The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Bison44]

Do you really think the CPL should start a cross canada womens league? You have fought tooth and nail for years under the banner that the CPL was too ambitious, was likely to fail at the current scale, should include MLS reserve teams and basically was not needed.  Now you want to beat CPL over the head that they arent doing the same thing ASAP for women?  Which is it..is it a good idea or a bad idea??  

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Ansem said:

Nailed it with this

Raise your hand if you have a say in with your employer's business deals?

 

In two of the 3 universities I work for it's the case. In Canada and Spain. One public, the other a private foundation. The model is collegial. There are mechanisms for consultation and input. Both profs and students are involved in aspects of governance, including as sitting members. The statutes include provisions for participation in hiring committees for presidents and deans. We are involved in feedback mechanisms, some obligatory, but not always respected. Those participatory models do not limit our right to take job action or strike. When negotiating a CBA we get involved in much more than our own pay concerns.

The CSA is not a business, but even if it were, it's model is perfectly permeable and accountable, it's statutes are subject to revision, and comments like yours are not only wrong but puerile.

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Ansem said:

Nailed it with this

Raise your hand if you have a say in with your employer's business deals?

 

Repeat sorry.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Ansem said:

Nailed it with this

Raise your hand if you have a say in with your employer's business deals?

 

Must be something glitchy repeated sorry.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Ansem said:

Nailed it with this

Raise your hand if you have a say in with your employer's business deals?

 

Irritating repeated post.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[kacbru]

10 hours ago, eramosat said:

The phrase you wanted was the number will significantly drop with every round the women fail to advance in Australia.

10 hours ago, eramosat said:

If I am wrong, happy to hear about it.

Yes, you are wrong.  It is in Australia and New Zealand!😀

[kacbru]

4 hours ago, Shway said:

Okay I’m going to say this, and it will probably not be liked but whatever….

Equal pay, but not an equal product.
Equal pay but can’t beat a boys U15 team. So why do we compare?
Equal pay but not equal interest.
Equal pay but not equal value.

The bolded point could certainly be questioned.  My sense is there has been far more prolonged, general public interest in the CWNT than the CMNT over the last 20 years.  Largely driven by success.

[kacbru]

Jebus - that's a lot of posts in a short time period to catch up on.  My starting point on page 1 of the this thread was f**k the CSA.  120 pages later, there has been a lot more nuance to what is going on, but my opinion hasn't changed - f**k the CSA, f**k them differently, but equally!

[Obinna]

6 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The effect of the CSB deal at the moment is to take money out of women's soccer national programs to prop up a men's pro league and only a men's pro league. The people who negotiated that deal had an agenda that clearly didn't emphasize gender equity and hence this can easily be portrayed as a prime example of old school sexism. In 2023, it would be very difficult to justify having a body representing Canada as a national entity that receives federal funding pay more to men than to women for doing the same thing.

Yeah exactly. It can be "portrayed" that way. Doesn't make it true, logical, or valid. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

1 minute ago, Obinna said:

Yeah exactly. It can be "portrayed" that way. Doesn't make it true, logical, or valid. 

If it was only going to be a men's professional league it should only have been the CMNT sponsorships that were bundled with CanPL ones, but the problem with that and contrary to what many on here appear to believe is that it was the CWNT that corporate sponsors were more interested in until very recently.

[RS]

16 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Yeah exactly. It can be "portrayed" that way. Doesn't make it true, logical, or valid. 

Except it is true that the WNT has made at least some money for the CSA/CSB that then went towards the male-only CPL.

Even it it was only a dollar, the principle still stands. I don't blame the WNT for hammering that point repeatedly.

[Obinna]

11 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

If it was only going to be a men's professional league it should only have been the CMNT sponsorships that were bundled with CanPL ones, but the problem with that and contrary to what many on here appear to believe is that it was the CWNT that corporate sponsors were more interested in until very recently.

This must have been the "unequal world" the CSA was talking about in their statement. 

[Obinna]

2 minutes ago, RS said:

Except it is true that the WNT has made at least some money for the CSA/CSB that then went towards the male-only CPL.

Even it it was only a dollar, the principle still stands. I don't blame the WNT for hammering that point repeatedly.

Sure, but the entire premise the CSA is sexist for making that decision is obsured. There are many reasons other than sexism why things played out this way, but portraying their actions as sexist is the best way to shake out more money and resources.

