Jump to content

The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

Shway

By Shway
in Men's National Teams

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

El Hombre
El Hombre

So I just waded through 15 pages and here are my two cents because no one asked: 1 - There's a common thought here that the CSB has no reason to come back to the bargaining table and that doesn't

VinceA
VinceA

I am on the player's side of this of course, but calling the CPL "minor league" is a shitty thing to do and only hurts our own professional league we are trying to grow that has given opportunities to

shermanator
shermanator

For me, neither side come out of this looking great. The CSA gets no sympathy from me at all given their track record over the last few decades, and their complete inability with how to deal with t

Posted Images

dyslexic nam Grand Master

dyslexic nam

Posted
Posted (edited)

I hadn’t listened to that podcast before but it really does show the state of information in this debate.  

I agree entirely with Amy Walsh about the need for transparency about the finances.  That includes the CSB contract, how all funds are allocated among CSA programs, the sponsorship dollars, etc.  Full stop.  That is an issue I think everyone not directly affiliated with the CSB agreement supports - better and more complete information will allow for better scrutiny on all sides.  

But a lot of her other comments were a bit of a dumpster fire.   She argues against the idea of unequal levels of funding for the two separate programs but then backtracks when they lay out the fact that the men’s program costs more simply because of the demands on their program.  She also doesn’t seem to have a response to the idea that inequities between the importance of games, or of the higher number of meaningful (non-friendly) games, is an issue to take up with FIFA or CONCACAF and not CSA. 

This podcast also shows how hard it is to have a discussion that actually accounts for all of the relevant issues.   The discussion of the need for continued investment in the youth programs was quickly dismissed with the idea that the women shouldn’t bear that cost (even though Brennan was referencing both youth programs) and the idea that it doesn’t impact the issue of player pay at the senior level (even though it is clearly going to diminish the limited resource pool that funds all programs).   

All of this just speaks to the idea that this isn’t a simple issue that can be resolved by slicing the pie in half and pretending we got it right.  And anyone who thinks it is as simple as that, whether fans or players, are doing a disservice to all of those who would be impacted by a quick but uninformed resolution.  

Maybe it shows my own biases but this podcast reinforces the idea for me that there is no way you get a fair accounting of the issues from those embedded in one side of the issue.   

Edited by dyslexic nam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanSoccfan11 Enthusiast

CanSoccfan11

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I hadn’t listened to that podcast before but it really does show the state of information in this debate.  

I agree entirely with Amy Walsh about the need for transparency about the finances.  That includes the CSB contract, how all funds are allocated working CSA programs, the sponsorship dollars, etc.  Full stop.  That is an issue I think everyone not directly affiliated with the CSB agreement supports - better and more complete information will allow for better scrutiny on all sides.  

But a lot of her other comments were a bit of a dumpster fire.   She argues against the idea of unequal levels of funding for the two separate programs but then backtracks when they lay out the fact that the men’s program costs more simply because of the demands on their program.  She also doesn’t seem to have a response to the idea that inequities between the importance of games, or of the higher number of meaningful (non-friendly) games, is an issue to take up with FIFA or CONCACAF and not CSA. 

This podcast also shows how hard it is to have a discussion that actually accounts for all of the relevant issues.   The discussion of the need for continued investment in the youth programs was quickly dismissed with the idea that the women shouldn’t bear that cost (even though Brennan was referencing both youth programs) and the idea that it doesn’t impact the issue of player pay at the senior level (even though it is clearly going to diminish the limited resource pool that funds all programs).   

All of this just speaks to the idea that this isn’t a simple issue that can be resolved by slicing the pie in half and pretending we got it right.  And anyone who thinks it is as simple as that, whether fans or players, are doing a disservice to all of those who would be impacted by a quick but uninformed resolution.  

Maybe it shows my own biases but this podcast reinforces the idea for me that there is no way you get a fair accounting of the issues from those embedded in one side of the issue.   

Simple fact of the matter is I'm sick of all the best for the game and program rhetoric by both the men's and women's players.  This really is all about fighting for a larger share of the pie for themselves. 

If the pie is the same and you want more then it will take from different programs.  Don't hid behind false rhetoric, just come out and say you feel underpaid and are fighting for your fair share. 

 

 

Edited by CanSoccfan11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unnamed Trialist Grand Master

Unnamed Trialist

Posted
Posted

I am trying to reconstruct some historical data regarding the Women's NT players receiving payment for attending camps or games. This is because Walsh says they were not paid at all, and I am not sure that was true towards the end of her years on the NT.

What I recalled was that some agreement had been made, around the time or before Charmaine Hooper was forced out of the national programme. There was the subject of Kerfoot paying a salary to players in residency at Whitecaps, which was supplemented by CSA or national funding (not sure if it was Olympics programme maybe). 

But apart from that, I was fairly sure there was some collective bargaining and that an agreement for payment per game or for camps was reached, we are talking about some 15 years ago. Anyone have any memory on this?

Sinclair was extremely hard on Hooper and others who were effectively kicked out of the programme by Pellerud, she always toed the line and tended to be a conformist and a non-conflictive player who just did what she was told by the CSA. Which contrasts with her current stance, and also explains, perhaps, why she spent years as the biggest household name in Canadian soccer but never even thought about claiming her merchandising rights for shirt sales until Phonzie did his deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
red card Grand Master

red card

Posted
Posted

Looks like no Bontis for Monday's 1100 ET Heritage Committee meeting.

