The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Ottawafan said:

This isn’t interference to install a bunch of yes men in the FA. It’s oversight to ensure government dollars are spent properly. 

...and the CSA could always simply opt not to accept any federal funding and hence avoid any "interference" but that's very unlikely in the run up to the 2026 co-hosting so Ottawa has plenty of leverage.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[RJB]

12 hours ago, VinceA said:

Hopefully of this remains off FIFA's radar otherwise we can get fucked over by their no interference rule.

Nope. Hopefully the audit is swift and effective. The fear of government involvement and FIFA sanctions cannot be used to prevent any oversight. That's how corruption happens. 

[Bigandy]

Im skeptical of this audit. My town had a very similar situation where the financials were not transparent and we needed an audit because some former employees made claims agaisnt the town. Turns out the independent audit came back squeeky clean and the biggest threat to the current employees was all the harassment from the former employee's (their claims were proven false). The town had to spend hundreds of thousands for nothing. 

I am sure CSA has room for improvement, but I would be shocked if theres any major unethical financial cover ups etc. Even the reduction in the womens budget can be legally explained as a strategic decision. It may have lacked foresight to some but I don't think there are any grounds for foul play. 

Basically I expect this audit to cost us time and resources while potentially angering fifa, just so that the MP's can feel good about themselves. 

[Gian-Luca]

De Vos doesn't sound too worried:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/article/canada-soccer-faces-independent-audit-into-finances-new-funding-conditions/

"While Canada Soccer has already taken steps to enhance our governance standards, we thank Minister St-Onge for her letter and for her collaborative approach in our efforts to further enhance our financial and operational transparency," he said in a release.

"We look forward to working together and alongside our partners at Sport Canada, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Own The Podium to ensure the recommendations of the audit and the governance review are dealt with responsibly and swiftly."

Mind you, I'd rather he be spending his time lining up friendlies for us in the fall rather than on this bureaucratic busy-body stuff.

I also had to chuckle at this bit:

"The announcement comes after several parliamentary committee hearings where the organization faced criticism for its handling of a sex abuse scandal, questions about a controversial broadcasting deal as well as the treatment of female soccer players, including women's team captain Christine Sinclair, by former executives."

Yes, the old broadcasting deal, where the CSA would pay Sportsnet or TSN to show their games while fans hunted for illegal streams of youth matches broadcast out of St. Kitts and Nevis was so much better...

Edited May 31, 2023 by Gian-Luca

[SF]

51 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Im skeptical of this audit. My town had a very similar situation where the financials were not transparent and we needed an audit because some former employees made claims agaisnt the town. Turns out the independent audit came back squeeky clean and the biggest threat to the current employees was all the harassment from the former employee's (their claims were proven false). The town had to spend hundreds of thousands for nothing. 

I am sure CSA has room for improvement, but I would be shocked if theres any major unethical financial cover ups etc. Even the reduction in the womens budget can be legally explained as a strategic decision. It may have lacked foresight to some but I don't think there are any grounds for foul play. 

Basically I expect this audit to cost us time and resources while potentially angering fifa, just so that the MP's can feel good about themselves. 

I agree there almost certainly won't be any financial irregularities. The CSA is already subject to external financial audits on an annual basis (PwC if memory serves) and the chances of a government audit uncovering anything on that basis are almost nil.

Two other points, however. The government could set the scope of the audit to capture "value for money" considerations and that might result in instances where the auditor thinks money was spent unwisely. These happen all the time in the public sector and, as a rule, come back with some real recommendations. It would normally be left to the Board to take or leave the advice (fyi, leaving the advice almost never works out, even if it is stupid advice).

Second, and probably most important, will be the governance review. I think it's very hard to argue that the CSA has exercised its governance mandate well. There are simply too many constituents who feel failed. The outcome of this piece of the audit could (should?) be the driver for material change.

But, we'll see...these things aren't always perfectly predictable. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

4 minutes ago, SF said:

...The outcome of this piece of the audit could (should?) be the driver for material change...

...especially if, as appears to be the case, future federal finding (about $5 million in 2022 according to Rick Westhead) is being tied to following the recommendations made in this area. This is what Andrea Neil argued for when she testified so the CWNT appear to be getting what they wanted and have very much been listened to.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[red card]

47 minutes ago, SF said:

I agree there almost certainly won't be any financial irregularities. The CSA is already subject to external financial audits on an annual basis (PwC if memory serves) and the chances of a government audit uncovering anything on that basis are almost nil.

Two other points, however. The government could set the scope of the audit to capture "value for money" considerations and that might result in instances where the auditor thinks money was spent unwisely. These happen all the time in the public sector and, as a rule, come back with some real recommendations. It would normally be left to the Board to take or leave the advice (fyi, leaving the advice almost never works out, even if it is stupid advice).

Second, and probably most important, will be the governance review. I think it's very hard to argue that the CSA has exercised its governance mandate well. There are simply too many constituents who feel failed. The outcome of this piece of the audit could (should?) be the driver for material change.

