The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Aird25]

5 minutes ago, RS said:

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.

Is it not possible that the lack of funding has more to do with reduced revenues due to Covid and increased costs due to missed friendlies, fines, and the World Cup? Sponsors are just one revenue stream and it’s quite easy to see how they would have lost money elsewhere 

[CanSoccfan11]

5 minutes ago, RS said:

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.

 

You seem to forget that there was a global pandemic that 1) significantly raised costs for things like travel, testing etc. 2) resulted in other revenue streams for the CSA being drastically reduced as youth and other leagues couldn't run thus lowering the amount they get via registration fees.  

 

I sit on the board of a gym, the last two plus years have been incredibly tough financially.  No doubt it's much the same for organized sports associations.

 

 

[Bigandy]

5 minutes ago, RS said:

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.

The CSA does not have 3-4x more revenue. From 2018-2021 the average increase has been about 25% not accounting for inflation.

2018 - 19m 
2019 - 24m
2020 - 14m
2021 - 33m 

Profit/loss 
2018- negative 1.6m
2019 - negative 400k
2020- +180k
2021- +5m 

I think the womens team is not being very saavy to say that their program has not been impacted by this cash. The CSA has had expenses rise and revenues become volatile during a covid riden time period. Has their program exploded with new opportunities? no. But its not like the mens team gets way more youth camps or anything like that. 

From a financial perspective, the CSA has been operating at a loss since the CSB deal was signed, with the exception of 2021, which is likely being stored for the mens and womens WC's. 

[Ansem]

2 hours 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. 

 

This is an important nuance that needs to be reiterated. Also, it's not like the marketing money is falling on their laps, otherwise the CSA wouldn't be in this position.

CSB does the work to go out there and secure those deals. You need experience paid staff and resources to make this happen. Granted they've exceed expectations and it end up looking like the deal is one-sided in their favor. This ends up helping the league, its employees and most importantly - the players. The salary bump in 2023 after this pandemic mostly came from the boost in marketing revenues.

We were blasting the league for not addressing the "living wage" situation and "union". They survived the pandemic and both are being addressed. I think they deserved the benefit of the doubt on working on the women's league - they've been transparent from the start that launching a Women's league would happen once the men's league is stable.

That's private money taking all the risks and liabilities while taking financial losses making this happen - people need to remember that we are not entitled to private investors money and it could all go away if all of this doesn't become worth their while. CSB should go to the hearing because politicians understands fully how less of a burden on public finances it is when the private sector makes investments on that scale which frees them from getting financially involved.

The CSA will get wrecked but I don't think Noonan will should he choose to go.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Ansem

[zeelaw]

Anyone have the full 2 hours to watch? Quick Google search coulnd't find it for me.

 

FOUND -https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230310/-1/38688

Edited March 10, 2023 by zeelaw

[Ruud]

Bob McCowan podcast did a nice job covering the story with Brian Cooper.  Made some links to his own role in board of Canada basketball.  Fair assessment and balanced.  Seems to imply that csb deal should have had a few clauses in it to share if revenues targets are met. 

[Metro]

8 minutes ago, Ruud said:

Bob McCowan podcast did a nice job covering the story with Brian Cooper.  Made some links to his own role in board of Canada basketball.  Fair assessment and balanced.  Seems to imply that csb deal should have had a few clauses in it to share if revenues targets are met. 

Thanks for the heads up.

Here is the link, as well as one that has an interview with Bruce Arthur on the same subject:

 

[zeelaw]

39 minutes ago, zeelaw said:

Anyone have the full 2 hours to watch? Quick Google search coulnd't find it for me.

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230310/-1/38688

Found it

[red card]

10 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.

"Agenda/old school sexism" is off base given in the 4 years where the CSB was under consideration, CSA was paying US$27.5k each for the NWSL salaries of 10 players. They did this from 2013-2021. 

Just before the CSB deal was first proposed in 2014, the NWSL had its first season in 2013. Before it, there were a couple of failed US leagues. WSL just started in 2011.

