The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[narduch]

1 minute ago, Joe1973 said:

Correct...that is the essence of my whole questioning. A potentially sold out game in BC place, homecoming and celebration of the men team's accomplishment, on a Sunday night when Oilers were not playing.

Was there an outreach and they couldn't find a price point? Or there was no attempt to find a price point to show this game to a wider audience? 

The Panama game wasn't going to be a sell out

[footyfooty]

It appears the major sticking point to all of this is the CWNT. They have stated they will accept nothing other than what they consider to be "equal pay", meaning the same money that the CMNT makes. It seems likely that they are pushing for prize money to be pooled in a similar way the USMNT and USWNT have agreed upon. It also appears that the CSA has committed to paying the CWNT "equally" with their 30% to each team offer.

It is also clear that the CMNT do not want to share this money with the CWNT. At some level the CSA will need to use money generated by the CMNT to subsidize the CWNT. The question, is how should that be done? and what is to be considered "equal" ?

The men say it is an equal % of their own prize money and the same wage for appearances. The women and CSA appear to be saying it is pooling money and paying it out equally.

[Razcal]

1 hour ago, SpecialK said:

In 2018- we played 4 games vs who ? Why would any traditional media show a game on a cow patch in a tiny Caribbean island or vs New Zealand who brought their B/C team at a windy empty stadium in Spain. We can talk about traditional media not wanting Canada soccer. But let’s be real here! The CSA has not organized a real friendly versus a top opponent in forever. Canada versus Scotland was on TSN. So this argument that traditional media doesn’t want Canada soccer is bullshit. The CSA hasn’t given traditional media a good game to show. I am sorry I pissed off about this argument. If Canada was playing England Germany France Italy etc. you better believe it traditional media would be covering it. 

The traditional broadcasters weren’t airing qualification games unless the CSA paid them to do so.

You act like it’s an easy thing for a 80-100th ranked team to book a top 25 friendly at home when we have limited facilities and times that would actually work.

TSN and Sportsnet were decreasing their coverage and letting their soccer people go. This is an undeniable fact.

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Razcal

[SpursFlu]

Average HOUSEHOLD income in Vancouver 79k. Median HOUSEHOLD income 63k! The 2nd most expensive city in the world. We've got Ukrainian refugees coming here taking a look around and saying thanks but no thanks. Half the city are immigrants who spent everything they have just to come here with their family and toil day to day. Now you have a bunch of kids with no dependents crying because their vanity project 2nd gig that flies them all around the world to play soccer doesn't pay enough. A platform that does pay and brings them exposure they easily monetize. The average CPL player makes 50 grand a year. Screw these guys.. what an insult

Edited June 7, 2022 by SpursFlu

[dyslexic nam]

1 hour ago, prairiecanuck said:

The men's program for decades was running in the red.  The women's program that hosted the world cup in 2015 in Canada has been subsidizing the men's program for a long time.

Now the men are on top and many of the players are new players want to keep all the money.  The women, particularly someone like Christine Sinclair would feel for 2 decades men were receiving money she and her team mates were generating.   The men make far more on club football.   

This is a bad look, particularly when the US has come to an agreement to split US and Men's world cup money equally.  The Canadian men want to take a percentage of their world cup pool and let the women take a percentage of their world cup pool because they've finally qualified for the world cup? 

Anything that grows the sport in the country benefits both the men's and women's teams.  The women won gold and had 4.4 million Canadians watch them.   

The men need to take out the word equitable and replace it with equal.  The men and women should split the world cup pools equally.   

Your argument may be accurate, and there may be merit in the idea of significantly supporting the growth of women’s soccer in this country with the recent success of the men (and the financial benefits that entails) but you can not just take that principle and conclude that all should be equal forever.  Over the next 2 WC cycles, and probably far beyond given the expansion of the WC format, the men’s program has moved into a pathway that will see them earn substantially more than the women’s program for decades to come - and potentially forever.  We may not miss another WC for decades with 6 teams coming from CONCACAF starting in 2026.  If that happens, the revenue earned by the mens team will dwarf anything earned by the women’s team historically and funneled to support the men (who have operated on a shoestring budget for decades).   That may suck from a pay equity perspective, but it is a simple fact of the revenue generated through the respective competitions.  The fact that the women shared with the men a portion of a much, much smaller pie doesn’t mean that all monies should get halved forevermore without any further debate.  