But, we'll see...these things aren't always perfectly predictable. 

PwC audits Canada Soccer's statements. So, yes, the chances of a government financial audit unearthing anything nefarious is nearly nil. But it should help with the PR battle of being viewed as corrupt and crooks.

Plus, the goverment can only directly talk about the $4-5 million/yr money they provided. It should be straightforward that Own the Podium & any Olympic Committee monies were only used for the women. The government can also provide a recommendation of being more transparent on how player registration fees are deployed and be more equally/proportionally spent between M/W (if not so).

With the Hockey Canada audit, the government's financial audit basically looked at if government funds have been used to support amateur hockey rather than to help pay off sexual assualt victims.

Most of the HC recommendations involved governance such as better internal controls & budgeting and better documentation of financial processes. Assuming Canada Soccer has signed a similar contribution agreement & is under the same Canada Sport governance code and given Canada Soccer's sloppy governance history, I would expect most of audit recommendations/direction be centred around these type of issues.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by red card

[Soro17]

33 minutes ago, red card said:

PwC audits Canada Soccer's statements. So, yes, the chances of a government financial audit unearthing anything nefarious is nearly nil. But it should help with the PR battle of being viewed as corrupt and crooks.

Plus, the goverment can only directly talk about the $4-5 million/yr money they provided. It should be straightforward that Own the Podium & any Olympic Committee monies were only used for the women. The government can also provide a recommendation of being more transparent on how player registration fees are deployed and be more equally/proportionally spent between M/W (if not so).

With the Hockey Canada audit, the government's financial audit basically looked at if government funds have been used to support amateur hockey rather than to help pay off sexual assualt victims.

Most of the HC recommendations involved governance such as better internal controls & budgeting and better documentation of financial processes. Assuming Canada Soccer has signed a similar contribution agreement & is under the same Canada Sport governance code and given Canada Soccer's sloppy governance history, I would expect most of audit recommendations/direction be centred around these type of issues.

 

 

 

 

Given that PWC is the current auditor, any additional financial audit will essentially amount to setting $500K (minimum) on fire. 

The governance component will no doubt have some meaningful recommendations, which won't be surprising given the make-up of the board and the restrictions in the bylaws which dictate the board's composition. 

 

 

 

[Watchmen]

Mismanagement of funds is not the same as fraud. I'd be surprised if there was actual fraud going on at the CSA.

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, SF said:

I agree there almost certainly won't be any financial irregularities. The CSA is already subject to external financial audits on an annual basis (PwC if memory serves) and the chances of a government audit uncovering anything on that basis are almost nil.

Two other points, however. The government could set the scope of the audit to capture "value for money" considerations and that might result in instances where the auditor thinks money was spent unwisely. These happen all the time in the public sector and, as a rule, come back with some real recommendations. It would normally be left to the Board to take or leave the advice (fyi, leaving the advice almost never works out, even if it is stupid advice).

Second, and probably most important, will be the governance review. I think it's very hard to argue that the CSA has exercised its governance mandate well. There are simply too many constituents who feel failed. The outcome of this piece of the audit could (should?) be the driver for material change.

But, we'll see...these things aren't always perfectly predictable. 

Really great post. Is there both a financial audit and a governance review taking place? 

 

[Bigandy]

12 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Mismanagement of funds is not the same as fraud. I'd be surprised if there was actual fraud going on at the CSA.

I agree. However, it is going to be so difficult to say a mismanagement of funds. With so many competing stakeholders, its so hard to claim that X is a mismanagement but Y is sound practice. I am very curious to see what they uncover.

[Watchmen]

11 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I agree. However, it is going to be so difficult to say a mismanagement of funds. With so many competing stakeholders, its so hard to claim that X is a mismanagement but Y is sound practice. I am very curious to see what they uncover.

Sure, and some of this will depend on the scope of the audit. I'm just saying there's a difference between "we decided to fund X instead of Y" which might have been mismanagement vs "Nick transferred money to his personal account", which is what I think some people (including some players) think.

The only part I think might be of interest is what happened to the Own the Podium funds for the women. If ALL of that didn't go towards the women, then some bigger explanations are required, solely on the basis of that's specifically what that funding is for.

[Aird25]

17 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

The only part I think might be of interest is what happened to the Own the Podium funds for the women. If ALL of that didn't go towards the women, then some bigger explanations are required, solely on the basis of that's specifically what that funding is for.

Can you help me understand why all of that money should go to the women while the money from the men's World Cup is split? What's the distinction between the intent of that funding vs other prize money that is intended to be split and/or go towards other federation objectives?

Edited May 31, 2023 by Aird25
missing word

[Watchmen]

29 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

Can you help me understand why all of that money should go to the women while the money from the men's World Cup is split? What's the distinction between the intent of that funding vs other prize money that is intended to be split and/or go towards other federation objectives?

