The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Metro]

2 hours ago, johnyb said:

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?

I don't understand why we can't have both.  For example, the Old Spice logo and ads would only be seen when the men's games are taking place, but their money would go into the pool for all programs.

I mean, shouldn't this already be the case?

[Kent]

I'm surprised nobody else has put this together (that I recall) in recent days. I'm curious about the matches the men's and women's teams played in the time between the end of World Cup Qualifying, and the World Cup itself. National team's current rank in brackets. Competition also listed. F -  Friendly, NL - Nations League.

Men's team
Curacao (86) NL
Honduras (81) NL
Qatar (60) F
Uruguay (16) F
Bahrain (85) F
Japan (20) F

Women's team
Australia (12) F
Australia (12) F
Argentina (29) F
Morocco (76) F
Brazil (9) F
Brazil (9) F
USA (1) F
Brazil (9) F
Japan (11) F
France (5) (coming up in April) F

Just to try to do a bit better job of providing context than the media seems to be doing, the women's team qualified for the World Cup a year before the World Cup starts. The men's team qualified 8 months before the World Cup.

Funnily enough, canadasoccer.com actually lists the friendly of the CWNT against Argentina as being played in Canada at the well known and totally Canadian Estadio Sanlugueno. Maybe they are fudging some data to save face.

🤣

Edited March 8, 2023 by Kent

[Metro]

5 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

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?

 

The only thing I can think of is that government wants to ensure that any requirements the CSA must meet to accept government funding, including gender equity requirements, are actually being met.  Do you need a Committee for this? Probably not but as has been mentioned before, we got elections to worry about!!

5 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

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

Your sentence here had me wondering what's FIFA's opinion in all this.  I'm sure they're paying attention.

[Bigandy]

10 minutes ago, Metro said:

I don't understand why we can't have both.  For example, the Old Spice logo and ads would only be seen when the men's games are taking place, but their money would go into the pool for all programs.

I mean, shouldn't this already be the case?

In theory we can, but old spice may want their dollars to only go towards the mens program to strengthen their results and therefore builds a better audience. 

 

3 minutes ago, Kent said:

I'm surprised nobody else has put this together (that I recall) in recent days. I'm curious about the matches the men's and women's teams played in the time between the end of World Cup Qualifying, and the World Cup itself. National team's current rank in brackets. Competition also listed. F -  Friendly, NL - Nations League.

Men's team
Curacao (86) NL
Honduras (81) NL
Qatar (60) F
Uruguay (16) F
Bahrain (85) F
Japan (20) F

Women's team
Australia (12) F
Australia (12) F
Argentina (29) F
Morocco (76) F
Brazil (9) F
Brazil (9) F
USA (1) F
Brazil (9) F
Japan (11) F
France (5) (coming up in April) F

Just to try to do a bit better job of providing context than the media seems to be doing, the women's team qualified for the World Cup a year before the World Cup starts. The men's team qualified 8 months before the World Cup.

Funnily enough, canadasoccer.com actually lists the friendly of the CWNT against Argentina as being played in Canada at the well known and totally Canadian Estadio Sanlugueno. Maybe they are fudging some data to save face.

🤣

Good data. What is the insight that youre implying from this data. 

That the women play more pre world cup games and therefore it makes sense that their budget is spread out thinner? 

[Kent]

3 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Good data. What is the insight that youre implying from this data. 

That the women play more pre world cup games and therefore it makes sense that their budget is spread out thinner? 

The narrative makes it sound like the women are being completely forgotten and are being denied necessary friendlies for World Cup preparation. There is a complaint that the women haven't gotten a home friendly send off match, but neither did the men (to be fair though, they did get that Curacao Nations League game at home about 5 months before the tournament, and the World Cup Qualifiers themselves included home games including the clinching game).

There are lots of details that various people turn a blind eye to. Like if you think CSB must be draining all the CSA's funds you will leave out the fact that there were a couple years of drastically reduced fees from amateur soccer players going to the CSA, and the CMNT had to play 3 "Home" WCQ matches in USA behind closed doors, and another 3 out of 7 home WCQ matches had to have reduced attendance, hampering the chance to offset costs as well. If you believe the Women's team are being treated unfairly, you will point to total dollar amounts spent on the men's 20 game qualifying campaign across 7 windows and compare it to the Women's 5 game qualifying campaign across 1 window.