Again, I am not saying the women shouldn’t get anything.  And I am not claiming that there isn’t an argument to be made for substantial support of the women’s program.  I am simply saying that the historical subsidization of the men’s program shouldn’t be used as a trump card in the argument to split all men’s team earning 50-50 with the women in perpetuity.   

[Meepmeep]

2 hours ago, SpecialK said:

In 2018- we played 4 games vs who ? Why would any traditional media show a game on a cow patch in a tiny Caribbean island or vs New Zealand who brought their B/C team at a windy empty stadium in Spain. We can talk about traditional media not wanting Canada soccer. But let’s be real here! The CSA has not organized a real friendly versus a top opponent in forever. Canada versus Scotland was on TSN. So this argument that traditional media doesn’t want Canada soccer is bullshit. The CSA hasn’t given traditional media a good game to show. I am sorry I pissed off about this argument. If Canada was playing England Germany France Italy etc. you better believe it traditional media would be covering it. 

I agree completely.  
is there systemic bias against certain sports in Canadian sports media?  100% Yes
The thing is as the Raptors proved is that eyeballs and winning can overcome that bias so instead of crying about it-get you sh!t together and put out a good product and win. 
It’s also why I don’t buy the CSB was growing the game canard.  The players were growing the game by winning.  Not just against Grenada, but against the USA and Mexico. 
If people forget check the trend of the ratings. 
 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Meepmeep

[CanadaFan123]

1 hour ago, prairiecanuck said:

The men's program for decades was running in the red.  The women's program that hosted the world cup in 2015 in Canada has been subsidizing the men's program for a long time.

Now the men are on top and many of the players are new players want to keep all the money.  The women, particularly someone like Christine Sinclair would feel for 2 decades men were receiving money she and her team mates were generating.   The men make far more on club football.   

This is a bad look, particularly when the US has come to an agreement to split US and Men's world cup money equally.  The Canadian men want to take a percentage of their world cup pool and let the women take a percentage of their World Cup pool because they've finally qualified for the world cup? 

Anything that grows the sport in the country benefits both the men's and women's teams.  The women won gold and had 4.4 million Canadians watch them.   

The men need to take out the word equitable and replace it with equal.  The men and women should split the world cup pools equally.   

You think the men have been getting paid the women’s bonuses all these years? Maybe the program has received money but I’d be shocked if the men’s players themselves have received money. 
 

That’s where the disconnect seems to be. The women want the men’s share of money in their pockets ... not to the program. 

[SpursFlu]

You know who should get everyone's share

CPL men and women 

Maybe we can get the players above the poverty line or in the case of the women have them exist 

Edited June 7, 2022 by SpursFlu

[prairiecanuck]

15 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

You think the men have been getting paid the women’s bonuses all these years? Maybe the program has received money but I’d be shocked if the men’s players themselves have received money. 
 

That’s where the disconnect seems to be. The women want the men’s share of money in their pockets ... not to the program. 

I'm certainly no expert and have no idea what was paid to who.  That is for the CSA, the men and the women to review.  The US women have their pockets in the US men's pocket.  Our neighbor to the south is doing this exact thing.  Pooling both women's and men's world cup for this cycle and next and splitting it equally.  This is what the the women want and what the CSA are up against.  

I you think the men haven't been paid to play over the last decades you're wrong.  Were the paid well, no.  They were paid.  Did they generate money for the CSA, not over an above their expenses and what they were paid.  Are the men a cash cow now.  Absolutely.  