It's money given out by the Olympic committee for a very specific purpose. It's not for "general funds", but for the specific team (or individuals, depending on the sport) in order to improve their current/future Olympic participation. So it very much comes with strings attached to it, and has for quite a while.

This is in contrast to the world cup money, which is simply given to the federation to do with as they please. I'm not arguing for how it should be split, just simply that the two funding methods aren't the same.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Watchmen

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

Can you help me understand why all of that money should go to the women while the money from the men's World Cup is split? What's the distinction between the intent of that funding vs other prize money that is intended to be split and/or go towards other federation objectives?

Own the podium funds anre only for the olympics. As the men didn’t qualify, all the money has to go to the women.   

[SF]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Really great post. Is there both a financial audit and a governance review taking place? 

 

Sounds like it.  A lot will come down to how the federal government decides to set the terms of reference and scope. If you look at the Attorney General of Ontario website you will see many such audits done in the public sector (probably the same in other provinces). The website will include said terms of reference and results/recommendations.

I suspect they are less common at the federal level because, frankly, the federal government doesn't do too much in our system of government. 

My guess is this audit will be focused on value for money and governance. 

Again, I would be astounded if there was any real financial irregularity at the CSA and I suspect the federal government knows this.

If I had to wager, there will be many recommendations around how funding is rolled out and how said rollouts are accounted for and evaluated. There will also be several recommendations on how the CSA is governed - that is the big question. Could be benign or could be a suggestion to blow the whole thing up.

If I had to wager, this ends with a "respected" Canadian with no relationship to the soccer community undertaking a report on the governance structure that receives input from all stakeholders and, ultimately, recommends a complete overhaul of the system.

Probably should have happened 20 years ago, but c'est la vie. 

Franky, if I were the CSA I would get ahead of that conclusion and undertake it myself.

[red card]

3 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Really great post. Is there both a financial audit and a governance review taking place? 

 

The Sport minister's letter stated it wants Canada Soccer to undergo a financial audit for the 6 yrs ending March 2023 in order to confirm that the funding from the government has been allocated appropriately and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements.

The govt also wants a governance review by a govt created third party advisory group which will look into transparency, financial decison-making and governance structures. 

[Aird25]

4 hours ago, Watchmen said:

It's money given out by the Olympic committee for a very specific purpose. It's not for "general funds", but for the specific team (or individuals, depending on the sport) in order to improve their current/future Olympic participation. So it very much comes with strings attached to it, and has for quite a while.

This is in contrast to the world cup money, which is simply given to the federation to do with as they please. I'm not arguing for how it should be split, just simply that the two funding methods aren't the same.

Got it, thanks. I didn't realize it wasn't just prize money

[kacbru]

Pretty damning reporting by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/critics-say-absolutely-no-change-in-canada-soccer-despite-scandals 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

 

[SF]

52 minutes ago, kacbru said:

Pretty damning reporting by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/critics-say-absolutely-no-change-in-canada-soccer-despite-scandals 

Wow, that is some read. Feels like this could get even worse if former Board members are willing to speak so frankly. 

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, kacbru said:

Pretty damning reporting by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/critics-say-absolutely-no-change-in-canada-soccer-despite-scandals 

Yup it all adds up. Imagine caping for these guys. 

[SF]

1 hour ago, kacbru said:

Pretty damning reporting by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/critics-say-absolutely-no-change-in-canada-soccer-despite-scandals 

Just thinking through this further, it really does speak to how the women's players feel about the CSA and it's treatment of them. This isn't a new story, but the details in this article are incredible and I can't blame the women for not receiving Crooks with open arms.

The parochialism on display is extraordinary. 

[Bigandy]

4 hours ago, kacbru said:

Pretty damning reporting by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/critics-say-absolutely-no-change-in-canada-soccer-despite-scandals 

Although the Birarda case is horrible, I cant help but feel like the goal post has been moved in order to gain public favour. 

Neither the men or women had any indication of fighting for change because of sexual abuse. It was all about financials, CSB etc. 

What happened in 2008 is horrible but it has been 15 years since then. Theres been significant turnover in the organization, the criminal system has dealt with it. Does anyone know what changes have occurred to improve since 2008, or conversely since 2019? The article only talks about how things were prior to 2019. Theres a good chance that nothings been done but it would be nice to see if there has been improvements. 

I just dont see the connection between birarda and the CSB deal or the CBA negotiations. It would be so much more productive to be specific on where and what needs to be fixed and what is going well instead of lumping in a horrible case to drive up emotions as if it is an indication of the CSB deal being bad. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Two words: gender equity. Also worth noting that Birarda was still coaching in a reasonably high profile manner a lot more recently than 15 years ago in the city where two of the subsequent CSA presidents are from. There is a leading CSA exec from back in 2008, who is now a FIFA vice-president and still heavily influencing the CSA's internal elections and decision making process. Check out the Guardian link above for details. If you don't think how the Birarda coverup was handled is the sort of thing that needs to be looked at in terms of a wider governance review, I really don't know what more to say at this point.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot