The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

22 hours ago, eramosat said:

a bit...just a bit...too philosophical for me. 😉

for me, the CSA pay dispute is now squarely in reality TV territory.  anything could be introduced as a factor, and it's about as meaningful as which bachelorette lands which bachelor...or vice versa...which is to say, inconsequential.  nobody has moral high ground...or any high ground, of any type.  

Think that's a bit of a cop out. There are some guiding principles that you could reasonably expect to be followed in all of this, such as:

(a) National team related sponsorship and broadcast revenues should be used primarily to fund the national team programs and should never be diverted anywhere else to the detriment of the national team budgets.

(b) Those revenue streams should only be packaged with those of a domestic pro league if doing so actually does enhance the overall amount of revenue ultimately received by both entities in a USSF-SUM sort of way.

(c) National team players can reasonably expect something labelled as "prize money" to primarily come their way given it was their efforts on the field of play that won it and not to be used to make up a shortfall resulting from (b) not happening properly.

(d) Recreational level amateur and youth soccer participants should never be expected to subsidize pro level soccer either at the club or national team level through their registration fees.

Things have gone off the rails as badly as they have because none of those points correspond to what is actually happening in Canadian soccer right now.

Edited March 24 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Bison44]

Ugghh..broadcast revenues??? You mean the black hole of paying TSN to put the national team on TV.   As far as I can remember anything involved in broadcast was an expense.  Ie TSN was paid to air our games then sold ad revenue off the games which they put in their pocket and you had to have a subscription to see it....hmmmm sounds like a double siphon/diversion off the national teams by TSN and very detrimental to the team budgets. And they got away with it for years.  Shocking stuff eh??  But an exchange for the teams broadcast rights for cash is somehow deemed offensive.  I guess because it was bundled with the CPL TV rights and the deal was done by CPL owners its bad......remember when they had to fight off all the other people clamoring to buy the national team TV rights...no.. dont remember all the other bids on it??? Hmmmm... strange....drivel response incoming...........

[Watchmen]

42 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Ugghh..broadcast revenues??? You mean the black hole of paying TSN to put the national team on TV.   As far as I can remember anything involved in broadcast was an expense.  Ie TSN was paid to air our games then sold ad revenue off the games which they put in their pocket and you had to have a subscription to see it....hmmmm sounds like a double siphon/diversion

Typically, no. If you're paying for the air time you're keeping the ad revenue (though there's obviously flexibility in terms of initial payment and % of ad revenue shared). I'm not saying it was a good deal for the CSA, simply that it wasn't a "double siphon".

[Mattd97]

I'd like to think we've come far enough that the CSA wouldn't have to pay for air time for major games on tsn or at minimum get on cbc

[red card]

53 minutes ago, Mattd97 said:

I'd like to think we've come far enough that the CSA wouldn't have to pay for air time for major games on tsn or at minimum get on cbc

Canada Soccer didn't pay for air time on TSN. Instead, they paid for production costs while not getting any money for rights from TSN.

And about half the matches weren't shown as TSN wasn't interested in paying other federations for away match rights that were usually on weekdays. For domestic friendlies/WCQs vs tier 2/minnows of Concacaf & 1st-2nd round of Voyageurs Cup that would attract way less than 100k on tv, it wasn't worth it for Canada Soccer to allocate their limited budget on tv production.

CBC tv has limited windows for sports that is 50% taken up by NHL games. That means 80%+ of Canada's matches would end up on their streaming platform. 

Rather than Canada Soccer, sponsors/CSB may pay for air time for tentpole matches like was done for Sinclair's farewell. TSN/SN may be willing to offset some costs for the last round of WCQs assuming Canada still would be playing Mexico/USA. TSN may pay some of the costs of a high profile friendly just before the start of 2026 World Cup.

Assuming Canada Soccer has come far enough, the media companies are at a crossroad given cord cutting, ad dollars shifting online & less tv viewing. With budgets cut, TSN/SN don't pay for the rights or production of any secondary sports orgs/leagues. CBC is in the same pickle but has been underfunded for 30 years and could get defunded by the potential new PM.