[Bison44]

5 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

In theory we can, but old spice may want their dollars to only go towards the mens program to strengthen their results and therefore builds a better audience. 

 

Good data. What is the insight that youre implying from this data. 

That the women play more pre world cup games and therefore it makes sense that their budget is spread out thinner? 

I think that it goes to debunking the claim that the women have been neglected when it comes to prep for the WC.  It might not be perfect but plenty of times a last game is lined up closer to the tournie, which is 5 months away.  When was the mens Japan tune up for Qatar announced, 2 months before the WC??  I'm sure that kind of nuanced informed treatment of the facts will be woefully absent when they have their government hearing.  

[kacbru]

4 minutes ago, Kent said:

The narrative makes it sound like the women are being completely forgotten and are being denied necessary friendlies for World Cup preparation. There is a complaint that the women haven't gotten a home friendly send off match, but neither did the men (to be fair though, they did get that Curacao Nations League game at home about 5 months before the tournament, and the World Cup Qualifiers themselves included home games including the clinching game).

There are lots of details that various people turn a blind eye to. Like if you think CSB must be draining all the CSA's funds you will leave out the fact that there were a couple years of drastically reduced fees from amateur soccer players going to the CSA, and the CMNT had to play 3 "Home" WCQ matches in USA behind closed doors, and another 3 out of 7 home WCQ matches had to have reduced attendance, hampering the chance to offset costs as well. If you believe the Women's team are being treated unfairly, you will point to total dollar amounts spent on the men's 20 game qualifying campaign across 7 windows and compare it to the Women's 5 game qualifying campaign across 1 window.

Yes, data is useful to put things into perspective.  But we also need to remember that the women's team is ranked 6th in the world, and the men 53rd.  They have much more status...

[Unnamed Trialist]

26 minutes ago, Kent said:

I'm surprised nobody else has put this together (that I recall) in recent days. I'm curious about the matches the men's and women's teams played in the time between the end of World Cup Qualifying, and the World Cup itself. National team's current rank in brackets. Competition also listed. F -  Friendly, NL - Nations League.

Men's team
Curacao (86) NL
Honduras (81) NL
Qatar (60) F
Uruguay (16) F
Bahrain (85) F
Japan (20) F

Women's team
Australia (12) F
Australia (12) F
Argentina (29) F
Morocco (76) F
Brazil (9) F
Brazil (9) F
USA (1) F
Brazil (9) F
Japan (11) F
France (5) (coming up in April) F

Just to try to do a bit better job of providing context than the media seems to be doing, the women's team qualified for the World Cup a year before the World Cup starts. The men's team qualified 8 months before the World Cup.

Funnily enough, canadasoccer.com actually lists the friendly of the CWNT against Argentina as being played in Canada at the well known and totally Canadian Estadio Sanlugueno. Maybe they are fudging some data to save face.

🤣

They confused the province of Cádiz, CA in abbreviated form on the older license plates, with Canada. Then Sanlúcar is probably one of the Gulf Islands. It's an honest mistake.

[eramosat]

18 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

I think that it goes to debunking the claim that the women have been neglected when it comes to prep for the WC.  It might not be perfect but plenty of times a last game is lined up closer to the tournie, which is 5 months away.  When was the mens Japan tune up for Qatar announced, 2 months before the WC??  I'm sure that kind of nuanced informed treatment of the facts will be woefully absent when they have their government hearing.  

what the women can and should claim is being neglected is the creation of a women's professional league in Canada.

claiming neglection on annual funding, for anything, is a, I suspect, hollow argument.  unless somebody decides to treat 2022 for the men as a normal year, which is it most definitely not.

so.  does CSA have a mandate to create pro leagues?  Normally no, but their CSB arrangement suggests it is a core part of their actions.  And then, you have to decide for yourself...does the creation of the CPL consist of an unfair advantage gender-wise to the creation of a women's professional soccer league?  Or is it an aid to the exact same goal?

