The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Bigandy]

10 hours ago, SF said:

Lots in here, but I don’t intend to take the other side of all the arguments. 
 

The one that really troubles me is that the Telus sponsorship came in due to the enhanced discussion on gender equity. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know the revenue is collected by the CSB which has as its main mandate to fund men’s professional soccer. 
 

And absent a reimagined CSB deal, the women’s players and programs won’t see a nickel of this money (in that it is incremental revenue above the threshold amount paid by CSB to CSA). 
 

To be VERY clear - I don’t blame the CSB. They stood up and took a material risk. They negotiated a good contract and ripped the face off the group they were negotiating against. All fair and happens regularly. 
 

The issue is the CSA and its utter lack of understanding of how to negotiate such a deal, represent its stakeholders and run their affairs in a transparent manner. 

I think you may want to read the press release about the Telus deal. The release is pretty gender based, in the fact that they are setting up programs for women players and coaches. 

The CSB negotiated this deal on behalf of CSA and the women are set to profit from it. Clearly the CSB is showing good will by negotiating a deal to help women. This is why I think the equal pay debate is what sparked this deal. Telus can be the good guy and help our women and CSB can show they arent trying to screw everyone for a dollar. To claim the women wont see a dollar when the entire partnership is women focused is a bit naive or maybe your under the impression this was just a cash deal. 

As for the CSA - It was a good deal at the time and is still a decent deal. The unilateral extension clause and bigger performance based bonuses are 2 major flaws. Leveraging the male side first is the most logical option because thats where the money is. However, the Telus deal is an example of how a deal that seems to be male bias can actually help the females. The better the CPL and CSB do, the better the CSA will do and therefore both the men and womens teams. Does this growth come with some trial and error as well as costs? Absolutely. Is the timing of the allocation of resources equal? No. However, overall since the CSB deal, we are still on an upward swing, even with a pandemic, and both our national teams striking. 

[TOcanadafan]

11 hours ago, El Hombre said:

Fuck, I had no idea that the CSB has been stealing from the CSA for the last 20 years.  

When the money is finally coming, it’d be nice if our National Teams actually got some.  
Just don’t understand how people are Ok with CSB getting all this new money off of the image of the National Teams and not giving it back to the program. 

[Bigandy]

9 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

When the money is finally coming, it’d be nice if our National Teams actually got some.  
Just don’t understand how people are Ok with CSB getting all this new money off of the image of the National Teams and not giving it back to the program. 

I would rather have a piece of the pie that is bigger than our previous tiny pie. CSB literally just negotiated a deal on CSA's behalf to put dollars into supporting initiatives for women. 

Sure, I want a second and third slice of the pie and theres an argument to be made that I deserve more slices. But even with one slice, I am vastly ahead compared to having 100% of my tiny little pie. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

16 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I would rather have a piece of the pie that is bigger than our previous tiny pie...

The pie was always going to become much larger in 2026 during the co-host and in other World Cup qualification years regardless of whether CSB were involved or not. Agreeing to a fixed fee for up to 20 years with only small annual increments rather than a percentage of the take once a certain level of revenue was achieved was moronic on the part of the CSA officeholders and a betrayal of the interests of many of the stakeholders they were representing.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Aird25]

6 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The pie was always going to become much larger in 2026 during the co-host and in other World Cup qualification years regardless of whether CSB were involved or not. Agreeing to a fixed fee for up to 20 years with only small annual increments rather than a percentage of the take once a certain level of revenue was achieved was moronic on the part of the CSA officeholders and a bretrayal of the interests of many of the stakeholders they were representing.

Would we have even been part of 2026 without the CSB deal? 

[TOcanadafan]

4 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I think you may want to read the press release about the Telus deal. The release is pretty gender based, in the fact that they are setting up programs for women players and coaches. 

The CSB negotiated this deal on behalf of CSA and the women are set to profit from it. Clearly the CSB is showing good will by negotiating a deal to help women. This is why I think the equal pay debate is what sparked this deal. Telus can be the good guy and help our women and CSB can show they arent trying to screw everyone for a dollar. To claim the women wont see a dollar when the entire partnership is women focused is a bit naive or maybe your under the impression this was just a cash deal. 