 

 

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Mattd97 said:

I'd like to think we've come far enough that the CSA wouldn't have to pay for air time for major games on tsn or at minimum get on cbc

Perhaps. But there were reports that the CSB had to pay to get Sinclair's final game on TSN. I can't remember if that was production costs or what exactly, but it seemed clear TSN wasn't contributing any money. And keep in mind, the CSB/Media Pro deal I believe doesn't cover things like the Gold Cup (because that's CONCACAF), Champions Cup (again, CONCACAF), Nations League Finals (CONCACAF), World Cup Qualifiers hosted by our opponents (that's the other team's FA), and yet we didn't hear about any bids from TSN or Sportsnet for those games. It seemed like OneSoccer could easily obtain those, with the exception of the Canada vs USA World Cup Qualifier, which TSN showed (can't remember if OneSoccer also showed it?). I also don't know the terms of the qualifiers that OneSoccer and Sportsnet both showed. I think OneSoccer may have gotten some money from Sportsnet for those.

[Mattd97]

Wells that's as humbling as it is informative as it is depressing

[Watchmen]

37 minutes ago, Kent said:

Perhaps. But there were reports that the CSB had to pay to get Sinclair's final game on TSN. I can't remember if that was production costs or what exactly, but it seemed clear TSN wasn't contributing any money.

The CSB bought the game from MediaPro.  I don't think we learned if they got any money from TSN for it.

38 minutes ago, Kent said:

It seemed like OneSoccer could easily obtain those, with the exception of the Canada vs USA World Cup Qualifier, which TSN showed (can't remember if OneSoccer also showed it?). I also don't know the terms of the qualifiers that OneSoccer and Sportsnet both showed. I think OneSoccer may have gotten some money from Sportsnet for those.

I don't think OneSoccer showed the away Canada vs US game.  I think that was the controversy.  And I assumed that OneSoccer got money from Sportsnet for the final qualifiers.

But yeah, TSN and Sportsnet have shown no interest in any of the "minnow" games, or international friendlies, or Gold Cup.  There's a gap there that OneSoccer has filled.  No idea if TSN will start to have interest in a game like the Netherlands friendly, as a lead up/promotion for the Copa.

[red card]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

The CSB bought the game from MediaPro.  I don't think we learned if they got any money from TSN for it.

I don't think OneSoccer showed the away Canada vs US game.  I think that was the controversy.  And I assumed that OneSoccer got money from Sportsnet for the final qualifiers.

But yeah, TSN and Sportsnet have shown no interest in any of the "minnow" games, or international friendlies, or Gold Cup.  There's a gap there that OneSoccer has filled.  No idea if TSN will start to have interest in a game like the Netherlands friendly, as a lead up/promotion for the Copa.

Athletic's Kloke reported CSB paid 100k for rights and production. Atypical for these type of press releases, TSN gave all the credit to CIBC & Visa. Noonan's statements didn't credit TSN for paying up. So, putting it all together, TSN didn't pay for the rights and CIBC/Visa bought enough ad time for TSN to do a 1 hour pre-match show and use their own announcing team rather than simulcast OneSoccer's feed.

For the US WCQ in Nashville, ESPN had the US rights sown up for a while. So, given ESPN's ownership in TSN, they had the edge in getting the Canadian rights from USSF at likely a discount and before OneSoccer as they only started to inquire other federations about rights after Canada advanced. SN did offset some of OneSoccer's costs in order to show the last WCQ round ex US home match.

Euros tv audiences have delivered bigger tv numbers than Copa America for TSN despite the latter being shown in prime time. The last Euros also delivered the most signups for TSN+. So, showing NED/CAN would be a double promo just like FOX showing ENG/BRA on Saturday. But the NED match is on a weekday and TSN didn't show any Canada friendlies prior to Qatar or Australia.

Other than the US WCQ, TSN has only been proactive in showing Canada women matches in the English FA's Arnold Clark Cup in 2022. The 2 weekday matches got less than 50k viewers.

