The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Ottawafan]

14 hours ago, An Observer said:

I completely agree with this take.  I have been bored with this for weeks now.  I have never liked the CSA but I have lost a lot of respect for the players (both men and women) through this. It has a bit of an air of the Prince Andrew media fiasco or Harry and Meg show.  They just come across as privileged twats who cherry pick information for their own benefit and ignore the overall situation. Really.  Stick to what you know. Playing soccer.  I have respect for that but I am losing interest in you when you spend your time whining about your personal financial issues in public.  Take the deal and move on.  This was a time to grow the game but it seems the whining will shrink their pie anyway by turning casual fans off and their greed has shrunk it for everyone that comes after them by raiding the funds for development to fill their personal coffers now.  I now fear for the men’s game that this generation maybe a blip rather than the start of something even greater later as their will be no money to nurture the next.

Did you just go full Laura Ingram here with your stay in your lane comment?  
 

[The Ref]

I seem to remember that Fifa disapproves the intervention of Governments in the dealings with soccer.  All negotiations must be between the local Federation and players.  But maybe I got this all wrong!

[red card]

 

[SpursFlu]

I wonder what they said to each other? I'm on the edge of my seat

Edited March 13, 2023 by SpursFlu

[Gian-Luca]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:49 PM, The Ref said:

I seem to remember that Fifa disapproves the intervention of Governments in the dealings with soccer.  All negotiations must be between the local Federation and players.  But maybe I got this all wrong!

It was mentioned in the post-hearing Westhead article that the women's team players actually declined to call back Minister of Sport Pascal St. Onge after she contacted them to see if she could help or investigate. The reason cited that the players were worried that her interference (or that of the Government) might cause FIFA to kick the women's team out of the 2023 World Cup.

Although this was a sensible decision by the Women's team, you also have to wonder why they didn't think of that before they twice called upon her to interfere in the first place. Or did they simply not know about FIFA's history in this regard and someone advising them said "Whoops, you might want to re-think that strategy" by the time the hearing took place?

[Ruud]

On 3/10/2023 at 11:12 PM, Gian-Luca said:

Craig Forrest ripping apart Rick Westhead and TSN was fun, but Jim Brennan pointing out the massive flaws in Amy Walsh’s “arguments” was also good. 

Where’s the money is a fair question.  Are we sure there are millions and millions of sponsorship dollars ?

also fair to point out we are missing big chances to showcase winning teams with home matches etc!  And is it really on CS to better manage Nike deal and new shirts?  Be interesting to uncover how this snafu happened!   

 

[Aird25]

Craig Forrest is so adamant that there isn't a ton of money in the sponsorship and media deal, yet everyone out there seems to just assume that they're making a ton of money. This assumption seems to be one of the primary reasons for the players strikes, and I've asked so many times in so many places why people think it's such a horrible deal for CSA, and nobody seems to really have an answer other than to "open the books", which clearly can't happen. I find it all so frustrating. Investors are being dragged through the dirt, and we don't even know that there is a reason for it yet. Regardless, the damage has already been done

Edited March 13, 2023 by Aird25

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:23 PM, Ansem said:

Not Amy Walsh best podcast, fucking frustrating to listen too. No awareness of the soccer ecosystem. She thinks the league makes more money via CSB than it cost them to run the clubs.

The hell????

It gets so much worse the more you listen to her... do all the women on the NT thinks like her? Wow fuck me

 

 

I didn't find this podcast too illuminating. 

Walsh either lies or is ignorant saying CSB has given nothing to women's football.

3-4 million to the CSA.

The highest women's leagues in the country.

Then she has the audacity to agree with Forrest that youth development is essential. Right now the highest level of youth development in Canada is through L1 and those clubs, but let's shit on a few hundred players if it suits our narrative.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ruud]

Also wouldn’t be tough to reach out to Josh Simpson to understand more about CSB for the players 

[Aird25]

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I didn't find this podcast too illuminating.

I found it somewhat illuminating. When you listen to her, and then read tweets like the one below from Ciara McCormack, you can understand the player's frustration. They don't seem to grasp what the deal is actually for, or what it is/was likely worth 

 

 

[Bison44]

OMG, if I have to hear another person say "money was siphoned", or players fees "propped up" CSB etc..I will lose it!!  CSB gave CSA CASHHH..I'll repeat that for people who dont listen.CASHHHHHH for rights (still not certain which ones bad on CSA/CSB for that)that werent worth very much.  And CSA took the cash and funded their programs for several years and both programs have done well on the field.  It was a business deal, players fees or gov money had nothing to do with it, they never went anywhere.  Now the mens program has had unexpected success and garnered a lot of interest people "THINK" that there are lots of lucrative deals being made by CSB.  And if there are, well the CSB bet on CDN soccer, put in some sales work (bundled national team and CPL rights together for most deals) and it paid off for them.  They get to do what they want with the profits.. yayyy the CPL prob wont fold in the near future...thats the best case scenario. Next year these supposed deals will dissappear because no one will care about national teams in between cycles and it will be the CPL earning the lions share the remaining deals.  