Given this nascent landscape for women's pro football leagues, it can more easily portrayed as judicially providing financial support for nearly a starting 11 for the national team while waiting and seeing how women's pro club football was developing. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by red card

[red card]

Cathal Kelly's take in the Globe:

The politicians didn’t get soccer, the soccer players didn’t get politics, but everyone agreed to pretend to talk past each other for two hours.

This has never been about the youth, whoever they are. This is about adults getting their cut. This is a faculty-lounge war over the research budget. Meanwhile, back at headquarters, the university blew the research budget.

How’d this happen? Simple. It isn’t villainy. It’s incompetence. And not just any incompetence. The sort of breathtaking incompetence that is only possible when you put volunteer cheerleaders in charge of a sports organization.

Here is the bottom line that people who live in the real world understand – your job is not a vocation. It’s also not a sinecure.

You have a right to fair treatment. You do not have a right to have things exactly as you would like them.

You also have every right to fight your corner, but careful with that. People have their own problems. Yours get boring in a hurry. At the moment, Canadian soccer is at risk of boring people back to hockey.

This has been like watching a rock star complain about the sound equipment. We get it. You’re a perfectionist and you love your craft. You want to show your best. You want to be taken seriously. You also want to make a bunch more money. “Set up for success,” was the euphemism Beckie used on that front.

But all the rest of us showed up here to be entertained, not lectured. Either do the gig or don’t do the gig or negotiate or strike or rile up another bunch of politicians looking to advance their own agendas. Just don’t mistake our admiration for your craft as an interest in your personal finances.

Maybe paywalled:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-canada-soccer-hearing-resembles-a-pay-dispute-rather-than-a-noble/

[RS]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

Is it not possible that the lack of funding has more to do with reduced revenues due to Covid and increased costs due to missed friendlies, fines, and the World Cup? Sponsors are just one revenue stream and it’s quite easy to see how they would have lost money elsewhere 

Of course it’s possible. It’s likely probable. 

But the only way to know that for sure is for the CSA to open their books.

1 hour ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

 

You seem to forget that there was a global pandemic that 1) significantly raised costs for things like travel, testing etc. 2) resulted in other revenue streams for the CSA being drastically reduced as youth and other leagues couldn't run thus lowering the amount they get via registration fees.  

 

I sit on the board of a gym, the last two plus years have been incredibly tough financially.  No doubt it's much the same for organized sports associations.

 

 

I did not forget the pandemic. That’s ridiculous.

It was you and @Ivan who originally brought up that the CSA is now getting 3-4x the revenue that they were before. Now you’re condescendingly telling me I forgot about a global pandemic that might have impacted those revenues.

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

The CSA does not have 3-4x more revenue. From 2018-2021 the average increase has been about 25% not accounting for inflation.

2018 - 19m 
2019 - 24m
2020 - 14m
2021 - 33m 

Profit/loss 
2018- negative 1.6m
2019 - negative 400k
2020- +180k
2021- +5m 

I think the womens team is not being very saavy to say that their program has not been impacted by this cash. The CSA has had expenses rise and revenues become volatile during a covid riden time period. Has their program exploded with new opportunities? no. But its not like the mens team gets way more youth camps or anything like that. 

From a financial perspective, the CSA has been operating at a loss since the CSB deal was signed, with the exception of 2021, which is likely being stored for the mens and womens WC's. 

Again, the 3-4x number was not brought up by me. 

[CanSoccfan11]

2 minutes ago, RS said:

Of course it’s possible. It’s likely probable. 

But the only way to know that for sure is for the CSA to open their books.

I did not forget the pandemic. That’s ridiculous.

It was you and @Ivan who originally brought up that the CSA is now getting 3-4x the revenue that they were before. Now you’re condescendingly telling me I forgot about a global pandemic that might have impacted those revenues.

Again, the 3-4x number was not brought up by me. 

It was 3 to 4x the sponsorship revenue not 3 to 4 times total revenue.   That equates to the $3 million they get from the CSB. 