That's the question.  Current plans will certainly figure into the decision.

Why are CANMNT and CANWNT so strident?  what is their end game?

 

 

[RS]

56 minutes ago, Metro said:

I don't understand why we can't have both.  For example, the Old Spice logo and ads would only be seen when the men's games are taking place, but their money would go into the pool for all programs.

I mean, shouldn't this already be the case?

It would more likely be a partnership with a corporation that makes both brands.

For instance, Procter & Gamble owns Old Spice and also owns Always (feminine hygiene products). P&G would sponsor Canada Soccer as a whole but would change the branding of their sponsorship depending on the team involved.

I believe that was actually the case with Unilever at one point.

[RS]

32 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

I'm sure that kind of nuanced informed treatment of the facts will be woefully absent when they have their government hearing.

If it is then the CSA are even worse at their job than we thought.

[Bigandy]

 

49 minutes ago, Kent said:

The narrative makes it sound like the women are being completely forgotten and are being denied necessary friendlies for World Cup preparation. There is a complaint that the women haven't gotten a home friendly send off match, but neither did the men (to be fair though, they did get that Curacao Nations League game at home about 5 months before the tournament, and the World Cup Qualifiers themselves included home games including the clinching game).

There are lots of details that various people turn a blind eye to. Like if you think CSB must be draining all the CSA's funds you will leave out the fact that there were a couple years of drastically reduced fees from amateur soccer players going to the CSA, and the CMNT had to play 3 "Home" WCQ matches in USA behind closed doors, and another 3 out of 7 home WCQ matches had to have reduced attendance, hampering the chance to offset costs as well. If you believe the Women's team are being treated unfairly, you will point to total dollar amounts spent on the men's 20 game qualifying campaign across 7 windows and compare it to the Women's 5 game qualifying campaign across 1 window.

This is such a good post. I fully support equality but operating costs are so different. 

Does anyone know if the women's team had any issues with CSA funding prior to the men becoming successful? 

Also, how much of the upcoming hearings are to do with incompetence of CSA (lack of transparency, CSB deal etc.) vs the gender equality issues? Obviously theres perspectives that say that one impacts the other but is the core of the issue to prove or disprove equality issues or poor governance? 

[Ansem]

28 minutes ago, eramosat said:

what the women can and should claim is being neglected is the creation of a women's professional league in Canada.

so.  does CSA have a mandate to create pro leagues?  Normally no, but their CSB arrangement suggests it is a core part of their actions.  And then, you have to decide for yourself...does the creation of the CPL consist of an unfair advantage gender-wise to the creation of a women's professional soccer league?  Or is it an aid to the exact same goal?

If CSB goes to the hearing, they'll just say that the pandemic was an "exceptional" event preventing them from progressing on that front and they can easily provide examples of ligues around the world who either took a heavy financial loss or outright cancelled their season (France comes to mind)

Despite what the women would argue, the government knows that this would be more than an acceptable explanation given how much they struggled with it themselves.

[dyslexic nam]

49 minutes ago, kacbru said:

Yes, data is useful to put things into perspective.  But we also need to remember that the women's team is ranked 6th in the world, and the men 53rd.  They have much more status...

…which is why I previously pointed out the actual implications of an “equity” based argument, which can be interpreted to suggest that the men’s team may require additional supports to allow them to achieve anything like the level of success experienced by the women’s team.   Not saying that is a persuasive argument, just that the same set of facts can be spun to fit very different narratives.   

[Bigandy]

7 minutes ago, Ansem said:

If CSB goes to the hearing, they'll just say that the pandemic was an "exceptional" event preventing them from progressing on that front and they can easily provide examples of ligues around the world who either took a heavy financial loss or outright cancelled their season (France comes to mind)

Despite what the women would argue, the government knows that this would be more than an acceptable explanation given how much they struggled with it themselves.

Does the CSB have to even argue anything? They are a private company. They can surely say that the product we sell is the CPL, not the CPL and a womens league. No private company has a legal requirement to sell a product they don't want to sell, dont have the resources for etc. 