CSA knew exactly how much they were getting from CSB year by year, they should have had a budget for what the womens side needed for 2023.  If they were going to be short, the CSA had the 10mil windfall payment, earned by the mens team, that they could have put more towards operation expenses.  But the men and the women played PR hardball and got the lions share of that money and now the CSA cant fund the women they way they want to and they cant make any other revenue stream produce. 

So who does the uninformed public blame...CSB (unknown bogeymen), CSA (buffons) or people that they actually root for...the players??  

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

16 hours ago, Ruud said:

... Are we sure there are millions and millions of sponsorship dollars ? ...

Worth bearing in mind that there is talk of corporate sponsors not getting on board for the Women's World Cup because they are unable to sponsor only the CWNT team. It's not just about the excess sponsorship money over and above the annual fee to the CSA flowing to CSB instead but also about lost earning potential.

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Worth bearing in mind that there is talk of corporate sponsors not getting on board for the Women's World Cup because they are unable to sponsor only the CWNT team. It's not just about the excess sponsorship money over and above the annual fee to the CSA flowing to CSB instead but also about lost earning potential.

Inability to designate is a problem of the system, no doubt. In most countries where the women's leagues and teams are growing fast, you see new sets of sponsors. Some are trying to use the women's game as a stepping stone into the men's, while others have specific marketing objectives and the women's game is an end. Others still need to sponsor on a smaller scale and women's game affords that.

If you can't designate, as I posted earlier, you can always sponsor directly through your own foundation, and do it that way. But then you cannot benefit from fixed advertising in the stadiums or on shirts, balls, you have to do all the marketing to raise the profile of your designated sponsorship on your own (say if you decide to award a yearly or monthly prize, which is an option).

In Spain one of the big sponsors is a hefty energy company, Iberdrdola, which sponsors women's football the same way it might sponsor the weather reports on the news, instead of greenwashing they are "fem-washing", you could say. But they are loyal. Another is Finetwork which is a new Spanish internet and cellphone network, they need fast recognition so they put in a relatively modest sum to get the league called Liga F, with the letter coincidence a factor.

[An Observer]

13 hours ago, Bison44 said:

OMG, if I have to hear another person say "money was siphoned", or players fees "propped up" CSB etc..I will lose it!!  CSB gave CSA CASHHH..I'll repeat that for people who dont listen.CASHHHHHH for rights (still not certain which ones bad on CSA/CSB for that)that werent worth very much.  And CSA took the cash and funded their programs for several years and both programs have done well on the field.  It was a business deal, players fees or gov money had nothing to do with it, they never went anywhere.  Now the mens program has had unexpected success and garnered a lot of interest people "THINK" that there are lots of lucrative deals being made by CSB.  And if there are, well the CSB bet on CDN soccer, put in some sales work (bundled national team and CPL rights together for most deals) and it paid off for them.  They get to do what they want with the profits.. yayyy the CPL prob wont fold in the near future...thats the best case scenario. Next year these supposed deals will dissappear because no one will care about national teams in between cycles and it will be the CPL earning the lions share the remaining deals.  

CSA knew exactly how much they were getting from CSB year by year, they should have had a budget for what the womens side needed for 2023.  If they were going to be short, the CSA had the 10mil windfall payment, earned by the mens team, that they could have put more towards operation expenses.  But the men and the women played PR hardball and got the lions share of that money and now the CSA cant fund the women they way they want to and they cant make any other revenue stream produce. 

So who does the uninformed public blame...CSB (unknown bogeymen), CSA (buffons) or people that they actually root for...the players??  

i generally agree with this.  That being said, I personally think the CSA negotiated a bad deal, not in the fact that CSB is giving them 3 to 4mill and getting the rights but in not having a clause to renegotiate after 5 years or so if they were hitting it out of the park or a share of revenues after a certain threshold in revenue was reached.  They should have realised there was the possibility of the men's team making the World Cup and the women's team continuing to excel.  And also, allowing them an option to extend for another 10 years after the first 10 years are finished.  That's the possibility of a 20 year tie in that they can't get out of.  That's just too great a length of time.  

Of course, its easy to say that now and likely CSB was the only one offering a guarantee of revenue at that time (plus the revenue they didn't receive was actually being used to prop up the CPL which isn't a bad deal for the CSA).  But still the potential of a 20 year contract with no sharing on the upside over certain thresholds is just way too risky.

 

[Aird25]

23 hours ago, Ruud said:

And is it really on CS to better manage Nike deal and new shirts?

Who else would it be on. It was signed before the CSB deal, wasn’t it?

6 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

corporate sponsors not getting on board for the Women's World Cup because they are unable to sponsor only the CWNT team.

Speaking of equality, eh. Regardless, CSB has brokered deals for just the senior national teams (men’s and women’s), that didn’t include CPL and the rest of their umbrella. So if it’s true they aren’t able to designate to just the women I’d guess it’s another CSA thing and not CSB. They also offered just Larin the opportunity to be brand ambassador for Osmow’s, so I’m skeptical of an inability to designate. In fact, if you read the Osmow’s release, it very much sounds focused on the men’s World Cup run  

Edited March 14, 2023 by Aird25
Additional details

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^clearly doesn't understand how the CSB deal works

[Aird25]

5 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^clearly doesn't understand how the CSB deal works

Which part? I think all of that info is from their news releases on the deals

[RS]

15 hours ago, Bison44 said:

Next year these supposed deals will dissappear because no one will care about national teams in between cycles and it will be the CPL earning the lions share the remaining deals.  