As for the CSA - It was a good deal at the time and is still a decent deal. The unilateral extension clause and bigger performance based bonuses are 2 major flaws. Leveraging the male side first is the most logical option because thats where the money is. However, the Telus deal is an example of how a deal that seems to be male bias can actually help the females. The better the CPL and CSB do, the better the CSA will do and therefore both the men and womens teams. Does this growth come with some trial and error as well as costs? Absolutely. Is the timing of the allocation of resources equal? No. However, overall since the CSB deal, we are still on an upward swing, even with a pandemic, and both our national teams striking. 

What we know to be fact is that the CSA gets a measly $3M a year from the CSB.
Let’s see if this is the first step to some actual good faith from the CSB in helping our National Women’s program.  The lack of any transparency to this point still leaves me doubtful.

We now may be on an upward swing… but it seems to have only started just recently after the CSA shake up after the media shone some light on the nonsense. Jason deVos (not even a business person) seems to have done more in a few months than what has been done in the last 5 years.  

Still, it’s shameful that we can’t afford to schedule friendlies in the next window.   Because of their star power, our Senior teams bring in huge revenue opportunities, but CSA can’t provide them with this minimum level of support, even as the money to the CSB comes in off the back of our star players and their recent success.

[TOcanadafan]

6 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

Would we have even been part of 2026 without the CSB deal? 

Yes. I take it you are referring to the FIFA requirement that we had a national league in place.  How do we know that a national league could not have been set up in a different manner, on a different time line?

[Bigandy]

16 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The pie was always going to become much larger in 2026 during the co-host and in other World Cup qualification years regardless of whether CSB were involved or not. Agreeing to a fixed fee for up to 20 years with only small annual increments rather than a percentage of the take once a certain level of revenue was achieved was moronic on the part of the CSA officeholders and a betrayal of the interests of many of the stakeholders they were representing.

This makes no sense. Without the CSB deal, we would not have been in talks to host a WC. Maybe, hypothetically, in extreme circumstances, we could have made a bid to host, but unlikely. Maybe, hypothetically and most likely impossibly, we may have been selected. However, at the time of signing the CSB deal, we did not know if we were going to host a WC. Your argument has all sorts of circular logic that makes no sense. 

However, if we go down that rabbit hole we can say that theres 19 years where the CSB deal is not horrible and once in a lifetime hosting of a wc year where sponsorships go up. Thats still 19 years better than we would have been. 

[SF]

47 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I think you may want to read the press release about the Telus deal. The release is pretty gender based, in the fact that they are setting up programs for women players and coaches. 

The CSB negotiated this deal on behalf of CSA and the women are set to profit from it. Clearly the CSB is showing good will by negotiating a deal to help women. This is why I think the equal pay debate is what sparked this deal. Telus can be the good guy and help our women and CSB can show they arent trying to screw everyone for a dollar. To claim the women wont see a dollar when the entire partnership is women focused is a bit naive or maybe your under the impression this was just a cash deal. 

As for the CSA - It was a good deal at the time and is still a decent deal. The unilateral extension clause and bigger performance based bonuses are 2 major flaws. Leveraging the male side first is the most logical option because thats where the money is. However, the Telus deal is an example of how a deal that seems to be male bias can actually help the females. The better the CPL and CSB do, the better the CSA will do and therefore both the men and womens teams. Does this growth come with some trial and error as well as costs? Absolutely. Is the timing of the allocation of resources equal? No. However, overall since the CSB deal, we are still on an upward swing, even with a pandemic, and both our national teams striking. 

You’re correct that I should research a bit more and I confess I have not. 
 

My central point that the CSB deal is a failing of the CSA does not change. It was badly mispriced (though I am actually quite comfortable with the concept of swapping the rights for a fixed cash flow stream). 
 

And, for what it’s worth, I don’t take large issue with the idea that the men’s program can (or could be) leveraged for wider long term success across levels and genders. It’s not a crazy concept - but, it was shrouded in secrecy and the women’s program is now feeling betrayed by their leadership. This would go in the manual of how not to govern/lead an organization. 
 

