The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Watchmen]

9 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

That’s crazy.  I was sure this had to be an error.  Such an imbalance of power to entrench something like that in an agreement. 

Per the article, it sounds like former board members also thought the same thing. But also, see above about how some of them were getting cut out of negotiations. 

Reading it, it sounds very much like Bontis would do whatever it took to get this CSB deal done. That it would be his legacy. And it is. Just not the way he intended. 

[dyslexic nam]

37 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Per the article, it sounds like former board members also thought the same thing. But also, see above about how some of them were getting cut out of negotiations. 

Reading it, it sounds very much like Bontis would do whatever it took to get this CSB deal done. That it would be his legacy. And it is. Just not the way he intended. 

“Get it done at all costs” is not a position of strength within a negotiation.    

[Watchmen]

11 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

“Get it done at all costs” is not a position of strength within a negotiation.    

Oh, there's details on the Nike negotiation in there as well. CSB had already reached out to multiple companies and there was "significant interest", but CSA said they wanted to handle it. Then they went to Nike because that's the only company they wanted to sign with and signed the current deal. Completely failed to use any leverage.

[Kadenge]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

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.

CSA not looking good on any of those highlighted items. 

[Bison44]

Sorry, the article is behind a paywall, but who is the source, had to be someone in the room for all this eh? 

[RS]

17 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Sorry, the article is behind a paywall, but who is the source, had to be someone in the room for all this eh? 

Multiple Canada Soccer board members, some former. Also multiple sources with knowledge of the CSB deal.

Kloke also has several on-the-record quotes from Mark Noonan in the article.

[Ansem]

2 hours ago, Watchmen said:

- 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.

Not a good look on the CSA, the statement from CSB being on the side of the players for transparency makes sense now. It looks like it's the CSA upholding the NDA.

 

2 hours ago, Watchmen said:

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.

That was predictable 

 

2 hours ago, phresh said:

Is this normal?

It's not common but it does happens, thinking of the whole Larin vs MLS with regards to option years.

In the business world, this speaks volume to which side had the most leverage. The CSA were like boys negotiating with successful business people. Ouch

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

2 hours ago, Watchmen said:

- 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.

This part really interests me. Anyone know if the CSA board minutes are posted online and which meeting the CSA would have voted on accepting the CSB deal?  I am guessing the General Secretary would have negotiated the deal and brought it to the board to be voted on and approved. Really interested to see what was said at the time. Was ‘Mont Pete’ the GS when this was signed?

[Metro]

26 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Sorry, the article is behind a paywall, but who is the source, had to be someone in the room for all this eh? 

The article also acts as a great “CSB deal 101” for the uninitiated. Kloke does a great job describing the characteristics of the deal and its history of how it came about including comparisons to the American SUM deal and the IMG deal that came before it.

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

10 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

This part really interests me. Anyone know if the CSA board minutes are posted online and which meeting the CSA would have voted on accepting the CSB deal?  I am guessing the General Secretary would have negotiated the deal and brought it to the board to be voted on and approved. Really interested to see what was said at the time. Was ‘Mont Pete’ the GS when this was signed?

Also sorry to quote myself, but aren’t these the type of questions and information that all the journalists covering this story should be looking into?  I feel like most of the takes I hear from journalist acknowledge they don’t know the full story but also don’t bother researching any of the facts behind the story. Just basic things like who was involved at the CSA when the deal was signed. Bontis definitely has the appearance of being a chud and not being part of the solution, but part of me feels he is getting too much of the blame as he’s basically been stitched up by previous employees and board members.  

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

Oh, there's details on the Nike negotiation in there as well. CSB had already reached out to multiple companies and there was "significant interest", but CSA said they wanted to handle it. Then they went to Nike because that's the only company they wanted to sign with and signed the current deal. Completely failed to use any leverage.