By video, it will be Cochrane and 2 board members: Paul-Claude Bérubé & Stephanie J. Geosits. 

Paul-Claude Bérubé has served on Canada Soccer’s Board of Directors since 2015-16. Originally from Trois-Pistoles, Bérubé earned a Bachelor of Law degree from Laval University in 1983. 

His various commitments have granted him the positions of Mayor of his municipality, Commissioner of the Regional School Board as well as Vice-President of the Regional Health Authority. A specialist in governance, he has written and rewritten the general regulations of many organisations. It is therefore not surprising to find him on Canada Soccer’s Governance Committee. He has also chaired the Risk Oversight Committee.

 

Stephanie J. Geosits founded All About Sports consulting in 2019 to support her clients in increasing opportunities and building communities through sport. Geosits established the Marketing & Communications department at Ontario Soccer and led grassroots clubs in strategic planning and growth initiatives.

While earning a Master’s in Public Policy (MPP) from the Harvard Kennedy School, she wrote her Policy Analysis Exercise on diversifying hockey for the National Hockey League. She also has experience as the Executive Director of The Carnegie Initiative for Inclusion and Acceptance in Hockey.

As a journalist, Geosits wrote for the Associated Press Sports Department and created the New York Yankees’ website, while serving as their Editor in Chief. She graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Spanish Language and Literature, and Anthropology.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-70/notice

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruud Proficient

Ruud

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, red card said:

Looks like no Bontis for Monday's 1100 ET Heritage Committee meeting.

By video, it will be Cochrane and 2 board members: Paul-Claude Bérubé & Stephanie J. Geosits. 

Paul-Claude Bérubé has served on Canada Soccer’s Board of Directors since 2015-16. Originally from Trois-Pistoles, Bérubé earned a Bachelor of Law degree from Laval University in 1983. 

His various commitments have granted him the positions of Mayor of his municipality, Commissioner of the Regional School Board as well as Vice-President of the Regional Health Authority. A specialist in governance, he has written and rewritten the general regulations of many organisations. It is therefore not surprising to find him on Canada Soccer’s Governance Committee. He has also chaired the Risk Oversight Committee.

 

Stephanie J. Geosits founded All About Sports consulting in 2019 to support her clients in increasing opportunities and building communities through sport. Geosits established the Marketing & Communications department at Ontario Soccer and led grassroots clubs in strategic planning and growth initiatives.

While earning a Master’s in Public Policy (MPP) from the Harvard Kennedy School, she wrote her Policy Analysis Exercise on diversifying hockey for the National Hockey League. She also has experience as the Executive Director of The Carnegie Initiative for Inclusion and Acceptance in Hockey.

As a journalist, Geosits wrote for the Associated Press Sports Department and created the New York Yankees’ website, while serving as their Editor in Chief. She graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Spanish Language and Literature, and Anthropology.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-70/notice

 

Wise choices To be fair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RS Grand Master

RS

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

It would be ironic if the women placed high enough in the tourney to earn more prize money than the men did for their 0-point showing in Qatar.  Curious if that would impact the positioning on the funding issue.  

I don't think that's currently possible, even with the increase in prize money for the WWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
red card Grand Master

red card

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

So the winner of the WWC gets less than the team that places bottom 3 in the WC?   Oof.  

The breakdown hasn't been released yet. But it has been surmised winner of WWC 23 will get US$10 million, up from US$4 million. So, only on par with qualifying for Qatar. The US women made more money from the US men making Qatar R16 than by winning in 2019.

FIFA's 3 step women's football plan includes getting WWC 27 prize money to be on par with WC 26. Their plan was to achieve this via dedicated sponsors and separating the media rights for WWCs. So far, sponsors haven't really emerged and pushback killed Visit Saudi sponsorship. Media rights are being first sold stand-alone in Europe but the bids have been way lower than expected given the record 2019 audience levels. The Euro broadcasters say time zone difference means lower numbers for WWC 23 than WWC 19 and last year's Euros.

So, if FIFA is serious about achieving prize money parity, they'll need to dip into their US$4B reserves. After 26, reserves should be larger given projected revenues will top $11B vs $7.5B for Qatar and no covid. FIFA is also projecting revenues for the expanded Club World Cup will be around $3B.

FIFA wants the WWC prize money disbursed by the federations to youth development and to the players. If this parity happens, it will be a significant boost for Canada Soccer and the national team players. So, it's going to be crucial to keep the women's team within the top 10 even though the number of countries taking the women's game seriously will grow 4-5x.

 

 

 

Edited by red card
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watchmen Grand Master

Watchmen

Posted
Posted

https://theathletic.com/4320373/2023/03/17/canada-soccer-business-deal-explained?source=user-shared-article

A good read. Some key points:

- The CSB's option to extend is unilateral 

- CSB tried to sit down with players (men and women) prior to 2022 to explain the deal. Their efforts were blocked by the CSA.

- CSB has been working to renegotiate the deal and presented an amended offer. They have not heard back from the CSA.

- CSA members who expressed concerns about the deal were cut out of negotiations on it. A number thought that the CSA would have a seat on the CSB board only to find out at the last minute they would not.

- The estimate on the men's strike of the Panama game is that it cost the CSA $3m in revenue.

- The Heritage Committee admits they can't force anyone to do anything, nor are they seeking to. The most they can do is try to improve transparency from the CSA.

 

There's probably more, that's just some items that both jumped out to me and have been topics of discussion. And the author isn't Westhead, and I know that matters to some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...