Next year is the Copa America for the men and Olympics for the women. Lots of people will care.

I don't think there's going to be a time in the foreseeable future when the CPL will be earning the lion's share of the deals. That's why this issue between the national teams and CSA/CSB needs to be resolved as amicably and as promptly as possible.

[Aird25]

8 minutes ago, RS said:

Next year is the Copa America for the men and Olympics for the women. Lots of people will care.

I don't think there's going to be a time in the foreseeable future when the CPL will be earning the lion's share of the deals. That's why this issue between the national teams and CSA/CSB needs to be resolved as amicably and as promptly as possible.

I'm pretty sure Pacific are going to beat Seattle in the 2024 Champions League final, sign on Zulily as their kit sponsor, and spark the biggest rivalry on the continent. 

[dyslexic nam]

2 hours ago, An Observer said:

i generally agree with this.  That being said, I personally think the CSA negotiated a bad deal, not in the fact that CSB is giving them 3 to 4mill and getting the rights but in not having a clause to renegotiate after 5 years or so if they were hitting it out of the park or a share of revenues after a certain threshold in revenue was reached.  They should have realised there was the possibility of the men's team making the World Cup and the women's team continuing to excel.  And also, allowing them an option to extend for another 10 years after the first 10 years are finished.  That's the possibility of a 20 year tie in that they can't get out of.  That's just too great a length of time.  

Of course, its easy to say that now and likely CSB was the only one offering a guarantee of revenue at that time (plus the revenue they didn't receive was actually being used to prop up the CPL which isn't a bad deal for the CSA).  But still the potential of a 20 year contract with no sharing on the upside over certain thresholds is just way too risky.

 

I still (on the basis of no factual info whatsoever) suspect that the extension option would require the agreement of both parties.  I have been involved in the development of enough contracts, agreements, and MOUs to recognize that it would be extremely odd (and legally naive) to give one party the unilateral ability to extend the terms of an agreement between two parties - especially by a full decade.  It is just such a fundamental and easily addressed imbalance of power within a contract that I find hard to believe that even a largely incompetent organization would include it as an element of a massive contract.    

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

I still (on the basis of no factual info whatsoever) suspect that the extension option would require the agreement of both parties.  I have been involved in the development of enough contracts, agreements, and MOUs to recognize that it would be extremely odd (and legally naive) to give one party the unilateral ability to extend the terms of an agreement between two parties - especially by a full decade.  It is just such a fundamental and easily addressed imbalance of power within a contract that I find hard to believe that even a largely incompetent organization would include it as an element of a massive contract.    

I've thought about this. But also, I've watched the CSA. So really, I still think it's 50/50.

[Bison44]

7 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I still (on the basis of no factual info whatsoever) suspect that the extension option would require the agreement of both parties.  I have been involved in the development of enough contracts, agreements, and MOUs to recognize that it would be extremely odd (and legally naive) to give one party the unilateral ability to extend the terms of an agreement between two parties - especially by a full decade.  It is just such a fundamental and easily addressed imbalance of power within a contract that I find hard to believe that even a largely incompetent organization would include it as an element of a massive contract.    

Well there were no other offers on the table, so you never know.  And looking back to when it was signed, if they are going to pay the steady cash to CSA, build CPL etc, thats a long term project eh? They dont want to be just getting things taking off after 2026 and then have the rug pulled out and CSA had it over to someone else after CSB was there when things were at the low point.  But it sure seems like CSA really handed it all over to CSB.  

Someone really has to set me straight on this, some of the posters think the 2026 WC on home soil wont move the needle for soccer, but then some think the Copa america and the womens WC in AU/NZ will attract a lot of buzz this summer.  Even this first mens WC in decades hasnt really boosted things the way I thought it might.  I am hopeful for for things to improve but after watching everyone shoot themselves in the foot lately, mb the negative nellies have it right. 

[Ruud]

Not when Canadian media outlets are not invested to promote the product.  Apple deal hurts in this regard!

for women, the World Cup will give them a ton of motivation for Project 8 also  and a lot of airtime   

 

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, Ruud said:

Not when Canadian media outlets are not invested to promote the product.  Apple deal hurts in this regard!

for women, the World Cup will give them a ton of motivation for Project 8 also  and a lot of airtime   

 

I really wish MLS was on Fubo, DAZN, or OneSoccer. I never get to see MLS teams unless they're playing cup or continental games.

[dyslexic nam]

17 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I really wish MLS was on Fubo, DAZN, or OneSoccer. I never get to see MLS teams unless they're playing cup or continental games.

I have gone from watching every TFC game and most televised CFM and Caps games to picking up the occasional offering of whichever happens to be on TV.  Not sure if this will change over this season but I am definitely not getting Apple TV to watch.