It almost sounds like CSB is needed in the context of the gross incompetence of the CSA

*the laugh emoji is because it's so insane that I don't know how to react with regards to the Nike deal

Edited March 17, 2023 by Ansem

[narduch]

2 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

Also sorry to quote myself, but aren’t these the type of questions and information that all the journalists covering this story should be looking into?  I feel like most of the takes I hear from journalist acknowledge they don’t know the full story but also don’t bother researching any of the facts behind the story. Just basic things like who was involved at the CSA when the deal was signed. Bontis definitely has the appearance of being a chud and not being part of the solution, but part of me feels he is getting too much of the blame as he’s basically been stitched up by previous employees and board members.  

Montagliani problem needs more blame

[Gian-Luca]

Without being able to read the article, the reference to the CSA blocking the CSB from meeting with the women to explain seems confusing since the CSB themselves (Noonan) claimed that such a meeting with the women actually happened. 

[red card]

Other new items of interest from Kloke's article is that board was split on CSB deal as per 1 former member. Those who voted for it did it as loyalty to Bontis.

IMG deal was frustrating because it wasn't bringing in major sponsors and no league was coming.

Noonan said six-figure bonus was paid pre-Qatar due to incremental money coming from international tv rights.

One former board member remembers speaking to fellow board members and Canada Soccer senior executives late in 2017 and raising the point that “the men’s national team’s best player was only 17.” The former board member recalls Canada Soccer senior executives not knowing at first who he was talking about.

Former board member said problems with men's & women's team arose because there was no General Secretary for about 6-7 months in 2022. Canada Soccer dipped into their reserves to fund WCQ.

Various board members said Bontis was ill-equipped to negotiate a CBA. When Bontis pointed to CSB as hampering a CBA, CSB attempt to provide assistance was rebuffed.

Noonan says CSB went to Canada Soccer in April 2022 to see if they can provide help. A tangible offer was presented to Canada Soccer this month that CSB has yet to hear back on.

There is a belief from some within CSB that some members of Canada Soccer tried to remain the sole sources of information for players.

Many within Canada Soccer were pleased that they were able to land Nike as a kit provider, those The Athletic spoke to at CSB believed that with their experience brokering partnerships, they could have negotiated a more beneficial deal either with Nike or another kit provider had they been given the freedom to do so.

 

[Ansem]

12 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Without being able to read the article, the reference to the CSA blocking the CSB from meeting with the women to explain seems confusing since the CSB themselves (Noonan) claimed that such a meeting with the women actually happened. 

That was prior to 2022, CSB might have end up meeting the players more recently but it troubling that the CSA blocked CSB from meeting them during the pandemic/lockdown I would assume

[Ansem]

6 minutes ago, red card said:

Various board members said Bontis was ill-equipped to negotiate a CBA. When Bontis pointed to CSB as hampering a CBA, CSB attempt to provide assistance was rebuffed.

Noonan says CSB went to Canada Soccer in April 2022 to see if they can provide help. A tangible offer was presented to Canada Soccer this month that CSB has yet to hear back on.

There is a belief from some within CSB that some members of Canada Soccer tried to remain the sole sources of information for players.

Very troubling from the CSA, wouldnt be surprise if CSB disclosed this voluntarily ahead of the hearing to let the CSA hang on its own

Edited March 17, 2023 by Ansem

[red card]

19 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Without being able to read the article, the reference to the CSA blocking the CSB from meeting with the women to explain seems confusing since the CSB themselves (Noonan) claimed that such a meeting with the women actually happened. 

 

19 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Without being able to read the article, the reference to the CSA blocking the CSB from meeting with the women to explain seems confusing since the CSB themselves (Noonan) claimed that such a meeting with the women actually happened. 

Yes, CSB made one presentation to the women last summer. None to the men.

CSB claims that despite the men’s national team stating in June 2022 that they “recently learned” about the CSB deal, they repeatedly tried to organize presentations with the men’s team to inform them of the deal. These requests were denied by Canada Soccer, according to CSB.

“At times, it’s been frustrating: we’ve wanted to establish relationships with coaches and players. We think it’s important to do that so they understand both the opportunities and the scale of our investment and how that benefits everybody. And it’s been very difficult to get that access,” Mitchell said.

