The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[CanSoccfan11]

8 hours ago, RS said:

Weird. Scott Mitchell tweeted that CSB "never took out a red cent" from the deal.

 

Just because this one segment of CSB was profitable doesn't mean their entire business was.   As mentioned I'm sure most of this flowed into the CPL to cover some of the losses there.

[Ruud]

8 hours ago, Aird25 said:

You have to think this whole situation is hurting the amount of sponsorship money available to the sport in Canada. The only deal signed since the men refused to play the friendly is Quesada. It's sad to think how much money in terms of sponsorships, ticket revenue etc. may have already been lost, and will continue to be lost, due to these disputes

More so if this continues it’s bad for csb. Players themselves may not offer likenesses for sponsorships or sponsors leave now that they see it’s not tied to women. . The end may justify the means for the players 

[RS]

2 hours ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

 

Just because this one segment of CSB was profitable doesn't mean their entire business was.   As mentioned I'm sure most of this flowed into the CPL to cover some of the losses there.

Already addressed later in the thread.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

 

[Macksam]

22 hours ago, red card said:

Globe reported earlier Bontis didn't attend because he was in no state of mind.

Over the past year, Bontis was the victim in a criminal-harassment case, which led to the Hamilton Police Service charging a person, and Bontis learned last Wednesday that the person had unexpectedly died.

Cochrane said Bontis received 280 e-mails, pertaining to his role as a sport leader, from the person over 14 months. They contained a range of threats and demands, which left Bontis fearful. Cochrane said Bontis initially planned to testify.

Likely paywalled:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/article-former-canada-soccer-president-nick-bontis-wont-appear-before/

I would like more details about this. 

[Ottawafan]

16 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

 

“Those decisions were made with good intentions of controlling spending, but we should not have made those decisions that negatively impacted the women’s team. Canada Soccer is now in conversations with the technical staff to reconfirm what they need to be successful at the World Cup and we are committed to meeting those needs.”

BS.  It is your job to know how this would affect the WNT.  This is why the players have no trust in the CSA and makes you wonder who's interest the CSA was serving.

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

https://www.polarsc.ca/articles/CanadaSoccerCorpStatus/

Did Canada Soccer violate federal corporate legislation?

By Jay Fitzsimmons

Wow, you actually clicked on this story despite its title having “corporate legislation”. You’re the niche reader I’ve written for. Someone who cares about Canada Soccer, financial conduct, and transparency.

This article is based on a twitter thread I wrote on March 4, 2023. I’ve updated the information, and hope this article is more permanent than twitter might be....

[Unnamed Trialist]

If the apointment of Bontis to the Concacaf VP position could be construed as a patronage appointment from Montagliani, it should be rejected. He should not be rewarded with this position if he was pushed out by his own constituency because the provinces retired their confidence in his leadership.

The timing is also very poor.

I don't like the appearance of Victor rewarding Nick with that post, which seems like a pact to cover each others' backs, of sorts.

I think that comment by Sinclair that he complained about her "bitching" would have justified him being forced out then and there. That was unacceptable, and he should not have responsibility for, amongst other things, building the future of women's soccer in the confederation, when he has no credit amongst Canadian women players.

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, Ottawafan said:

“Those decisions were made with good intentions of controlling spending, but we should not have made those decisions that negatively impacted the women’s team. Canada Soccer is now in conversations with the technical staff to reconfirm what they need to be successful at the World Cup and we are committed to meeting those needs.”

BS.  It is your job to know how this would affect the WNT.  This is why the players have no trust in the CSA and makes you wonder who's interest the CSA was serving.

 

Who's interest is the CSA serving by reducing staff, roster spots, and making the women fly economy for the she believes cup? 

CSA  really need to be fiscally responsible with such a little budget. Trying to save costs on a "friendly tournament" doesn't feel like it benefits anyone other than the entire organization as those saved funds can go towards youth camps, operational costs, CMNT/CWNT official matches/tournaments.  

I don't see a conspiracy theory about some secret agenda's. CSA made budget cuts and the women think that the cuts are detrimental to them. I would strongly support minor cuts during friendly's (both men and women), if that helps make cash available for our youth program.  