[Gian-Luca]

7 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

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.

I haven't been able to find, as yet, what the scope of their powers are with respect to conducting hearings. There is nothing on their website that I can find. I did some more digging today, and while I have still don't understand how CSA funding of the women's programme is a "safe sport" issue, I did find this which indicates why they can review sporting issues:

"The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has the power to review and report on the policies, programs and expenditure plans of the Department of Canadian Heritage and most of the agencies and Crown corporations within the Portfolio. These policies and programs relate to culture, the arts, heritage, official languages, civic participation, as well as youth, sport and Indigenous culture initiatives....The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studies matters referred to it by the House of Commons and topics that the Committee itself chooses to examine. It holds public meetings and considers evidence from witnesses. At the end of a study, the Committee usually reports on its findings and makes recommendations, and may ask the government to respond to those recommendations."

That is the part that should have us (and FIFA) concerned if they should recommend to the government to cut funding to the CSA unless they agree to spend it 50% equally on the men and women each year, which would mind-numbingly stupid but I'm not putting these particular politicians above that threshold just yet.

I have also found the transcript to the previous meeting to discuss the calling of the CSA to this public hearing:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-67/evidence

There are two ringleaders on the committee with respect to the need for this meeting Peter Julian and Anthony Housefather, while some of the rest of the committee sounds unsure as to what the issue is, based on this bit of transcript from Kevin Waugh:

"I believe Mr. Housefather wanted to see the transaction or the agreement between Canada Soccer and Canadian Soccer Business, because that's where the issue is starting to fall, with our national teams claiming they're not getting enough money.

    Mr. Housefather can correct me, but I think that's the issue."

 

There is no clarification on this point, and of course this isn't quite accurate. The men are claiming that they were not getting as much of the FIFA bonus for qualifying that they'd have liked and (previously had been) complaining that the CSA wasn't providing enough tickets for friends and families to attend. They have never claimed, to the best of my knowledge, that they weren't getting properly funded in terms of camps or payment to play the matches. The women are demanding pay equity for the FIFA WCQ bonuses, which also has nothing to do with the CSB agreement and the equity isn't even being opposed by the CSA.  The only area where the CSB agreement is tangentially related is from the women demanding to have the exact same resources and money spent on them that the men did in 2021 and 2022 in the lead-up to the 2022 World Cup, which of course is a claim fraught with difficulty since the qualifying demands are only a pittance of what the men had to do to qualify and doesn't take into account greater FIFA funding. The CSB agreement should not be seen as the be-all and end-all of the CSA's finances since it is only a portion of it, but already it is being positioned that way by the committee, which doesn't inspire confidence that they are going into this hearing with a clear understanding of the matter.

 

Even if the women's WCQ was the same number of matches and amounted to the same insane amount of travel during a pandemic as the men's, I would think that the CSA would still have a very justifiable reason to provide greater funding to the men's program, and that's because of the FIFA disparity in financial reward for qualifying for the men's tourney vs. the women's tourney. And ironically, it is the women's demands for pay equity which could help to make the CSA's argument here bullet-proof. The men's tournament is more financially lucractive than the women's tournament so prioritizing men's qualification with finances and resources in order to obtain that greater financial reward should be considered reasonable if the greater funds are dispersed to help both programs and athletes (men and women). The women then can't possibly argue that they are being discriminated against when they are the clear financial winners from the pay equity equalization of the men's and women's respective prize money. Because the result of the pay equity being applied to athletic achievement prize money (regardless of how I feel about it) in this instance is that the women gain at the expense of the men.

 

As it is, the greater demands placed upon the men's WCQ vs. the women's along with the respective FIFA funding differences should make the above argument moot because only a fool wouldn't be able to understand the differences between the two. But I don't have much faith in the CSA reps (not counting Crooks, who there is no sign of them calling - they only want Bontis by the sounds of it) putting up a decent argument, or in the politicians have a clear view of the matter or being unbiased non-idiots. I still don't understand why, if they are calling witnesses who aren't CSA staff member or board members, why it is limited to the women's team members.

