The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Shway]

7 hours ago, RS said:

MLS: *Exists in Canada for 12 years before a ball is kicked in CPL*

Some people on this board: "You're hindering the CPL!"

MLS existing in Canada 12 years before CPL launch has nothing to do with the facts of today…but okay. 

If you believe that the Canadian teams with the most lucrative Canadian markets playing in the American D1 league doesn’t effect the perception of the adjacent Canadian D1 league - you’re simply lying to yourself.

The hindrance is everything to do with the perception.

You take those teams out of MLS and you’ll see how much Canadians would have interest. It’s only the few hardcore that tune in to see the verrrrrrrry few that are playing elsewhere in the league only because they are considered domestic players which as stated is another hindrance considering it’s “supPoSeD tO bE oUr D1 lEaGuE tOo.” 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Shway

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Shway said:

...You take those teams out of MLS and you’ll see how much Canadians would have interest...

Like they did with the North York Rockets back in the day? We finally have soccer as a stable professional sport being reported on regularly rather than marginalized or ignored by mainstream media outlets and there are people who purport to be soccer fans who want to tear it all down again and risk going back to the wilderness years.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Shway]

13 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Like they did with the North York Rockets back in the day? We finally have soccer as a stable professional sport being reported on regularly rather than marginalized or ignored by mainstream media outlets and there are people who purport to be soccer fans who want to tear it all down again and risk going back to the wilderness years.

Wilderness years may speak to your mindset (more so your age respectfully). Today is not the same as yesterday, and it’s definitely not the same as 30 years ago. 

If MLS had this mindset, it would’ve never launched as a result of the NASL. 

The core demographic the league caters to was still in diapers to have any reference to the bad ole days.

The way I see things, only OneSoccer regularly reports on soccer. The other media outlets only talk about it when there’s hot-takes to give.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Shway said:

...If MLS had this mindset, it would’ve never launched as a result of the NASL...

New York Cosmos crowds were ever so slightly bigger than North York Rockets ones were so that's a very dubious assertion.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[RS]

10 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

Even the most staunch defendant of MLS has to admit that is still a pretty big deal tho.  Americans are treated as domestics on American and Canadian teams, full stop.  Canadians are treated as domestics only for Canadian teams, unless they follow a specific developmental pathway.  That is a pretty big discrepancy - and the gap only got narrowed because of pressure from this side of the border.  If Canadians were treated as equals within the league, a lot of people (or at least a passionate minority) would be far more sympathetic to MLS.  But the fact that the league brass attempted to address the issue through some half measure (while generally upholding some sort of discriminatory status quo) is a sore spot for many here.  It was a petty half-measure that reinforced our status as second class citizens within the league.   The fact that there are two sets of rules for players of different nationalities undeniably reinforces that division. And that division is why, I believe, a lot of folks here negatively view those who are all-in on MLS and seemingly have blinders when it comes to  some of the matters related to national footy interests.  

It's absolutely a huge deal and I agree with everything you wrote.

My comment was more in response to the notion that the CSA should "start" with the reciprocity issue in MLS, since even those who are all-in on the CPL agree that that's really their only issue with MLS in Canada. It's the start and the finish, IMO.

[RS]

8 hours ago, Shway said:

MLS existing in Canada 12 years before CPL launch has nothing to do with the facts of today…but okay. 

If you believe that the Canadian teams with the most lucrative Canadian markets playing in the American D1 league doesn’t effect the perception of the adjacent Canadian D1 league - you’re simply lying to yourself.

The hindrance is everything to do with the perception.

But the fact is that MLS does exist in Canada, and it has existed in Canada for 12 years before the CPL's launch. The teams are entrenched and have large fan bases (for Canadian soccer), and they've undeniably impacted the men's national team in a positive way.

Saying that MLS existence, before and after CPL's launch, has nothing to do with the facts of today is completely untrue.

The facts of today are that the CPL knew exactly what the landscape was when they entered the market. They knew that the MLS teams existed in the three biggest cities. And, as professionals, they are committed to finding a way to work within those constraints.

That's the reality in Canada, one that even the CPL accepts. 

No one wants to throw away the baby with the bathwater, except you and ansem, apparently.

8 hours ago, Shway said:

You take those teams out of MLS and you’ll see how much Canadians would have interest. It’s only the few hardcore that tune in to see the verrrrrrrry few that are playing elsewhere in the league only because they are considered domestic players which as stated is another hindrance considering it’s “supPoSeD tO bE oUr D1 lEaGuE tOo.” 

So it's exactly like the CPL in that there are verrrrrry few fans that pay attention to out of market games. Sounds about right for both D1 LeAgUeS iN CaNaDa, eh?