The portrayal didn't have to be true, it just had to be effective - which it has been so far to a degree. 

 

[Ivan]

28 minutes ago, RS said:

Except it is true that the WNT has made at least some money for the CSA/CSB that then went towards the male-only CPL.

Even it it was only a dollar, the principle still stands. I don't blame the WNT for hammering that point repeatedly.

Reminder - It was still 3-4 times what the CSA (and the women's team) was getting at the time of the deal.

[CanSoccfan11]

7 minutes ago, Ivan said:

Reminder - It was still 3-4 times what the CSA (and the women's team) was getting at the time of the deal.

Yeah I am not sure why so many are having a hard time with this.  The CSB is giving money to the CSA that can be used for all teams, the CSA doesn't give any money to the CSB.

As mentioned at the time of the deal the $3 million a year was a cash influx that the CSA didn't have.   It increased the associations overall revenue streams.  

Now I get the point that the CSB should also be creating a women's pro league.  Unfortunately the pandemic put the breaks on that for a bit.  Hopefully CSB and the other entity can work together to get one off the ground.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^somebody posted a day or two back that the sponsorship number was as high as $8.5 million during the 2015 Women's World Cup so the baseline probably has to be carefully selected to fit the desired narrative.

[CanSoccfan11]

4 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^somebody posted a day or two back that the sponsorship number was as high as $8.5 million during the 2015 Women's World Cup so the baseline probably has to be carefully selected to fit the desired narrative.

 

That would make sense as the event was here. I think a more reasonable picture of what you could anticipate for sponserships would be to look at the streams before and after that event.  I have a hard time believing there would only be one bidder to manage that aspect if they remained lucrative after the 2015 WWC.   But I hope that amount is made known as part of this process.

 

[RS]

37 minutes ago, Ivan said:

Reminder - It was still 3-4 times what the CSA (and the women's team) was getting at the time of the deal.

24 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

Yeah I am not sure why so many are having a hard time with this.  The CSB is giving money to the CSA that can be used for all teams, the CSA doesn't give any money to the CSB.

As mentioned at the time of the deal the $3 million a year was a cash influx that the CSA didn't have.   It increased the associations overall revenue streams.  

Now I get the point that the CSB should also be creating a women's pro league.  Unfortunately the pandemic put the breaks on that for a bit.  Hopefully CSB and the other entity can work together to get one off the ground.

What's 3-4 times zero? Because that's the amount that has gone towards a women's league so far (may not actually be zero, but until the CSA/CSB shows otherwise, we have to assume it's fairly close).

I'm not particularly fond of the dirty tricks being played by both sides to win in the court of public opinion, but that's just the world we live in. And I'm 100% with the WNT on the lack of league issue regardless of the politics being played.

Everything else is just the various stakeholders looking out for their own respective interests.

[Gian-Luca]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Sure, but the entire premise the CSA is sexist for making that decision is obsured. There are many reasons other than sexism why things played out this way, but portraying their actions as sexist is the best way to shake out more money and resources.

The portrayal didn't have to be true, it just had to be effective - which it has been so far to a degree. 

 

I didn't watch the hearing (I figured it would be bad for my blood pressure, if nothing else) so I don't know if it came out in the discussions that the CSA (and by extensions the CSB) was helping to pay the pro club salaries of 75% of the women's team members who testified in the hearing up to 2021. If this fact didn't come out yesterday (even though it's been publicly known for ages and Mark Noonan reiterated this point in his Onesoccer interview) then I expect it will when the CSA reps mention it. Which potentially could make the women look very bad in the eyes of the committee, since it would suggest that they were leaving out pertinent information and context, something that the committee (or Housefather at least) has said that they very much frown upon.

This is part of the problem with action being driven by ideological agendas, people often can (either intentionally or by omission) alter the facts to fit their views rather than altering their views to fit the facts. Likewise, some of the same people (like Amy Walsh) who were complaining that the CSA spent more money on the men in 2021 & 2022 are complaining that the CSA spent essentially an equal amount of money on the men and women's team programmes from 2012 to 2019 because they feel that there should have been more money spent on the women during this time because they played more games, illogically reversing their arguments when it suits their ideological cause.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Gian-Luca

[RS]

59 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Sure, but the entire premise the CSA is sexist for making that decision is obsured. There are many reasons other than sexism why things played out this way, but portraying their actions as sexist is the best way to shake out more money and resources.