[Ottawafan]

7 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Who's interest is the CSA serving by reducing staff, roster spots, and making the women fly economy for the she believes cup? 

CSA  really need to be fiscally responsible with such a little budget. Trying to save costs on a "friendly tournament" doesn't feel like it benefits anyone other than the entire organization as those saved funds can go towards youth camps, operational costs, CMNT/CWNT official matches/tournaments.  

I don't see a conspiracy theory about some secret agenda's. CSA made budget cuts and the women think that the cuts are detrimental to them. I would strongly support minor cuts during friendly's (both men and women), if that helps make cash available for our youth program.  

Some random friendly I can see that flying.  Prepping for the World Cup, zero chance.  With additional CSA revenues over the last year, there is no excuse for that.  And suddenly, when the public spotlight gets put on this issue, then they are able to do a 180 and find the resources?  This was an attempt from the CSA to squeeze the women and treat them poorly.  Blew up in their faces.

[Bigandy]

27 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Some random friendly I can see that flying.  Prepping for the World Cup, zero chance.  With additional CSA revenues over the last year, there is no excuse for that.  And suddenly, when the public spotlight gets put on this issue, then they are able to do a 180 and find the resources?  This was an attempt from the CSA to squeeze the women and treat them poorly.  Blew up in their faces.

It seems like you moved the goal post of your argument. Initially it was that someone else benefitted and in this post, its about wanting to treat the women poorly. 

We can debate how important 3 friendly games, 5 months before a world cup is, but I think the fact that its a debate is the whole point. Some people, including CSA thought that flying economy to the she believes cup is not as detrimental as other people think. It's a matter of differing opinions, not conspiracy. 

What additional revenues are you talking about? How about the costs? The 2022 financial statemnets are yet to be released so I am not sure its fair to crucify CSA when you do not have the relevant financial information to do so. 

Why would the CSA be attempting to squeeze the women during feb 2023, yet have a proposal from months earlier that would make them the 2nd best paid nation in womens soccer. It makes no sense to claim that they want to treat women poorly, but at the same time, want to treat the women better than almost every other nation (including the ones who have larger budgets and better teams). 

The CSA has flaws, but a witch hunt hurts everyone involved. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Bigandy

[Bison44]

So did we ever figure out what the actual sponsorship money brought in by CSB was? 2.8 or 8.2?  Because that is prob the one important piece of info to come out.  Either CSA is making out like bandits (taking in 3-4mil) and CSB is only been able to raise 2.8 on that investment, or it looks like CSB made a nice profit of the deal on a mens WC year with lots of Buzz (which is exactly what you would expect/like to hear).  Still murky on how exactly the deal got approved..that should be cut and dried, they need to explain that.

So if the f$cked up mens strike (iran mess too) hadnt have happened CSA would have been a couple million further ahead and the women could have gotten the prep (a good chunk of it eh?) that they say they are missing out on.  Or if they had kept a little of the mens windfall around to cover next years shortfalls instead paying out the lions share to both current national teams players.  Am i missing anything, oh yeah Bontis was a rude prick to Sinclair.  

[Bigandy]

15 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

So did we ever figure out what the actual sponsorship money brought in by CSB was? 2.8 or 8.2?  Because that is prob the one important piece of info to come out.  Either CSA is making out like bandits (taking in 3-4mil) and CSB is only been able to raise 2.8 on that investment, or it looks like CSB made a nice profit of the deal on a mens WC year with lots of Buzz (which is exactly what you would expect/like to hear).  Still murky on how exactly the deal got approved..that should be cut and dried, they need to explain that.

So if the f$cked up mens strike (iran mess too) hadnt have happened CSA would have been a couple million further ahead and the women could have gotten the prep (a good chunk of it eh?) that they say they are missing out on.  Or if they had kept a little of the mens windfall around to cover next years shortfalls instead paying out the lions share to both current national teams players.  Am i missing anything, oh yeah Bontis was a rude prick to Sinclair.  