I'll be blunt with you: Wishing away the MLS teams isn't productive. I try not to entertain the silly notion because it's simply not happening, and it would actually be verrrrrrry bad for Canadian soccer if somehow it did.

In some alternate universe the three MLS teams were all original partners in the CPL in 2007, and they helped pull up the perception and level of the league close to or equal to where MLS is today. Unfortunately we don't live in that universe, so I prefer to talk about our actual reality — one in which both MLS and CPL continue to contribute positively to the sport in this country.

[Califax]

EDIT:

Someone made my joke three pages ago.

I'll retract and go warm up on the touchline.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Califax

[SpursFlu]

So we're calling women midgets?

Either that or this picture seems to suggest women suck at soccer

Edited March 2, 2023 by SpursFlu

[Ansem]

50 minutes ago, RS said:

But the fact is that MLS does exist in Canada, and it has existed in Canada for 12 years before the CPL's launch. The teams are entrenched and have large fan bases (for Canadian soccer), and they've undeniably impacted the men's national team in a positive way.

Saying that MLS existence, before and after CPL's launch, has nothing to do with the facts of today is completely untrue.

The facts of today are that the CPL knew exactly what the landscape was when they entered the market. They knew that the MLS teams existed in the three biggest cities. And, as professionals, they are committed to finding a way to work within those constraints.

That's the reality in Canada, one that even the CPL accepts. 

No one wants to throw away the baby with the bathwater, except you and ansem, apparently.

You're hard of "reading" it seems about my issue with MLS in Canada being very specific and not having an issue with both leagues coexisting if there's reciprocity.

Noted 🙄

 

 

 

Going back on topic, once the parliamentary hearing ends and they don't see anything "illegal" with the CSB deal but pointing out that the CSA might have gave far too much, that won't change the landscape. Bontis is gone, they will have seen the numbers of that deal but the issue remains - the NT will have to make concessions. Not liking a deal doesn't mean it has to be scrapped.
 

They should perhaps revisit the issue of governance as the NT have so little weight in the decision making

The CSA needs to be completely revamped...

Edited March 2, 2023 by Ansem

[Meepmeep]

12 hours ago, red card said:

He also recognized that football had moved to a different place in the Canadian sport landscape with the rise of EA FIFA, the popularity of the sport's biggest stars, viewership levels for World Cups/Olympics and the attention the 3 MLS Canadian teams were getting. 

A more business focused CSA was in Montagliani's vision going back to when he became CSA president in 2012. He wanted to shift CSA's structures from legal mentality, looking out for provincial agendas to entrepreneurial and having more professionalized promotions and marketing.

He viewed CSA as too dependent on volunteer directors to make crucial decisions and player registration fees to keep CSA afloat. He wanted to ensure CSA took more financial risks, especially with sponsorship opportunities, to increase financial resources.

 

Respectfully-that’s a massive word salad with not a lot of substance.  Like reading a kids essay when they want to hit a word count. 
In fact I would argue that the parts I’ve quoted actually highlight the inherent flaws in reducing the financial risks by outsourcing the business ops for a flat fee.  
 

You’re saying soccer has moved to a better place, the CSA had to take more financial risks and take on a more business focus but with the CSB deal they did the opposite.  They assumed a horrible soccer landscape/results (as shown by the low fee and the length of the term) and they reduced all financial risk by outsourcing most of the ops.  
 

I agree that with what I quoted of your post which is why the CSB bugs me. 
 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Meepmeep
Spell

[Aird25]

25 minutes ago, Meepmeep said:

Respectfully-that’s a massive word salad with not a lot of substance.  Like reading a kids essay when they want to hit a word count.

Respectfully - there's nothing particularly respectful about the parts I've quoted. That's what bugs me.

[Ansem]

Also, what helped the USSF navigating the SUM deal better was the success of their NT winning trophies and consistently qualifying for World Cups. There was money to invest in programs and pay the players while SUM was making their money on the marketing side

1 world cup qualification doesn't mean that the CSA could solve all its issues all at once. It tooks USSF multiple cycles to get where it is.

I hate to say it so bluntly but the NT (especially on the man side) will have to start earning their pay with results on the pitch.

As I had said in another thread, a successful 2023 years = winning no less than 1 of the 2 trophies. Anything less should be viewed as a failure

 

[shermanator]

As media outlets from across the world cover this for the easy story, they hit up Kaylyn Kyle for her take on the issue. In this article is a good example of the type of information that is being thrown out there to the greater public that isn't, quite frankly, telling the whole story:

Quote

For further evidence of unequal treatment, Kyle believes we look no further than the confirmation of a spring match at BMO Field in Toronto this spring for the men’s team.

“It just got announced that the Canadian men’s national team is playing on home soil and I believe at BMO Field,” she says. The women don’t have any home games leading up to a Women’s World Cup. For me, it’s just disrespectful, and to announce that now, considering everything that’s going on … It’s actually almost a slap in the face: ‘We actually don’t care about the women’s national team.’"

This comment from Kyle frustrates me. It doesn't tell the whole story and only serves to divide.

Does she realize that the home game in March is CONCACAF Nations League? And that while the MNT has played more home games since the CSB deal was signed, they have all been Nations League and World Cup Qualifiers?

The last time the men's team played a friendly on Canadian soil was in September 2017. They were supposed to play a friendly in June but the players decided they weren't going to play. A decision that fucked the CSA out of millions.

The women's team is playing a friendly against one of the best teams in the world in a month, it's just not in Canada. Why is that conveniently being ignored?

If we want to talk about how it is disrespectful that the women are not receiving a home friendly in that time frame then I think that's a logical question to pose, but to smear the men team having a Nations League game during that same timeframe is missing the point.

Source: ‘Everything is at stake’: the fight for equal pay in Canadian football | Canada women's football team | The Guardian

Edited March 2, 2023 by shermanator

[Mattd97]

I know the CSA claimed the friendly would have brought in millions, but if thats actually the case youd think theyd be hosting a lot more.  Either theyre wrong in how much it would make or are incompetent about not getting any done in years. Dont have any camps cause you dont have millions? Hosting friendlies would make you millions? Hmm

[SoCalTransport]

https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/rick-westhead-four-women-s-national-soccer-team-players-to-testify-in-ottawa-1.1925650

🤔

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

9 minutes ago, Mattd97 said:

I know the CSA claimed the friendly would have brought in millions, but if thats actually the case youd think theyd be hosting a lot more.  Either theyre wrong in how much it would make or are incompetent about not getting any done in years. Dont have any camps cause you dont have millions? Hosting friendlies would make you millions? Hmm

Appearance fees for the teams that would draw a big crowd are not cheap so you wind up with Iran or Panama...

[dyslexic nam]

4 minutes ago, shermanator said:

As media outlets from across the world cover this for the easy story, they hit up Kaylyn Kyle for her take on the issue. In this article is a good example of the type of information that is being thrown out there to the greater public that isn't, quite frankly, telling the whole story:

This comment from Kyle frustrates me. It doesn't tell the whole story and only serves to divide.

Does she realize that the home game in March is CONCACAF Nations League? And that while the MNT has played more home games since the CSB deal was signed, they have all been Nations League and World Cup Qualifiers?

The last time the men's team played a friendly on Canadian soil was in September 2017. They were supposed to play a friendly in June but the players decided they weren't going to play. A decision that fucked the CSA out of millions.

The women's team is playing a friendly against one of the best teams in the world in a month, it's just not in Canada. Why is that conveniently being ignored?

If we want to talk about how it is disrespectful that the women are not receiving a home friendly in that time frame then I think that's a logical question to pose, but to smear the men team having a Nations League game during that same timeframe is missing the point.

Source: ‘Everything is at stake’: the fight for equal pay in Canadian football | Canada women's football team | The Guardian

I am going to say something that may make me the target of criticism - and if so, so be it. Since all of this internal conflict has begun (and some of the tensions pre-date the current “Westhead-era” events) I have lost a lot of my interest in following the women’s team. I have been a staunch supporter of the CWNT for a long time, and maybe it is the poolside drinks talking, but the us vs them tone of much of this discussion has led to a decline in my support/interest.  Any other  time I would have watched all 3 SheBelieves games and been cheering the women on passionately.  This time?  I caught one half of footy over the course of the tournament.  Maybe that makes me a petty asshole but it is what it is.  Then again maybe i just need to sober up.  

[Aird25]

6 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Appearance fees for the teams that would draw a big crowd are not cheap so you wind up with Iran or Panama...

Wasn't the Iran match sold out?

[Aird25]

20 minutes ago, Mattd97 said:

I know the CSA claimed the friendly would have brought in millions, but if thats actually the case youd think theyd be hosting a lot more.  Either theyre wrong in how much it would make or are incompetent about not getting any done in years. Dont have any camps cause you dont have millions? Hosting friendlies would make you millions? Hmm

The match before the first World Cup in 36 years doesn't always happen

[grigorio]

8 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I am going to say something that may make me the target of criticism - and if so, so be it. Since all of this internal conflict has begun (and some of the tensions pre-date the current “Westhead-era” events) I have lost a lot of my interest in following the women’s team. I have been a staunch supporter of the CWNT for a long time, and maybe it is the poolside drinks talking, but the us vs them tone of much of this discussion has led to a decline in my support/interest.  Any other  time I would have watched all 3 SheBelieves games and been cheering the women on passionately.  This time?  I caught one half of footy over the course of the tournament.  Maybe that makes me a petty asshole but it is what it is.  Then again maybe i just need to sober up.  

What if you’ve become a lesser fan of both? I can’t be alone and that’s certainly not good for business with a very fragile and tenuous following  

The frustrating part to me isn’t that the players want the CSA to be better and more transparent. I love that part. 
 

But, the way they’ve been conducting themselves primarily around how public they’ve made all of this often with poorly prepared, ill-conceived or factually wrong statements conveniently leaving out context when it suits them has definitely turned me off to a greater degree than I may have thought possible. Not to mention the lack of remorse at the Vancouver debacle 😕

[narduch]

28 minutes ago, Mattd97 said:

I know the CSA claimed the friendly would have brought in millions, but if thats actually the case youd think theyd be hosting a lot more.  Either theyre wrong in how much it would make or are incompetent about not getting any done in years. Dont have any camps cause you dont have millions? Hosting friendlies would make you millions? Hmm

I think had the Iran match gone through it probably would have made them good money.

[Ansem]

32 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I am going to say something that may make me the target of criticism - and if so, so be it. Since all of this internal conflict has begun (and some of the tensions pre-date the current “Westhead-era” events) I have lost a lot of my interest in following the women’s team. I have been a staunch supporter of the CWNT for a long time, and maybe it is the poolside drinks talking, but the us vs them tone of much of this discussion has led to a decline in my support/interest.  Any other  time I would have watched all 3 SheBelieves games and been cheering the women on passionately.  This time?  I caught one half of footy over the course of the tournament.  Maybe that makes me a petty asshole but it is what it is.  Then again maybe i just need to sober up.  

I agree with this and I'm growing tired of the "chip on their shoulders" attitude while disregarding facts and context altogether.

While they have a better point than the men on CSB over not having a league, they don't seem to care that we just got out of a 2 year lockdown. There's just no "nuance" in their narrative and it's getting harder to not get annoyed whenever I see a complaint online. This got so much worse ever since the men finally reached the world cup and the attention was redirected from them.

[Gian-Luca]

57 minutes ago, shermanator said:

As media outlets from across the world cover this for the easy story, they hit up Kaylyn Kyle for her take on the issue. In this article is a good example of the type of information that is being thrown out there to the greater public that isn't, quite frankly, telling the whole story:

This comment from Kyle frustrates me. It doesn't tell the whole story and only serves to divide.

Does she realize that the home game in March is CONCACAF Nations League? And that while the MNT has played more home games since the CSB deal was signed, they have all been Nations League and World Cup Qualifiers?

The last time the men's team played a friendly on Canadian soil was in September 2017. They were supposed to play a friendly in June but the players decided they weren't going to play. A decision that fucked the CSA out of millions.

The women's team is playing a friendly against one of the best teams in the world in a month, it's just not in Canada. Why is that conveniently being ignored?

If we want to talk about how it is disrespectful that the women are not receiving a home friendly in that time frame then I think that's a logical question to pose, but to smear the men team having a Nations League game during that same timeframe is missing the point.

Source: ‘Everything is at stake’: the fight for equal pay in Canadian football | Canada women's football team | The Guardian

I'm not sure what is the scarier prospect - that a professional Canadian pundit could make this ignorant and/or asinine a comment in public, or that the committee of politicians constituting this government hearing will likely agree with her because they are probably ten times more ignorant about the intricacies of the game that the pundit in question is and probably will have no clue what the "Nation's League" is. Just as head-shaking is the headline "the fight for equal pay in Canadian football" - this is what the dispute between the women and the CSA is constantly framed as in the media and social media, even though the CSA under Bontis was pushing for pay equity all along, and it's the men's team who have been the obstacle to this.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Gian-Luca

[Aird25]

27 minutes ago, grigorio said:

What if you’ve become a lesser fan of both? I can’t be alone and that’s certainly not good for business

I'm frustrated to the point that I would like transparency from the men about who is writing their press releases, who is opposing pay equity, who is opposed to the CSB deal etc. We've already heard that they're not unified, so I'd like to know who is leading

[grigorio]

Just now, Aird25 said:

I'm frustrated to the point that I would like transparency from the men about who is writing their press releases, who is opposing pay equity, who is opposed to the CSB deal etc. We've already heard that they're not unified, so I'd like to know who is leading

Judging by who’s appeared in the most Westhead articles and who pushes the most out (I think he’s their union rep or something?) it’s probably MAK and a core group of others. Which, is kind of ironic given he may not be a member of the CanMNT for much longer unless he shapes up in a hurry.