Edited March 17, 2023 by red card

[Aird25]

This all being released the day after a men's roster release is suspect 

\s

I wish it wasn't behind a paywall

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

This part really interests me. Anyone know if the CSA board minutes are posted online and which meeting the CSA would have voted on accepting the CSB deal?  I am guessing the General Secretary would have negotiated the deal and brought it to the board to be voted on and approved. Really interested to see what was said at the time. Was ‘Mont Pete’ the GS when this was signed?

Yes, this was asked for last summer by journalists. The CSA stated they lost the meeting notes. "Technical malfunction with the recording of the vote." was the official explanation, if I recall correctly. 

[Watchmen]

7 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

This all being released the day after a men's roster release is suspect 

\s

I wish it wasn't behind a paywall

I'll never tell anyone how to spend their money, but 1) the Athletic is great and 2) a 1 year subscription goes on sale for $1 a month somewhat frequently. 

[Ivan]

Great article by Kloke.  Nice to have a writer tell both sides of a story and dig a little deeper to bring more facts to light rather than just relying on sensationalist journalism to enhance a controversy. Ahem.  Anyway, a lot of questions answered, and boy, the CSA really look bad. 

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

16 hours ago, red card said:

Other new items of interest from Kloke's article is that board was split on CSB deal as per 1 former member. Those who voted for it did it as loyalty to Bontis.

Bontis didn’t become CSA president until after the CSB deal was signed, why did he have so much sway over other board members?

[Ottawafan]

And people wonder why the players of the NT's have no confidence in the CSA.  Canadian soccer has so many rotten elements to it.

[red card]

At the US Soccer AGM this weekend, the vote to pay the President 150k/yr failed again. It received 58.1% in 2022, 62.9% in 2023. Needed 66.7% of vote to approve by-law amendment. If all the MLS/NWSL player/member votes said yes to pay, the grassroot & misc members voted against it by 79%.

Some of the pros & cons cited easily apply to Canada Soccer.

Pros:
- U.S. Soccer isn't anymore a 50-person organization run out of some kitchen
- It isn’t a ceremonial job anymore. Past 2 USSF presidents treated it like a full-time job.
- The position is exclusionary in nature, in who can actually come forward. Most people without economic privilege or professional pliability couldn't even consider entering an election.
- Weekly averages from last July to November as per Cindy Cone's assistant’s work log: 12-14 hours in scheduled meetings, 18-24 hours on unscheduled calls, 9 hours reading emails or documents, 3 days per week travel and then her actual job of youth soccer director.

Cons:
- Many of the folks who run amateur soccer associations across the country and who vote at AGMs are themselves unpaid. They see serving American soccer, whether in the federation’s highest chair or at lower levels, as an honour and a privilege, a passion project for the betterment of the sport.
- If USSF president becomes a paying position, then all the presidents of the member organizations need to be paid – but not realistic
- The deeper problem is that many throughout the ecosystem feel overlooked by the federation as it has been more focused on being a regulator instead of a trade association. The federation's gotta do more at the grassroots. The value proposition has not been demonstrated to members. 
- IRS frowns on paying directors of nonprofit boards
- Position offers significant power and prestige and opportunities to earn money elsewhere. CONCACAF and FIFA Councils pay members 125k and 250k annually, respectively. Past 2 presidents parlayed their relationships and experience into work with UEFA and FIFA.

And, not much detail, but US Soccer is also facing budget cuts.

 

[SF]

Just now able to read the Kloke article. Really good piece and lots of important information.

You see this in organizations from time to time - they become insular and protective of their own "turf". My sense of this is that the CSA is one of these organizations. They are almost certainly in over their heads and stampeding toward even more confrontation with key stakeholders.

My 2 cents is that the whole Board and senior management team need to resign and be replaced (like Hockey Canada). This would almost certainly mean some decent and qualified people would be lost, but this situation is screaming for a huge reset.

We shall see...the Parliamentary Committee doesn't have legislative authority, but they sure do have a bully pulpit and that can shake things up in its own way.