 

[narduch]

 

[Bison44]

21 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

As it is, the greater demands placed upon the men's WCQ vs. the women's along with the respective FIFA funding differences should make the above argument moot because only a fool wouldn't be able to understand the differences between the two. But I don't have much faith in the CSA reps (not counting Crooks, who there is no sign of them calling - they only want Bontis by the sounds of it) putting up a decent argument, or in the politicians have a clear view of the matter or being unbiased non-idiots. I still don't understand why, if they are calling witnesses who aren't CSA staff member or board members, why it is limited to the women's team members.

 

 1) its the federal goverment, they wont really care what the true situation is, only in the appearance of them doing what they think public opinion dictates.  And everyone of my friends who know I am a soccer nut have asked me why soccer canada hates the women so much??  The slant on the coverage (and therefore public opinion) will probably make this hearing a slaughter...

2) They are only calling women team members because they only want to hear one side...this has been pretty obvious since the begining of this mess.  

 

[Kent]

4 hours ago, kacbru said:

Yes, data is useful to put things into perspective.  But we also need to remember that the women's team is ranked 6th in the world, and the men 53rd.  They have much more status...

Yes, there are all kinds of factors that go into everything I am sure. The fact Canada is 6th in women's soccer makes it easier for them to get invited to a friendly tournament with top teams involved. Also I would guess the price to bring in a top women's team will be lower than the price to bring in a top men's team for a friendly. It's impossible to be 100% fair because you could draw up several ways that could be interpreted as fair, which is to say you could call any potential situation/solution unfair.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

13 hours ago, eramosat said:

... does CSA have a mandate to create pro leagues?  Normally no, but their CSB arrangement suggests it is a core part of their actions ...

The function of the CSA is to sanction said leagues and provide player registration, match officials for games, and discipline procedures etc after they are up and running but the leagues are private businesses that could reasonably be expected to be self-sustaining financially. Since the 1960s, FIFA have provided Canada with access to the USSF pyramid so there was no actual pressing need for Canada to have its own leagues at the D1 and/or D2 sort of level. That was something that the CSA board decided they wanted to pursue so they actively blocked further access to the USSF pyramid from around 2010 or so.

The big problem with the CSB deal is that it prioritizes support for men's pro soccer over women's pro soccer but involves sponsorship income related to both the CMNT and CWNT so a strategic decision was clearly being made that having a domestic league structure for men's professional soccer was more important than doing it on the women's side. If they had instead sanctioned something more in tune with the findings of the Easton report that was readily self-sustaining at a lower budget revolving around bus rather than air travel that had both a women's and men's component from the get go, there would be nothing for the committee to investigate at this point in equity terms.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ivan]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The function of the CSA is to sanction said leagues and provide player registration, match officials for games, and discipline procedures etc after they are up and running but the leagues are private businesses that could reasonably be expected to be self-sustaining financially. Since the 1960s, FIFA have provided Canada with access to the USSF pyramid so there was no actual pressing need for Canada to have its own leagues at the D1 and/or D2 sort of level. That was something that the CSA board decided they wanted to pursue so they actively blocked further access to the USSF pyramid from around 2010 or so.

The big problem with the CSB deal is that it prioritizes support for men's pro soccer over women's pro soccer but involves sponsorship income related to both the CMNT and CWNT so a strategic decision was clearly being made that having a domestic league structure for men's professional soccer was more important than doing it on the women's side. If they had instead sanctioned something more in tune with the findings of the Easton report that was readily self-sustaining at a lower budget revolving around bus rather than air travel that had both a women's and men's component from the get go, there would be nothing for the committee to investigate at this point in equity terms.

The lack of the women's pro league is the only argument I can see for lack of equity at this point.  I think you have that right.

The rest of this post is not directed at you Ozzie, we know your opinion on the direction the CPL should take. 

However, because the CSB failed to start up a women's league, which was in their plans as they hired Moscato to advise, then the pandemic hit so they are behind schedule.  All indications are that the women's league was still in their plans, just too slow for the women who are now venturing out on their own with Project 8 - good for them.  Hopefully, the CSB will support them, which it sounds like they want to. 