[Aird25]

11 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Think that's a bit of a cop out. There are some guiding principles that you could reasonably expect to be followed in all of this, such as:

(a) National team related sponsorship and broadcast revenues should be used primarily to fund the national team programs and should never be diverted anywhere else to the detriment of the national team budgets.

(b) Those revenue streams should only be packaged with those of a domestic pro league if doing so actually does enhance the overall amount of revenue ultimately received by both entities in a USSF-SUM sort of way.

(c) National team players can reasonably expect something labelled as "prize money" to primarily come their way given it was their efforts on the field of play that won it and not to be used to make up a shortfall resulting from (b) not happening properly.

(d) Recreational level amateur and youth soccer participants should never be expected to subsidize pro level soccer either at the club or national team level through their registration fees.

Things have gone off the rails as badly as they have because none of those points correspond to what is actually happening in Canadian soccer right now.

I'm confused. I don't think any of the things you're referring to really apply to this situation. Prize money and registration feed aren't part of the CSB deal and packaging league and national team sponsorship and media rights has enhanced the pot. There's no diversion of revenues, there's a purchase of rights 

[RS]

7 hours ago, red card said:

For the US WCQ in Nashville, ESPN had the US rights sown up for a while. So, given ESPN's ownership in TSN, they had the edge in getting the Canadian rights from USSF at likely a discount and before OneSoccer as they only started to inquire other federations about rights after Canada advanced. SN did offset some of OneSoccer's costs in order to show the last WCQ round ex US home match.

Small correction here as that US vs. Canada game in Nashville was on Fox (FS1), who held the USSF home game rights until 2022 when Warner Bros (HBO MAX/TNT) took over, with one Luke Wileman as the main PBP voice.

TSN dealt directly with the USSF to show that match and seemingly outbid OneSoccer/Sportsnet for it. 

 

[Ruud]

19 hours ago, Bison44 said:

Ugghh..broadcast revenues??? You mean the black hole of paying TSN to put the national team on TV.   As far as I can remember anything involved in broadcast was an expense.  Ie TSN was paid to air our games then sold ad revenue off the games which they put in their pocket and you had to have a subscription to see it....hmmmm sounds like a double siphon/diversion off the national teams by TSN and very detrimental to the team budgets. And they got away with it for years.  Shocking stuff eh??  But an exchange for the teams broadcast rights for cash is somehow deemed offensive.  I guess because it was bundled with the CPL TV rights and the deal was done by CPL owners its bad......remember when they had to fight off all the other people clamoring to buy the national team TV rights...no.. dont remember all the other bids on it??? Hmmmm... strange....drivel response incoming...........

So TSN gets a full slate of rights to COPA and EUROs all summer long thereby directly being a soccer network, whilst losing local MLS rights to most games. 
 

I like Matthew Scianitti and the crew at TSN who cover soccer. Yet it seems they need to be part of a solution for Canada soccer and not just milking these assets with no gain to Canada soccer.  Like in the World Cup, Copa is now a more valuable asset than it was last week for TSN.  Sure they paid for an asset and hoped its value would rise to gain advertising revenue but like all these discussions around CSB it seems like there is no sharing of the value of this asset with Canada soccer 

 

[Metro]

19 minutes ago, Ruud said:

So TSN gets a full slate of rights to COPA and EUROs all summer long thereby directly being a soccer network, whilst losing local MLS rights to most games. 
 

I like Matthew Scianitti and the crew at TSN who cover soccer. Yet it seems they need to be part of a solution for Canada soccer and not just milking these assets with no gain to Canada soccer.  Like in the World Cup, Copa is now a more valuable asset than it was last week for TSN.  Sure they paid for an asset and hoped its value would rise to gain advertising revenue but like all these discussions around CSB it seems like there is no sharing of the value of this asset with Canada soccer 

 

I agree with your frustration but the silver lining is that the whole network tends to get behind these events, so we'll see Canadian soccer being spotlighted on Sportscentre and their social media pages on a regular basis.  The advertising of Canada matches will increase exponentially.