[Ruud]

I like Bruce Arthur a lot. I think he gets this story for the most part and sheds some good light.  However I don’t quite see how CS can be accused of neglecting the game and the players and its duty for the past 10 years.  He immediately then gives them credit for hiring good coaches.   It has a very limited mandate and funds.  He speaks about sole sourcing etc, but where we’re the competing bids?  If anything we can all agree that csb deal could have been better but that assumes they had leverage.  
 

it does just seem inconceivable that they did not foresee potential clauses for exponential growth in sponsorship and commercial revenue. 

[Ansem]

21 minutes ago, red card said:

Cathal Kelly's take in the Globe:

The politicians didn’t get soccer, the soccer players didn’t get politics, but everyone agreed to pretend to talk past each other for two hours.

This has never been about the youth, whoever they are. This is about adults getting their cut. This is a faculty-lounge war over the research budget. Meanwhile, back at headquarters, the university blew the research budget.

How’d this happen? Simple. It isn’t villainy. It’s incompetence. And not just any incompetence. The sort of breathtaking incompetence that is only possible when you put volunteer cheerleaders in charge of a sports organization.

Here is the bottom line that people who live in the real world understand – your job is not a vocation. It’s also not a sinecure.

You have a right to fair treatment. You do not have a right to have things exactly as you would like them.

You also have every right to fight your corner, but careful with that. People have their own problems. Yours get boring in a hurry. At the moment, Canadian soccer is at risk of boring people back to hockey.

This has been like watching a rock star complain about the sound equipment. We get it. You’re a perfectionist and you love your craft. You want to show your best. You want to be taken seriously. You also want to make a bunch more money. “Set up for success,” was the euphemism Beckie used on that front.

But all the rest of us showed up here to be entertained, not lectured. Either do the gig or don’t do the gig or negotiate or strike or rile up another bunch of politicians looking to advance their own agendas. Just don’t mistake our admiration for your craft as an interest in your personal finances.

Maybe paywalled:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-canada-soccer-hearing-resembles-a-pay-dispute-rather-than-a-noble/

While the very LOUD minority (including us) argue on details and the evils of CSB/CPL - the silent majority which is overwhelmingly bigger than us football crazies will share the views of this article - oh and CSB isn't on the radar like the noise from people online wants us to believe

The silent majority have bigger fish to fry like unemployment, living wage, housing, inflation, shitty jobs. Yes, fairness is something we should strive for but asking people to care about having a personal chef, single room occupancy, more money so they don't train with training staff - bad optics / lack of awareness. I look at the CSA proposal and I can't help to think that the players had better take it and move on to more productive things like CSA governance and transparency going forward.

Otherwise, while our micro-ecosystem gets riled up over details - the majority that we need to win over to grow this sport will get bored real fast and like the article says, go back to hockey.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Ansem

[Bigandy]

8 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

It was 3 to 4x the sponsorship revenue not 3 to 4 times total revenue.   That equates to the $3 million they get from the CSB. 

Great point. But an organization cannot say we have a really good revenue stream #1 so lets spend it all, even though revenue stream #2 has dropped significantly. I know that's not what you are saying, but the women need to look at things from a comprehensive view point, rather than cherry pick. 

 

14 minutes ago, RS said:

But the only way to know that for sure is for the CSA to open their books.

 

Even with looking at the public financial statements, we can pretty clearly see this is the case. We don't have a detailed account of every dollar, but its pretty obvious why revenues are down and costs are up during covid. 

[Ivan]

20 minutes ago, red card said:

Cathal Kelly's take in the Globe:

The politicians didn’t get soccer, the soccer players didn’t get politics, but everyone agreed to pretend to talk past each other for two hours.

This has never been about the youth, whoever they are. This is about adults getting their cut. This is a faculty-lounge war over the research budget. Meanwhile, back at headquarters, the university blew the research budget.

How’d this happen? Simple. It isn’t villainy. It’s incompetence. And not just any incompetence. The sort of breathtaking incompetence that is only possible when you put volunteer cheerleaders in charge of a sports organization.

Here is the bottom line that people who live in the real world understand – your job is not a vocation. It’s also not a sinecure.

You have a right to fair treatment. You do not have a right to have things exactly as you would like them.

You also have every right to fight your corner, but careful with that. People have their own problems. Yours get boring in a hurry. At the moment, Canadian soccer is at risk of boring people back to hockey.

This has been like watching a rock star complain about the sound equipment. We get it. You’re a perfectionist and you love your craft. You want to show your best. You want to be taken seriously. You also want to make a bunch more money. “Set up for success,” was the euphemism Beckie used on that front.

But all the rest of us showed up here to be entertained, not lectured. Either do the gig or don’t do the gig or negotiate or strike or rile up another bunch of politicians looking to advance their own agendas. Just don’t mistake our admiration for your craft as an interest in your personal finances.

Maybe paywalled:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-canada-soccer-hearing-resembles-a-pay-dispute-rather-than-a-noble/

Wow, first time I think I've ever agreed with Cathal Kelly!

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

23 minutes ago, red card said:

Cathal Kelly:

...Yours get boring in a hurry. At the moment, Canadian soccer is at risk of boring people back to hockey...

An absurd cliche. The bigger problem would be boring people back to the European or Latin American league where they, their parents or ancestors are from to get their soccer fix.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

The CSA does not have 3-4x more revenue. From 2018-2021 the average increase has been about 25% not accounting for inflation.

2020 - 14m
2021 - 33m 

Profit/loss
2020- +180k
2021- +5m 

Those numbers, if accurate, should put to rest the idea being pushed by some on here that the pandemic damaged CSA finances.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

51 minutes ago, red card said:

"Agenda/old school sexism" is off base given in the 4 years where the CSB was under consideration, CSA was paying US$27.5k each for the NWSL salaries of 10 players. They did this from 2013-2021....

So by your own admission the CSA is now doing diddlysquat in that context? No idea why you would think that bolsters the argument that the CSA's approach to the support of men's and women's professional soccer could not be portrayed as old school sexism.

[Obinna]

19 minutes ago, Ivan said:

Wow, first time I think I've ever agreed with Cathal Kelly!

I was gonna say the same thing

[Obinna]

15 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

An absurd cliche. The bigger problem would be boring people back to the European or Latin American league where they, their parents or ancestors are from to get their soccer fix.

Whether they get bored back to European soccer, hockey, or something else doesn't matter. The point is that people have a limited attention span for this stuff. Even for me as a hardcore supporter of Canadian soccer, I have grown tired of this and I am not the only one. It really is turning me off from the national teams, which is not a bad thing. Gives me more time to spend on the things in life that really matter.

Too bad for me that NL is right around the corner and is about to suck me back in

[CanSoccfan11]

14 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Those numbers, if accurate, should put to rest the idea being pushed by some on here that the pandemic damaged CSA finances.

 

You don't see the 10 million drop in revenue from 2019 to 2020 when the pandemic was in full effect? 

 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Just now, CanSoccfan11 said:

 

You don't see the 10 million drop in revenue from 2019 to 2020 when the pandemic was in full effect?

Check out the profit/loss numbers quoted for those years. Expenses must have also dropped drastically.

[CanSoccfan11]

30 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Check out the profit/loss numbers quoted for those years. Expenses must have also dropped drastically.

 

Well yes they spent $10 million less on the national teams in 2020 then they did in 2021 which makes sense as COVID shut down most things that year.

 

Unfortunately the notes to the CSA's financial statements are piss poor that I can't glean what exactly drove the $18 million in revenue from commercial section in 2021 which is the bulk of the revenue increase.

Edited March 10, 2023 by CanSoccfan11

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, RS said:

Of course it’s possible. It’s likely probable. 

But the only way to know that for sure is for the CSA to open their books.

I assume you mean opening the CSB books, because I don't know that the CSA books have much more to tell us. If so, and I mean this as an honest question because I don't have a clue myself, but is this a realistic expectation to ask a private enterprise to open their books to the public on the agreements made with many other very large corporations? Does this ever happen, and is it likely to hamstring our earning power for the foreseeable future if we piss off the corporations investing in the game?