[red card]

The men overplayed their hand by not playing on Sunday. At best, for the lowest paid players who played WCQ, it is about 1 year's worth of salary that they're haggling about. If it is about pre or post tax issues, it is even less. Since most of the top players donate their winnings to charity and the US men just agreed to split their winnings with the women, I'm puzzled why money is such a factor for the Canadian men. Even the Jamaican players haven't refused to play yet even though they haven't been paid for months.

It isn't life changing money for the players as most of the World Cup qualifying benefits for them will accrue at the club level if they can take advantage of it. For the CSA, it will more of an impact as it is bonus bridge money that will help fund the teams especially at the youth levels till the 2026 windfall arrives.

If the men were looking for structural changes. Then, they need to play the long game. They should have also looped in the women who had started discussing structural issues with the CSA earlier this year.

The US women's battle took about 6 years. They didn't refuse to play any matches but took their case to the public and the courts. They didn't refuse to play when revelations showed USSF ignored disclosures that national team players were being abused in the USSF-managed/funded NWSL. The women lost the court case but since they won the case in public, the USSF still gave them a US$24 million settlement and they got the equal pay deal they wanted.

On a related note, the Canadian women's team hasn't really been subsidising the men all these years. Their World Cup money even for making the R16 is only US$1 million. OTP money is only for the women. But the Women's World Cup 2015 did support all teams pre-CSB. In 2015, the CSA reported $107 million in revenue of which $82 million came from hosting WWC15. Net revenue was $11.8 million.

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by red card

[Shway]

46 minutes ago, Meepmeep said:

I agree completely.  
is there systemic bias against certain sports in Canadian sports media?  100% Yes
The thing is as the Raptors proved is that eyeballs and winning can overcome that bias so instead of crying about it-get you sh!t together and put out a good product and win. 
It’s also why I don’t buy the CSB was growing the game canard.  The players were growing the game by winning.  Not just against Grenada, but against the USA and Mexico. 
If people forget check the trend of the ratings. 
 

 

 

I would've like to see these games listed as they were played to see the real trend.

[Colonel Green]

3 hours ago, SpecialK said:

In 2018- we played 4 games vs who ? Why would any traditional media show a game on a cow patch in a tiny Caribbean island or vs New Zealand who brought their B/C team at a windy empty stadium in Spain. We can talk about traditional media not wanting Canada soccer. But let’s be real here! The CSA has not organized a real friendly versus a top opponent in forever. Canada versus Scotland was on TSN. So this argument that traditional media doesn’t want Canada soccer is bullshit. The CSA hasn’t given traditional media a good game to show. I am sorry I pissed off about this argument. If Canada was playing England Germany France Italy etc. you better believe it traditional media would be covering it. 

2 hours ago, SpecialK said:

If anyone here truly believes that a big media company like Rogers bell is gonna show a game on a cow patch versus shopkeepers- you need to get your head examined. Now if the CSA said to Rogers and Bell we’re gonna be playing Brazil , Italy, Belgium, England plus we have these small games vs Concacaf teams that we need play plus we have your youth teams playing england, France, US and Mexico and small teams too. So if you want show Davies vs Neymar,  you gonna show Davies vs Shopkeeper Joe. It’s one big package. 
i bet Rogers or bell would really consider a proposal. Especially for 100-200 million dollars over 10 years. 

but the CSA doesn’t  book Friendlies vs top teams. The only way to play top teams is in the Olympics or the World Cup. Well Olympics and World Cup sell their media rights to highest bidder and the CSA has no control 

1.  The CMNT was complete trash until the last couple of years, so booking friendlies against the world’s best would just lead to people tuning in to watch the home side get pasted. Not good for the team’s reputation or finances long-term. Also, precisely because the team was terrible there’s not much in it for the world’s best to want to show up.