[Ruud]

1 hour ago, Metro said:

I agree with your frustration but the silver lining is that the whole network tends to get behind these events, so we'll see Canadian soccer being spotlighted on Sportscentre and their social media pages on a regular basis.  The advertising of Canada matches will increase exponentially.

But how did this get monetized for Canada soccer.  Seems like this really only helps Bell and maybe CSB 

[Aird25]

24 minutes ago, Ruud said:

But how did this get monetized for Canada soccer.  Seems like this really only helps Bell and maybe CSB 

I don't think it always does. The federations hold the rights to the money making events which are usually hosted in the States. This is exactly what folks like Craig Forrest were saying when news about the CSB deal first broke. What is it that CSB purchased and CSA sold... not a lot in terms of revenue, historically. 

Edited March 25 by Aird25

[Watchmen]

I know the Westhead article mentioned bonuses for advancing in the Copa, but is there an appearance fee as well (similar to the $10m the CSA got for the WC)? I feel like there generally is, but can't find any mention of it.

[DoyleG]

On 3/22/2024 at 12:18 PM, Ruud said:

Bob Rae to mediate?  Better yet former Mayor Miller who is alresdy a footy fan?

He's tone during the whole debate makes him out to be anti-CPL.

No sense in bringing him in.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^hope that sort out outburst isn't viewed as acceptable on here. Meanwhile back on topic:

 

My understanding is that a CPI increase on registration levies won't come close to closing the funding gap mentioned here:

https://canada-soccer-pressroom.prezly.com/general-secretary-and-ceo-update-finances

...Thinking ahead my initial assessment is that Canada Soccer must grow annual revenues by between $10M and $12M to robustly fund its programs and serve its stakeholders – from grassroots up to the national teams...

so this is what the key is to being able to move forward in the manner envisaged:

...In the coming weeks, I will also be engaging other stakeholders – including Canadian Soccer Business and national team players – in the development of a forward-looking plan to strengthen the broader commercial and philanthropic foundations of our sport. Alignment of key stakeholders on several fronts is necessary to build higher levels of confidence with commercial and philanthropic partners so we can generate more value for all. This is an urgent task on which we must all work together toward a future where domestic football in Canada is properly supported on a solid and sustainable financial basis...

My response to that would be a mix of No shit Sherlock! and Good luck with that you are going to need it!

Edited March 30 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Unnamed Trialist]

Regarding the Blue statement.

Our deficit is at @12% of the budget, that is not terrible. In an off year. Other countries run larger % deficits, as the stats he provides show.

Our overall revenue is low, and clearly needs to be increased. One way to do it that does not go through CSB is home matches, in this case home friendlies. All indicators show that games that sell well make money, and in fact the agents arranging matches ensure this, that is their job. 

If we'd signed a proper contract with CSB, where their contribution to the CSA would increase in function of increased revenues, setting markers, then it'd make sense for the CSA to spend efforts on garnering sponsorship, improving merchandising. As is, the CSA needs to be pressuring-begging CSB to meet certain objectives. For me, the CSB deal is bad in just two places: no incremental increases in payments to the CSA in function of total revenue generated; and no regular revisions where the CSA could pull out or demand a re-negotiation periodically (say every 3-5 years).

Another way is to gradually increase player fees. This is a bone of contention with the provinces and where the CSA board is reticent, as they end up responding to certain pressures from the provincial SAs. I am not saying that is a bad thing, as long as it is not mere pandering to the major voting constituency for the CSA board. Anyone aspiring to the CSA presidency has to offer things to the provinces, in exchange for the raised fees, and I mean more than just saying "hey, our senior men will play more friendlies". You have to sweeten and enhance CSA services to core SA needs, such as coaching, refs, facilities, other perks (discounts for kids to go to NT matches).

[Watchmen]

8 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Our overall revenue is low, and clearly needs to be increased. One way to do it that does not go through CSB is home matches, in this case home friendlies. All indicators show that games that sell well make money, and in fact the agents arranging matches ensure this, that is their job. 