Love this post 
If CSB makes 2.8 in a WC year with Hype - CSA are savvy negotiating sharks and we should thank CSA for doing so.
If CSB makes 8.2 million in a WC year with Hype - This number is not outrageous. The CSB makes 5.2ish million for having the resources and ability to bring in more sponsors. What is a reasonable amount we would be willing to pay to a marketing company to earn 3million, while making the offer still attractive enough for them to take the risk on CSA? 

Maybe the CSA and CSB are not as evil as everyone thought and the players are not as financially saavy as portrayed?  

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

Who's interest is the CSA serving by reducing staff, roster spots, and making the women fly economy for the she believes cup? 

CSA  really need to be fiscally responsible with such a little budget. Trying to save costs on a "friendly tournament" doesn't feel like it benefits anyone other than the entire organization as those saved funds can go towards youth camps, operational costs, CMNT/CWNT official matches/tournaments.  

I don't see a conspiracy theory about some secret agenda's. CSA made budget cuts and the women think that the cuts are detrimental to them. I would strongly support minor cuts during friendly's (both men and women), if that helps make cash available for our youth program.  

Only thing here is that we probably were paid to participate in She Believes. No, we were paid to participate. Then there may have been bonuses if we'd made the final.

It could be argued if you are being paid to do a tournament, then use those resources to ensure minimums in terms of travel, stay, training, since the tournament is a fundamental piece of your World Cup preparation and you are making money by doing it.

In fact, all friendlies break down this way. If you travel away you can get paid, the way Panama was paid to go to BC Place last summer. If you are at home, generate revenue (ie, not stupidly overpricing like the upcoming at BMO). Both ways you win and should not being cutting costs in a detrimental manner. Only when you do a friendly with no revenue either way, you may consider things differently.

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Only thing here is that we probably were paid to participate in She Believes. No, we were paid to participate. Then there may have been bonuses if we'd made the final.

It could be argued if you are being paid to do a tournament, then use those resources to ensure minimums in terms of travel, stay, training, since the tournament is a fundamental piece of your World Cup preparation and you are making money by doing it.

In fact, all friendlies break down this way. If you travel away you can get paid, the way Panama was paid to go to BC Place last summer. If you are at home, generate revenue (ie, not stupidly overpricing like the upcoming at BMO). Both ways you win and should not being cutting costs in a detrimental manner. Only when you do a friendly with no revenue either way, you may consider things differently.

I see what youre saying but having a different philosophy to your point doesnt make the CSA out to get the women like others have suggested.

It could also be argued that generating revenues from the she believes cup while managing costs in a non detrimental way, will allow some of those revenues to pay for youth programs etc. Just because 1 game generates revenue, does not mean its wise to spend 100% of that revenue on preperations for that game if there are other areas of the program that could be better served with the cash. 

As for what detrimental means - I think that 1 flight in economy 5 months before the world cup is not detrimental. However, reducing the player pool could have some significant negative impacts. 

[Bison44]

"Maybe the CSA and CSB are not as evil as everyone thought and the players are not as financially saavy as portrayed? " 

Well it does tell us one thing, these anon insider sources saying the money was 10-15mil are totally full of shit even if its the high number quoted and not under 3.  And everyone of us should have known that by listening to Forrest/Footy prime when this all got heated.  

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

It seems like you moved the goal post of your argument. Initially it was that someone else benefitted and in this post, its about wanting to treat the women poorly. 

We can debate how important 3 friendly games, 5 months before a world cup is, but I think the fact that its a debate is the whole point. Some people, including CSA thought that flying economy to the she believes cup is not as detrimental as other people think. It's a matter of differing opinions, not conspiracy. 

What additional revenues are you talking about? How about the costs? The 2022 financial statemnets are yet to be released so I am not sure its fair to crucify CSA when you do not have the relevant financial information to do so. 

Why would the CSA be attempting to squeeze the women during feb 2023, yet have a proposal from months earlier that would make them the 2nd best paid nation in womens soccer. It makes no sense to claim that they want to treat women poorly, but at the same time, want to treat the women better than almost every other nation (including the ones who have larger budgets and better teams). 

The CSA has flaws, but a witch hunt hurts everyone involved. 

