as if they didn't play any prep games after they qualified.
5. Lastly, I think that the CSA has a serious chance of being gutted by the Heritage Committee.  They have that power (they have bizarrely far-reaching powers), and the CSA has either shown incompetence in budgeting for equal treatment for WC preparation, or they have premeditated treating the teams unequally, which is, again, against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My gut tells me that, in the very least, these upcoming hearings are going to result in the gutting of the CSA.  Maybe it comes down to who-knows-who...d

I've asked this question before, rhetorically, and I'll ask this again rhetorically because I'm pretty sure none of this board has the answer, unless you do.

How can the government tear apart Canada soccer as you have described above, and not seriously looked at other sports - Canada Basketball and Hockey Canada as two examples - and not cite them on the same grounds when they are nowhere near equality the way Canada Soccer is?

What you have written makes no sense in that context unless I am missing something which is certainly possible.

[Ivan]

9 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Even CIBC who signed up as a sponsor through CSB in the run up to Qatar are now listed as a founding parther by Project 8 and are releasing statements like this:

 

 

Again, another statement hard for me to understand.  Westhead reported on the CIBC (IIRC) sponsorship well before the Panama/Iran fiasco and certainly before the SB Cup shitstorm.  How could CIBC not know the terms they were signing up under with CSB?  Then they individually sponsor Project 8 as well.   This sounds like a face-saving, PR statement from CIBC more than anything else.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Ivan
word missing

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

To sum up the last few posts, they are just talking about sending out subpoenas to CSA officeholders and employees for shits and giggles.

There's nothing they can actually do to the CSA because we want CSB to be able to use funds generated from women's national team soccer to benefit only men's pro soccer.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Gian-Luca]

9 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I am reasonably well-read, in a general sense. And I'm pretty sure that most of this post is utter bullshit.

I think you are being kind with the use of the term "most".

In the spirit of the post you are responding to, it has just been announced that the women's team will not be allowed to play any WCQ matches for the 2027 Women's World Cup. Why? Because the men aren't playing any WCQ matches for the 2026 World Cup, and so the women playing some will clearly be deemed to be unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it will be considered unequal treatment.

[Unnamed Trialist]

17 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

I actually was asking the same question about a week ago, since it is not really an area that I have any prior knowledge or experience with. I expressed concern because they seem to be making things up as they go along and that I have no confidence that the people holding the inquiry are qualified to make any sort of judgments or recommendations as self-appointed quasi-labour arbitrators - if that is even part of their ambit and powers of course. For example, I highly doubt that they understand what the Concacaf Nations League is when even our female pundits don't seem to be able to do that. If it is just an information gathering session then I have fewer concerns than if its an inquisition.

From what I gather, the inquiry is being done under the purview of "Safe Sport in Canada". In relation to the CSB agreement that the CSA have been ordered to provide and unredacted copy of and the issue of an alleged lack of funds for the women in comparison to the men, it is difficult to see how "Safe Sport" comes into play. Actually, maybe, "impossible" is a better term rather than "difficult". If this was about Bob Birarda I could understand, just like I can understand why this committee would have done an inquisition of Hockey Canada given the subject matter. But "we're not getting single hotel rooms and first class flights like the men got in Qatar with the superior FIFA funding" doesn't seem to fall into the safe sport ambit.

Absent of further information, this seems like an abuse of government power, though I can understand why the CSA wouldn't counter with that argument as that will just make it seem like they have something to hide. Being compliant with the requests should have the opposite effect.

Much appreciated. 

But a standing parliamentary committee can oblige a citizen to appear before it? It's like a judicial summons? 

It can also oblige a private organization to reveal the terms of a legally binding contract? Or only because it was made with a publicly sanctioned entity like the CSA?

It's a hearing then: are they required to file a report or recommendations based on their conclusions? Would the CSA be bound to comply?

I seriously don't know how it works and am also interested in filing an opinion if it were possible.

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

I think you are being kind with the use of the term "most".

In the spirit of the post you are responding to, it has just been announced that the women's team will not be allowed to play any WCQ matches for the 2027 Women's World Cup. Why? Because the men aren't playing any WCQ matches for the 2026 World Cup, and so the women playing some will clearly be deemed to be unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it will be considered unequal treatment.

I was watching Chris Rock show (Selective Outrage - how appropriate) on Netflix and he made an observation about "Attention". Here are the 4 ways to get it

1. Show some of ass
2. Be infamous
3. Be excellent
4. Be a victim

I'm seeing a lot of #4 lately on social media, lots of complaining without taking the time to understand what's actually being reported and context

[Aird25]

I can't imagine any of the investors in CPL expected so much backlash and bad publicity this early on in the league's history. I really hope we don't lose them.

[shermanator]

Some people want to go scorched Earth on Canadian soccer, when what we need is a controlled burn.

We have to be mindful to not kill the growth that has happened in the last 5 years...

[Unnamed Trialist]

45 minutes ago, shermanator said:

Some people want to go scorched Earth on Canadian soccer, when what we need is a controlled burn.

We have to be mindful to not kill the growth that has happened in the last 5 years...

I'm alright with a slow burn....

 

 

[johnyb]

23 hours ago, johnyb said:

Careful what you wish for. I'm sure the list of sponsors that would spend on the Mens' team would far outweigh the list that spend on the Womens' team. I'll bet that's one of the reasons for the rule in the first place.

For the record, I would be in favour of this. I mean, Old Spice would definitely want their money going towards the Men's team and Kotex would not. Why eliminate these types of marketing dollars?