I continue to be a bit incredulous that it's not the CSB arranging home friendlies (for a fee, of course).  It would benefit them enormously, while also benefitting the CSA (as you mention).

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^am I the only person on here who suspects that there may be some thinly veiled anti-Semitism involved with narduch's outbursts at this point? Anthony Housefather's views about the Gaza conflict (presumably) are completely irrelevant to the investigation into the CSA's budget and the gender equity issues that arise from the CSB deal. Those hearings had strong cross-party support so why home in on a Jewish politician that was involved on a very spurious basis unless he has some deeper axe to grind in that context?

Back on topic. It didn't take long in the replies to Rick Westhead's tweet for people to start asking the obvious question that any raise in registration fee levies inevitably prompts amongst people who volunteer to run soccer at the grassroots level:

There's always a risk that youth soccer associations will simply walk away from the CSA where house league level is concerned. That generates the bulk of the player registration numbers, so Kevin Blue better proceed cautiously, which to be fair is likely why only a CPI linked increase is being talked about rather than something that could realistically close the funding gap.

[Bison44]

Honestly....anyone who has kids in youth soccer out there (me included), my fees are due ASAP...if they were to increase 10$ would I freak like a addled brained parrot???  No I would not.  Over the last 6-7 years the breakfast special has gone up, so has gas, rent, cable, etc etc etc.  This is the usual morphing of what most people would consider a normal thing into a evil anti CSA/CSB/CPL dig by the feathered cassandra.  What are the per player fee to CSA....9$??  What were they 20 years ago...5$????  I remember reading an article 20 years ago saying a 3$ a player hike would raise 2 million.  You pair that with some actual money making friendlies in canada and you are a long way to making up the 4mil shortfall for 2024 projections.  Settle the deals with the players (newsflash--your not going to get everything you want and still fund youth programs, you were a kid once too...get over it), force a renegotiation of the CSB deal to revenue share with CSA over a certain threshold and lets get working together to solve shit.  

[Watchmen]

8 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Honestly....anyone who has kids in youth soccer out there (me included), my fees are due ASAP...if they were to increase 10$ would I freak like a addled brained parrot???  No I would not.  Over the last 6-7 years the breakfast special has gone up, so has gas, rent, cable, etc etc etc.  This is the usual morphing of what most people would consider a normal thing into a evil anti CSA/CSB/CPL dig by the feathered cassandra.

The entire Conservative party platform is "Prices have gone up and you should be angry." So in this case, no. If the price goes up, you will absolutely have angry parents screaming about it.

[PegCityCam]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If we'd signed a proper contract with CSB, where their contribution to the CSA would increase in function of increased revenues, setting markers, then it'd make sense for the CSA to spend efforts on garnering sponsorship, improving merchandising. As is, the CSA needs to be pressuring-begging CSB to meet certain objectives.

Agreed on how the deal hand-cuffed the CSA re your unquoted points. I just have two specific questions on what I've quoted here:

1.) Isn't it in the best interest of the CSB to go hard when it comes to sponsorship deals seeing as they reap all the rewards? We have certainly seen a number of decently sized deals since their takeover of this aspect of the sport.

2.) Do we actually know if it's the CSA or CSB that gets the revenue from merchandising? I definitely could have missed something in the 178 pages but I wasn't sure anyone actually knew the specifics on this point.

Just wondering is all.

Edited March 30 by PegCityCam

[Watchmen]

39 minutes ago, PegCityCam said:

Agreed on how the deal hand-cuffed the CSA re your unquoted points. I just have two specific questions on what I've quoted here:

1.) Isn't it in the best interest of the CSB to go hard when it comes to sponsorship deals seeing as they reap all the rewards? We have certainly seen a number of decently sized deals since their takeover of this aspect of the sport.

2.) Do we actually know if it's the CSA or CSB that gets the revenue from merchandising? I definitely could have missed something in the 178 pages but I wasn't sure anyone actually knew the specifics on this point.

Just wondering is all.

I think we've heard that kit sales are not included in the agreement (which makes the CSA's deal with Nike for $0 upfront all the worse), but I don't know about the rest of merchandising.