So this equity hearing is out to destroy the CPL because a women's league hasn't started yet?  Too harsh a take?

[Kadenge]

15 hours ago, kacbru said:

Yes, data is useful to put things into perspective.  But we also need to remember that the women's team is ranked 6th in the world, and the men 53rd.  They have much more status...

Perhaps but that "status"  has not generated  corporate sponsorship, sell out games,TV viewership etc comparable to the past year by the CMNT.  No secret... there's way more money in the Men's game and if they continue to be successful, Soccer will start to challenge the big 3/4.  Herdman said he switched coaching teams to generate more money for the game. The lack of transparency and communication btw the CSA and CMNT/CWNT is unfortunate and is the reason Bontis is out. 

[Gian-Luca]

1 hour ago, Ivan said:

The lack of the women's pro league is the only argument I can see for lack of equity at this point.  I think you have that right.

The rest of this post is not directed at you Ozzie, we know your opinion on the direction the CPL should take. 

However, because the CSB failed to start up a women's league, which was in their plans as they hired Moscato to advise, then the pandemic hit so they are behind schedule.  All indications are that the women's league was still in their plans, just too slow for the women who are now venturing out on their own with Project 8 - good for them.  Hopefully, the CSB will support them, which it sounds like they want to. 

So this equity hearing is out to destroy the CPL because a women's league hasn't started yet?  Too harsh a take?

What the CSB is doing with the money they receive from the deal with the CSA doesn't appear to be of the slightest interest to the House Committee. If it was, surely they would be asking CSB members to speak at the hearing. I'm not saying that this is a correct approach for the Committee to take, but they only seem to be interested in what the CSA can or cannot do with the money they are receiving from the CSB and how much it there is per year, and maybe the option terms.

Which is a shame because the CSB testifying that they have invested money into the women's game already would probably be helpful should this issue come up. I'm not sure I can trust or rely upon the House Committee members to bother to go to the CSB website and see what the CSB has done thus far for themselves (and of course they don't list that they hired Moscato at one point on the website). In reality no-one in their right mind would expect that the CSB could launch a men's pro league and a women's pro league simultaneously even without a pandemic occurring, so one would hope that none of the "witnesses" they call in make  such a silly argument. Especially given the inherent contradiction of the women testifying against the financial prioritizing of the Men's WCQ program while at the same time saying "Thank you very much, we'll take an equal share of that larger pool of money resulting from it that they, and not we, earned".

[ray]

1 hour ago, Ivan said:

So this equity hearing is out to destroy the CPL because a women's league hasn't started yet?  Too harsh a take?

It is a little too harsh.  I think the women (or their leaders) want access to their "share" of the sponsorship dollars brought in by CSB, whatever they deem as their share.  It is not about destroying the CPL as such.

I think the CSA can just say that they expect and will demand that CSB support a women's professional league.  No timeline or how that support manifests itself (either building the league or financially supporting Project 8 ) need be detailed at this time.

As others have mentioned, I just hope the corporate sponsors required by CSB to support the CPL and a women's league aren't scared away by this negative publicity.

Edited March 8, 2023 by ray

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The function of the CSA is to sanction said leagues and provide player registration, match officials for games, and discipline procedures etc after they are up and running but the leagues are private businesses that could reasonably be expected to be self-sustaining financially. Since the 1960s, FIFA have provided Canada with access to the USSF pyramid so there was no actual pressing need for Canada to have its own leagues at the D1 and/or D2 sort of level. That was something that the CSA board decided they wanted to pursue so they actively blocked further access to the USSF pyramid from around 2010 or so.

The big problem with the CSB deal is that it prioritizes support for men's pro soccer over women's pro soccer but involves sponsorship income related to both the CMNT and CWNT so a strategic decision was clearly being made that having a domestic league structure for men's professional soccer was more important than doing it on the women's side. If they had instead sanctioned something more in tune with the findings of the Easton report that was readily self-sustaining at a lower budget revolving around bus rather than air travel that had both a women's and men's component from the get go, there would be nothing for the committee to investigate at this point in equity terms.

Summary: "bus"