Well, the “who” and the “why” remain elusive.
So, let’s chat this morning about the “what.”
There’s a back-channel deal being done to keep at least a few provincial soccer association presidents as voting members of the Canadian Soccer Association’s board of directors.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
Depending on how far this goes, it could either be a canny piece of politics – or the gutting of recent rising hopes for a simplified, streamlined, professional system for helping Canada qualify for the FIFA World Cup.
Most likely, the final truth will fall somewhere in between.
To be clear, my nervousness about this is not meant as any kind of slight to the people who head up the provincial and territorial SAs. There is good and important work to be done there, from basic administration to simple communication to the ever-crucial need for better systems of player development.
But as we see in Alberta right now, nightmare political webs can be spun if too much power collects in a single spot. And it must also be noted that a revised, national-team-focused CSA would have very little in common with any local provincial agenda.
The CSA’s Constitution Committee surprised everyone last spring when they suggested dropping the provincial reps entirely, replacing them with four regional representatives who would span the country, but have no direct ties to the provincial associations.
I got ripped for my naïveté by a dear friend last night. His basic point was that no matter how “independent” these regional reps appear, they’ll still be cozily snuggled up in bed with at least one provincial SA. “What difference is it really going to make?” he challenged.
Well, naïve or no, I think the difference could be huge. The present system has the association heads literally serving two masters. They sign off on two different constitutions, and have governance responsibilities on two different – perhaps competing – levels of the game.
Most clearly see themselves as their province or territory’s presence on the national board, and are there to primarily promote local agendas. And they have virtually no significant insight into how to run, shape and guide a professional national team.
As long as they are there – in such suffocating numbers – I fear any reasonable reform will be subject to layered provincial interest-backing.
And it’s all so unnecessary.
Local clubs tell the provinces what to do, and the provinces can hold up any and all progress in Ottawa. The bottom guides the top, and there is – as has been the case for years – no clear direction from the CSA.
Yes, this hugely over-simplifies things. No political web is ever that simple. And only a rare political deal is ever truly sensible – and clean.
I get a strong sense what’s really being discussed is a simple compromise, where the “regional reps” will, in fact, be provincial presidents. If true, their number of seats – and ultimate influence – will be cut considerably. Even a hard-line CSA skeptic like myself concedes there would be progress in this.
But why this is happening is an intriguing question. Even with Alberta and Quebec opposing governance reform at last spring’s CSA AGM, the Constitution Committee proposals were tentatively passed. To have to broker a new deal now suggests other provinces have since moved into the “No” camp. I’ve been told as much backstage, but don’t as yet have thorough confirmation.
So once again, those of us who care passionately about Canada’s national teams are left wondering exactly what kind of CSA will emerge when the final package goes to a vote next spring?
- Will the apparent progress achieved under general secretary Peter Montopoli produce a better system for getting Canada onto the big stage?
- Will local infighting – such, again, as the malignant mess in Alberta – keep all our most glorious footballing memories firmly stuck back in 1986?
Again, I’m looking at you, Mario Charpentier. The questions are only beginning.
(Alberta columns resume Monday.)
Onward!