All of which is to say, the CSA took a perfectly defensible decision and (a) executed it very poorly from a business perspective and (b) executed it very poorly from a governance perspective. 

[Bigandy]

10 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

What we know to be fact is that the CSA gets a measly $3M a year from the CSB.
Let’s see if this is the first step to some actual good faith from the CSB in helping our National Women’s program.  The lack of any transparency to this point still leaves me doubtful.

We now may be on an upward swing… but it seems to have only started just recently after the CSA shake up after the media shone some light on the nonsense. Jason deVos (not even a business person) seems to have done more in a few months than what has been done in the last 5 years.  

Still, it’s shameful that we can’t afford to schedule friendlies in the next window.   Because of their star power, our Senior teams bring in huge revenue opportunities, but CSA can’t provide them with this minimum level of support, even as the money to the CSB comes in off the back of our star players and their recent success.

What is the lack of transparency? Can you list the points that are unclear. (The documents with executive signatures has been presented and proven that the deal was signed legally) 
 

Also if 3m+ plus a 1m in broadcasting is measly, how much should the CSA get. Remember that they made less than 1m prior to the CSB deal. 

The upswing was WCQ, creating a domestic pro league, formation of league 1's, named a host country for the WC, and much better broadcasting. All these things happened before the recent media spotlight and CSA shake up. 

Since the westhead article we have, teams go on strike, had both teams perform slightly worse than prior, a hertiage investigation that is yet to announce any wrongdoings, and financial challenges.  The upswqing is 100% not due to the media.  

 

6 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

Yes. I take it you are referring to the FIFA requirement that we had a national league in place.  How do we know that a national league could not have been set up in a different manner, on a different time line?

No one is saying that the CSB is the only possible way to create a league. However, what we are saying is that NO ONE else was willing to. Is it theoretically possible to do soemthing else, yes. Was it ever going to happen. NOPE. 
 

[Bigandy]

7 minutes ago, SF said:

You’re correct that I should research a bit more and I confess I have not. 
 

My central point that the CSB deal is a failing of the CSA does not change. It was badly mispriced (though I am actually quite comfortable with the concept of swapping the rights for a fixed cash flow stream). 
 

And, for what it’s worth, I don’t take large issue with the idea that the men’s program can (or could be) leveraged for wider long term success across levels and genders. It’s not a crazy concept - but, it was shrouded in secrecy and the women’s program is now feeling betrayed by their leadership. This would go in the manual of how not to govern/lead an organization. 
 

All of which is to say, the CSA took a perfectly defensible decision and (a) executed it very poorly from a business perspective and (b) executed it very poorly from a governance perspective. 

Great post. I agree with everything youre saying but theres a few caveats for me. 

1. What secrecy is there? Alot of people want access to CSB's books but no private business opens their books. It would be foolish to do so. Theres some wishy washy claim that the deal was signed improperly, but theres no evidence of this and there is evidence of it being signed properly(although it took a while for CSA to produce this document). So what else is so secret? 

2. I think the deal is underpriced, but not terribly. With CSB repeatedly saying they are willing to renegotiate (most likely perfomance bonuses), the deal becomes a good deal. Essentially, I think its a fair price deal in normal years and a slightly bad deal in great years that hopefully can be renegotiated. However, the way I see it, is the slightly bad deal pays for broadcasting, a domestic league and therefore player development and popularity increases, and hosting a WC. The CSB isnt that expensive to get those things. My question to you is, what number should the CSB pay us that would make the deal positive?

[Aird25]

6 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

Let’s see if this is the first step to some actual good faith from the CSB in helping our National Women’s program.

The first step in good faith was completed ages ago when they took on the extremely risky business of pro soccer in Canada, and managing commercial assets of historically poor and underfunded national team programs. They signed a long term deal worth more than the value at the time. There have been many, many signs of good faith since, and this is just another small example.

6 hours ago, Bigandy said:

The upswqing is 100% not due to the media. 