The portrayal didn't have to be true, it just had to be effective - which it has been so far to a degree. 

 

That's not the entire premise, though.

There's also the premise that the CSA is incompetent and run by people out of their depth. Hence both the MNT and WNT repeatedly framing the CSB deal as one that actually handcuffs the CSA financially for the foreseeable future.

That's also effective — and absolutely holds a shred (or more) of truth to it.

[CanSoccfan11]

9 minutes ago, RS said:

What's 3-4 times zero? Because that's the amount that has gone towards a women's league so far (may not actually be zero, but until the CSA/CSB shows otherwise, we have to assume it's fairly close).

I'm not particularly fond of the dirty tricks being played by both sides to win in the court of public opinion, but that's just the world we live in. And I'm 100% with the WNT on the lack of league issue regardless of the politics being played.

Everything else is just the various stakeholders looking out for their own respective interests.

The CSA isn't funding the CPL so I don't know why that keeps being brought up.  He's talking about the CSA having 3 to 4 million more revenue every year that can go to both men's and women's national teams and players.   I.e money the program didn't have before.  That is a benefit to each side. 

 

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

If it was only going to be a men's professional league it should only have been the CMNT sponsorships that were bundled with CanPL ones, but the problem with that and contrary to what many on here appear to believe is that it was the CWNT that corporate sponsors were more interested in until very recently.

What is this based on? From what I can tell almost all sponsorships and media deals have been lumped together and include CPL, both senior national teams and sometimes the league 1s or other national teams. As far as I know, there’s been no designation (at least made public) saying this is a CWNT sponsor or dollar amount or this is a CPL sponsor/dollar amount. Could it not just as easily be argued that CPL sponsors and media are being used to fund the national teams? 

[Bigandy]

15 hours ago, eramosat said:

and if the women say the men did not actually support us in their dispute, would you believe that?

go read the first 30 pages of this thread, and make note of all the fights for equal pay the CANMNT called out for when they boycotted the games that initiated this thread.

 

Would you believe the women when they say that the men supports them as evidenced by public statements from the mens team and Beckie during the hearing? I tend to believe beckie over the first 30 pages of us talking on a forum, which you also havent provided any evidence ( i went through the first 15 pages and couldnt find anything to support your claim).

Stop trying to be a justice warrior and making up nonsense issues. The men and women may have disagreements over the specifics of the payments but the men and women have stood by each other against the CSA and also the CSB deal. 

My original point, is that when you are at a hearing to discuss your financial terms with CSA, you do not need to slam the mens team, even if hypothetically the men were against you, there doesnt need to be snide remarks about the ranking of the mens team. If it is brought up properly to support an argument, then I am all for it. But there doesnt need to be underhanded jabs out of emotion during a hearing. 

 

15 hours ago, RS said:

Beckie made a point of noting that the men's team is on the same side as they are.

The only ones taking shots at the men's team were some silly MPs.

I 100% agree that the both teams are standing together. I just was referring to the comment about the underhanded comment about the men being 40th. 

[RS]

9 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

The CSA isn't funding the CPL so I don't know why that keeps being brought up.  He's talking about the CSA having 3 to 4 million more revenue every year that can go to both men's and women's national teams and players.   I.e money the program didn't have before.  That is a benefit to each side. 

 

I'm aware of how the CSB deal works.

According to the WNT, that $3-4 million revenue per year has not impacted their program — in fact they say it's been shrunken this year.

What we can see from the youth programs is that very little has changed in that regard over the four years of the CSB deal so far. There aren't more international friendlies/camps, the teams still go dormant unless there's a Concacaf tournament coming up, but maybe there are some more domestic identification camps? 

So what the CSA has to show for the 3-4x more revenue is... more of the same.

That's why I keep bringing it up.

[RS]

7 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I 100% agree that the both teams are standing together. I just was referring to the comment about the underhanded comment about the men being 40th. 

Again, it was a smug-looking MP that brought up the men's ranking in the first place. The WNT players only mentioned it as part of their answer to him.

Maybe they could have said something like "the men's ranking plays no part in our concerns" but the WNT members at the hearing aren't experienced politicians so they were probably caught off guard a bit by the implication (I know I was).