Not moving anything. Merely expanding on one of my thoughts. Thankfully Bontis and his attempt to break the players didn’t work, although he did alienate the NT’s and hurt the image of the programs. 

[Bison44]

Break the players? As in making them play the tournie we agreed to play and would have cost us more millions of dollars if we skipped it, ruined our international standing and hurt their own WC prep??  And in the end we get this farce of meetings which doesnt seem to have uncovered anything nefarious??   

Or as in make the men play in the summer so it doesnt cost us another 3-4 million by skipping another game and in the long run f#cks over the ENTIRE program (mens womens youth) so we have to make cutbacks for the next year??  

[grigorio]

I see Westhead’s stirring shit up. Having seen the photos from training posted it doesn’t look like any sponsor logos are covered up. I assume/hope even the players would see that as a bad move…. Right???

[Watchmen]

Reminder to people that the CWNT only played friendlies in Brazil last year because of a last-minute private donation. The CSA was set to cancel the games because they'd run out of funds for the training, travel, etc.

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

Break the players? As in making them play the tournie we agreed to play and would have cost us more millions of dollars if we skipped it, ruined our international standing and hurt their own WC prep??  And in the end we get this farce of meetings which doesnt seem to have uncovered anything nefarious??   

Or as in make the men play in the summer so it doesnt cost us another 3-4 million by skipping another game and in the long run f#cks over the ENTIRE program (mens womens youth) so we have to make cutbacks for the next year??  

As in stalling for months to negotiate with the players, treat them with a lack of respect, cut programs and refusing to engage them on the transparency/CSB issue. 

[CanadaFan123]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

Reminder to people that the CWNT only played friendlies in Brazil last year because of a last-minute private donation. The CSA was set to cancel the games because they'd run out of funds for the training, travel, etc.

Was this proven? Who made the donation, if so? 
 

I’ve only seen Westhead’s reporting of that so far. 

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, CanadaFan123 said:

Was this proven? Who made the donation, if so? 
 

I’ve only seen Westhead’s reporting of that so far. 

I recall hearing this elsewhere.  Donation was anonymous, though there was some speculation it was Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot, as he'd previously funded a number of women's teams/tournaments in the past.

[Ansem]

16 hours ago, Bison44 said:

So did we ever figure out what the actual sponsorship money brought in by CSB was? 2.8 or 8.2?  Because that is prob the one important piece of info to come out.  Either CSA is making out like bandits (taking in 3-4mil) and CSB is only been able to raise 2.8 on that investment, or it looks like CSB made a nice profit of the deal on a mens WC year with lots of Buzz (which is exactly what you would expect/like to hear).  Still murky on how exactly the deal got approved..that should be cut and dried, they need to explain that.

So if the f$cked up mens strike (iran mess too) hadnt have happened CSA would have been a couple million further ahead and the women could have gotten the prep (a good chunk of it eh?) that they say they are missing out on.  Or if they had kept a little of the mens windfall around to cover next years shortfalls instead paying out the lions share to both current national teams players.  Am i missing anything, oh yeah Bontis was a rude prick to Sinclair.  

It's 8.2M - heard it in French but I know the translation said $2.8

 

16 hours ago, Bigandy said:

If CSB makes 8.2 million in a WC year with Hype - This number is not outrageous. The CSB makes 5.2ish million for having the resources and ability to bring in more sponsors. What is a reasonable amount we would be willing to pay to a marketing company to earn 3million, while making the offer still attractive enough for them to take the risk on CSA? 

This is correct

[Unnamed Trialist]

17 hours ago, Bigandy said:

It could also be argued that generating revenues from the she believes cup while managing costs in a non detrimental way, will allow some of those revenues to pay for youth programs etc. Just because 1 game generates revenue, does not mean its wise to spend 100% of that revenue on preperations for that game if there are other areas of the program that could be better served with the cash. 

As for what detrimental means - I think that 1 flight in economy 5 months before the world cup is not detrimental. However, reducing the player pool could have some significant negative impacts. 

Agree with this. Only think we should recognize where certain expenses mean losses, and where certain expenses are in fact covered by corresponding revenue.