I wouldn't say that. I think the increased access to national team coverage from OneSoccer has been incredibly beneficial for those of us that follow the teams closely. We've never had that before in my experience

Edited July 21, 2023 by Aird25

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I wouldn't say that. I think the increased access to national team coverage from OneSoccer has been incredibly beneficial for those of us that follow the teams closely. We've never had that before in my experience

Sorry Aird. I 100% agree with you. Let me clarify. I was referencing TO who claimed the upswing in CMNT/soccer in general was the media attention (westhead articles) on the failures of the CSA. I was lazy and called it "media" when that isnt quite the right wording. 

Broadcasting and other media has absolutely contributed to our upswing. The westhead articles have not. 

[Aird25]

Just now, Bigandy said:

Sorry Aird. I 100% agree with you. Let me clarify. I was referencing TO who claimed the upswing in CMNT/soccer in general was the media attention (westhead articles) on the failures of the CSA. I was lazy and called it "media" when that isnt quite the right wording. 

Broadcasting and other media has absolutely contributed to our upswing. The westhead articles have not. 

That's fair, sorry I misunderstood. I agree about Westhead's involvement. I feel like he's just taking pop shots at this point.

[Bigandy]

Just now, Aird25 said:

That's fair, sorry I misunderstood. I agree about Westhead's involvement. I feel like he's just taking pop shots at this point.

Right! Like his most recent tweet about the telus deal being "estimated at 3m". 

Thats an estimate based on what... most likely the resources needed for the initiatives telus is supporting for the womens game. He plays it off in such a way that it appears the CSB will get 3million cash and the CSA gets nothing. 

What I read from the telus press release is that theres an estimated 3 million coming in. I would imagine a large part of that was negotiated under the condition that the majority goes to these initiatives. I am sure CSB also takes a cut, and rightfully so. They deserve to get paid for the service they provide. 

However, rick conveniently uses this deal to take another pop shot. 

[narduch]

13 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

That's fair, sorry I misunderstood. I agree about Westhead's involvement. I feel like he's just taking pop shots at this point.

By the way Westhead has been blocking people on Twitter that rightfully call out TSN for their poor coverage of soccer in Canada. Nothing abusive. Just regular criticism 

[king1010]

16 minutes ago, narduch said:

By the way Westhead has been blocking people on Twitter that rightfully call out TSN for their poor coverage of soccer in Canada. Nothing abusive. Just regular criticism 

Bad look from him. 

[Shway]

This thread reminds of this childhood throwback show:

[narduch]

Just now, Shway said:

This thread reminds of this childhood throwback show:

I like Andy but I ain't reading all that

[TOcanadafan]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

1. What is the lack of transparency? Can you list the points that are unclear. (The documents with executive signatures has been presented and proven that the deal was signed legally) 
 

2. Also if 3m+ plus a 1m in broadcasting is measly, how much should the CSA get. Remember that they made less than 1m prior to the CSB deal. 

3. The upswing was WCQ, creating a domestic pro league, formation of league 1's, named a host country for the WC, and much better broadcasting. All these things happened before the recent media spotlight and CSA shake up. 

4. Since the westhead article we have, teams go on strike, had both teams perform slightly worse than prior, a hertiage investigation that is yet to announce any wrongdoings, and financial challenges.  The upswqing is 100% not due to the media.  

 

5. No one is saying that the CSB is the only possible way to create a league. However, what we are saying is that NO ONE else was willing to. Is it theoretically possible to do soemthing else, yes. Was it ever going to happen. NOPE. 
 

1. Are you serious?  I wasn’t referring to whether or not CSA members who were complicit to the shady deal for personal gain, like Bontis - who magically got a lucrative position with CONCACAF and evaded questioning, signed off on a deal that did not represent the better interests of the CSA.  The main frustration all along from stakeholders who have issues with the deal, is that CSB would never share any of the financials in detail. What money was coming in, and how it was being distributed.  
 

2. Where are you getting this $1 M figure from? Viewing CSA Financial Reports from 2016 and 2017, there, the line for Commercial Revenue gives figures of $14.3M for 2016 and $8.3M for 2017.  I know there are many things that go into this figure but it goes back to the transparency issue… this article brings to light the vagueness of CSA reporting as compared to the USSF: https://biv.com/article/2023/05/canadian-soccer-association-swings-surplus-loss-world-cup-year

This Carlton Univeristy Research Note brings to light the lack of transparency in the reporting of CSA financials: https://carleton.ca/profbrouard/wp-content/uploads/PARGnote202322RSoccerCanadaFinancialequity20230212FB.pdf

 

3.  Qualifying for the WC had everything to do with the coach and players.  They qualified in spite of neglected of Youth National Team investment.  Any rise in gate revenues was a result of the team itself, making it to the final round of qualifying for the first time in a very long time.  
Much better broadcasting?  Although I’m appreciative of the in depth coverage OneSoccer offers for the CPL, and that it streams National team games, let’s not kid ourselves that this is making a major play in the overall national sports media landscape.   Sportsnet only jumped on when hype generated by our men’s qualifying run was established.  And then they jumped right off for Nations League.  My friends who became CMNT followers during the qualifying run and watched on Sportsnet couldn’t watch Nations League qualifiers, semis and finals and will tune out again.  I still remember your post that shared a OneSoccer tweet that misrepresented the number of viewers for WCQualifying - the million plus viewers were watching because they had access to Sportsnets channels / streams not on OneSoccer as was implied by the graphic. And the CSB is not the reason why we were awarded the World Cup, and to think the deal that was signed is the reason, is self serving and asinine.  The recent upswing is due to the success of the CMNT.  And I’ll again make the argument that the CSA/CSB has not made the most of the potential financial opportunities from the moment we were awarded 2026, when the hype swelled during WCQ, when we actually did qualify and in the lead up to the Cup.  And we are less than 3 years away from 2026 and were stalling again pre-media spotlight and now have to deal with and get beyond all the negative press as a result of the shadiness, lack of transparency and bad faith between the players and the suits.  Casual sports fans that could be brought on just shake their heads at the mess - mess that could have been avoided with better leadership, business direction and without the cronyism and dirty inside dealings.

4.  To directly tie the recent problems facing the National teams to Westhead is hilarious, and seems to suggest that you have no interest in the success of our national teams and only in defending the original CSB deal, and coincidence the amount of money in the accounts of the CSA-complicit /CSB big players and CPL owners.  It’s a pure defensive/ back-against-the-wall play on your part.  Westhead is an investigative reporter, got on the case because there was a reason to… because the CSB deal is dirty, and players and others were calling it out.  The players / CSA history is filled with years of mistrust, but this latest fiasco brought it to a boil.  The players had to go on strike because in spite of their many calls for negotiations, the CSA execs used Union busting tactic #1 of delay delay delay, and this was the only card they were holding.  The only card unions/worker associations have to play is to go on strike.  
The Heritage commission at least brought the ridiculous deal into the mainstream media.  I agree that the politicians didn’t adequately prepare for the proceedings.  Ultimately the people in question didn’t have to say anything, and Bontis himself evaded questioning.  One positive was that the CSB even admitted that the deal should be re-worked… and I think this is likely the result of some strong-arming, in exchange for not pursuing more investigation into the legalities of the actual signing of the deal, the other, the requirement of a detailed financial audits - let’s wait and see. 
And to conclude this point, the financial hardships are a result of this crippling deal… there is not adequate money for our National teams, and the CSA was considering filing for bankruptcy directly because the CSB deal as was signed makes it impossible to properly fund a National program with ambitions to compete on the world stage.

5.  You can’t say the formation of some sort of National League that would have fulfilled the FIFA requirements (which we don’t have any specifics on… how big? When? Etc.) would never have happened.

Edited July 21, 2023 by TOcanadafan

[Bigandy]

20 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

1. Are you serious?  I wasn’t referring to whether or not CSA members who were complicit to the shady deal for personal gain, like Bontis - who magically got a lucrative position with CONCACAF and evaded questioning, signed off on a deal that did not represent the better interests of the CSA.  The main frustration all along from stakeholders who have issues with the deal, is that CSB would never share any of the financials in detail. What money was coming in, and how it was being distributed.  
 

2. Where are you getting this $1 M figure from? Viewing CSA Financial Reports from 2016 and 2017, there, the line for Commercial Revenue gives figures of $14.3M for 2016 and $8.3M for 2017.  I know there are many things that go into this figure but it goes back to the transparency issue… this article brings to light the vagueness of CSA reporting as compared to the USSF: https://biv.com/article/2023/05/canadian-soccer-association-swings-surplus-loss-world-cup-year

This Carlton Univeristy Research Note brings to light the lack of transparency in the reporting of CSA financials: https://carleton.ca/profbrouard/wp-content/uploads/PARGnote202322RSoccerCanadaFinancialequity20230212FB.pdf

 

3.  Qualifying for the WC had everything to do with the coach and players.  They qualified in spite of neglected of Youth National Team investment.  Any rise in gate revenues was a result of the team itself, making it to the final round of qualifying for the first time in a very long time.  
Much better broadcasting?  Although I’m appreciative of the in depth coverage OneSoccer offers for the CPL, and that it streams National team games, let’s not kid ourselves that this is making a major play in the overall national sports media landscape.   Sportsnet only jumped on when hype generated by our men’s qualifying run was established.  And then they jumped right off for Nations League.  My friends who became CMNT followers during the qualifying run and watched on Sportsnet couldn’t watch Nations League qualifiers, semis and finals and will tune out again.  I still remember your post that shared a OneSoccer tweet that misrepresented the number of viewers for WCQualifying - the million plus viewers were watching because they had access to Sportsnets channels / streams not on OneSoccer as was implied by the graphic. And the CSB is not the reason why we were awarded the World Cup, and to think the deal that was signed is the reason, is self serving and asinine.  The recent upswing is due to the success of the CMNT.  And I’ll again make the argument that the CSA/CSB has not made the most of the potential financial opportunities from the moment we were awarded 2026, when the hype swelled during WCQ, when we actually did qualify and in the lead up to the Cup.  And we are less than 3 years away from 2026 and were stalling again pre-media spotlight and now have to deal with and get beyond all the negative press as a result of the shadiness, lack of transparency and bad faith between the players and the suits.  Casual sports fans that could be brought on just shake their heads at the mess - mess that could have been avoided with better leadership, business direction and without the cronyism and dirty inside dealings.

4.  To directly tie the recent problems facing the National teams to Westhead is hilarious, and seems to suggest that you have no interest in the success of our national teams and only in defending the original CSB deal, and coincidence the amount of money in the accounts of the CSA-complicit /CSB big players and CPL owners.  It’s a pure defensive/ back-against-the-wall play on your part.  Westhead is an investigative reporter, got on the case because there was a reason to… because the CSB deal is dirty, and players and others were calling it out.  The players / CSA history is filled with years of mistrust, but this latest fiasco brought it to a boil.  The players had to go on strike because in spite of their many calls for negotiations, the CSA execs used Union busting tactic #1 of delay delay delay, and this was the only card they were holding.  The only card unions/worker associations have to play is to go on strike.  
The Heritage commission at least brought the ridiculous deal into the mainstream media.  I agree that the politicians didn’t adequately prepare for the proceedings.  Ultimately the people in question didn’t have to say anything, and Bontis himself evaded questioning.  One positive was that the CSB even admitted that the deal should be re-worked… and I think this is likely the result of some strong-arming, in exchange for not pursuing more investigation into the legalities of the actual signing of the deal, the other, the requirement of a detailed financial audits - let’s wait and see. 
And to conclude this point, the financial hardships are a result of this crippling deal… there is not adequate money for our National teams, and the CSA was considering filing for bankruptcy directly because the CSB deal as was signed makes it impossible to properly fund a National program with ambitions to compete on the world stage.

5.  You can’t say the formation of some sort of National League that would have fulfilled the FIFA requirements (which we don’t have any specifics on… how big? When? Etc.) would never have happened.

1. Thats absurd that you have an issue with a private company not sharing their books. Go to your local mechanic, coffee shop, you name it. If its private, it wont have public financial statements. Even if the CSB gave us 1billion dollars a week, they still wouldnt have public FS. Thats literally how every business runs. Why are you not upset about the other companies CSA does business with not providing open books? Are you suggesting that unless we get to see the books of a private company, we shouldnt enter into any marketing contracts with them? 

2. Logically speaking, the CSA would have to make less than 3mill per year in order to sanction a deal for 3m a year. No one ever in history would sign a deal to make a guaranteed less money. So to bring up the total commercial revenues clearly provides little value or sponsorship dollars. All we can say is that sponsorship dollars are between 0-8.3mill in that year. However, it was during the heritage committee that CSA said 2018 generated 1.4 million. This comes directly from the horses mouth. Now that you know its 1.4 million, does that change your perspective on how much sponsorship dollars are actually likely for CSA. 

 https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/csb-deal-funding-of-women-s-team-under-sharp-focus-as-canada-soccer-officials-testify-1.1934223.

I do agree that the FS could give better breakdowns. That would be on the accountants of CSA and technically speaking, they are within the legal guidelines of how to present FS. I do want greater detail of budgets but its not unethical or illegal to follow common accounting practices. But good point nonetheless.

As for your articles, I am failing to understand your point? The first just reports that the players want transparency but theres no evidence to suggest there is or isnt transparency. The second article doesnt really talk about where the lack of transparency is. The one example is that financial records are not posted on CSA's website - thats false. The other claim is that theres no budgets available. That's a great point! Similar to what I said above, we could def use a budget transparency. However, that is unrelated to CSB. Whether or not we have a CSB deal, it would be great to know where the funds for "mens team" goes. 
Am I missing a request for any other data or documents in this article? 

3. You must have missed my point. I am no tsaying the CSB is 100% responsible for the upswing. I am saying that the upswing has come from around 2018. Then i listed the key achievements to back up the upswing claim. This is in response to the previous claim that the upswing started when the media spotlight looked at CSA and forced directors to resign. To reiterate my point. The upswing in Canadian soccer started at around 2018 and not June 2022 when the first westhead article came out.  

Sidenote: good points on TSN viewership. 

4. Similar to #3. You missed the point. From the timeline of June 2022, there has not been much upswing in canadian soccer. Can you list some achievements im missing?  Again my point is the upswing in soccer started in 2018ish and not at June 2022. I am not blaming westhead for any of the issues that the CSA has, but I am saying that his journalism was the catalyst for players to go on strike. Would the players have gone on strike if they had proper legal counsel, maybe not... for sure not the women. But I think its evident our men and women didnt have the full story (likley they only had the westhead article) when they went on strike and westhead was the catalyst.

5. Your argument is a logical fallacy requiring me to prove non existence. Of course I cannot do that but that doesnt give any credibility towards the liklihood of another league. If you would like to provide any evidence of a different investor willing to create a league, Im all ears.  

[Ottawafan]

4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The pie was always going to become much larger in 2026 during the co-host and in other World Cup qualification years regardless of whether CSB were involved or not. Agreeing to a fixed fee for up to 20 years with only small annual increments rather than a percentage of the take once a certain level of revenue was achieved was moronic on the part of the CSA officeholders and a betrayal of the interests of many of the stakeholders they were representing.

Moronic isn't the right word.  They knew what they were doing.

[El Hombre]

5 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

When the money is finally coming, it’d be nice if our National Teams actually got some.  
Just don’t understand how people are Ok with CSB getting all this new money off of the image of the National Teams and not giving it back to the program. 

The reason why you might be seeing some people defend the CSA or the CSB deal is because, as best as I can surmise from this godawful thread, the counter argument basically amounts to the following three points:

1 - Everything we currently have (i.e. national league, unprecedented coverage of the national teams at all levels, top-level travel and accomodations for all national team players etc.) should continue to be magically funded by (?).

2 - Additional unlimited funds should be magically funnelled into every level of the national team programs by (?) to fund non-stop camps and every whim the players have.

3 - The CSA should have dominion over time and space (or, at the very least, perfect clairvoyance) to be able to predict market trends 2, 5, 8 and 10 years ahead of time.

[Kent]

Here is my contribution to this thread.

https://www.dayzrp.com/forums/topic/84052-its-potshots-not-pop-shots/

[Aird25]

11 minutes ago, Kent said:

Here is my contribution to this thread.

https://www.dayzrp.com/forums/topic/84052-its-potshots-not-pop-shots/

The sad bit is that I actually googled the term before posting. A 'potshot' would carry a very different meaning in my neighbourhood, but we sometimes toke things differently