2.  Canada doesn’t have the facilities that would make hosting those teams profitable at the fees they would charge.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Colonel Green

[Fresh Prince of MTL]

53 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

Average HOUSEHOLD income in Vancouver 79k. Median HOUSEHOLD income 63k! The 2nd most expensive city in the world. We've got Ukrainian refugees coming here taking a look around and saying thanks but no thanks. Half the city are immigrants who spent everything they have just to come here with their family and toil day to day. Now you have a bunch of kids with no dependents crying because their vanity project 2nd gig that flies them all around the world to play soccer doesn't pay enough. A platform that does pay and brings them exposure they easily monetize. The average CPL player makes 50 grand a year. Screw these guys.. what an insult

You do realize there are guys on or near the main team not making much more than your so called poverty line. Koné is on $68k for example, a lot of MLS rookie deals are around $100k. If you’re playing in Canada a big chunk is gone to taxes. I can’t imagine Fraser, Kennedy or Brym have been making much higher than that either. This bonus is a big help to some of our current players they aren’t all on Davies and David level salaries. 

[Bison44]

15 minutes ago, Fresh Prince of MTL said:

You do realize there are guys on or near the main team not making much more than your so called poverty line. Koné is on $68k for example, a lot of MLS rookie deals are around $100k. If you’re playing in Canada a big chunk is gone to taxes. I can’t imagine Fraser, Kennedy or Brym have been making much higher than that either. This bonus is a big help to some of our current players they aren’t all on Davies and David level salaries. 

Hume made that same point on onesoccer when all the shit went down.  Just the couple grand for the regular appearance fee the players got in his day really helped his financial situation.  I was surprised to hear that, I guess I assumed even in the lower leagues in England the money was decent.  

[SpursFlu]

20 minutes ago, Fresh Prince of MTL said:

You do realize there are guys on or near the main team not making much more than your so called poverty line. Koné is on $68k for example, a lot of MLS rookie deals are around $100k. If you’re playing in Canada a big chunk is gone to taxes. I can’t imagine Fraser, Kennedy or Brym have been making much higher than that either. This bonus is a big help to some of our current players they aren’t all on Davies and David level salaries. 

Kone is 18 and wasn't on that level. Of the core players I'm not sure we have a player under 300k and who all happen to be like 23 yrs old. And to be brutally honest are about as low a standard you can get for a World Cup caliber player. 

It's a pretty simple exercise. Someone can easily find and post the annual salary of each player. Which wouldn't include... wait for it... the money they've made playing for the Canadian National team

Edited June 7, 2022 by SpursFlu

[red card]

3 hours ago, Joe1973 said:

These are things that I don't understand. If I did a quick survey with people I know and asked them which would they rather watch between curling and soccer, I am not a statistician but my guess is that 95%-99% would say soccer? I am seriously not having a go at curling; I just still can't wrap my head around this lack of interest by the sports networks. Anyways it is what it is, and hopefully this changes after Qatar.

The heyday of cable sports tv was in the 90s to the early aughts. There was a window for Canada's national teams to get long-term investment style spending from TSN/SN as the CFL, World Juniors or curling did. But we all know it was missed.

Now paid linear tv viewing is on the decline. The penetration rate has dropped from 90% to 50% per Canadian household. The majority of tv viewers for 90% of the programs are >55 years which is of little interest for advertisers.

This means the sports networks have been in cost conscious mode. They have been laying off people and focused only on sports that can generate mass market audiences, create vertical corporate synergies and/or get it free/low cost via show to earn (i.e CHL, NLL) and via US broadcasters.

In aggregate, soccer viewership is on the fringe of being a top 5 tv sport. But given all the tourneys, leagues & 2 genders, it is fragmented in more than 10 ways. World Cup & Euros get top 5 sports viewing numbers. The rest do not. Many have enough of a core passionate base that will pay up to watch. That's why TSN/SN got outbid for the Premier & Champions Leagues and sports streamers/multicultural tv focus on soccer.

Canada Soccer rights was never a top 10 soccer property till the recent WCQs. Inventory availability is irregular and there is less than 15 M&W matches/yr. Most matches are against non top 25 soccer nations.  If against European nations, it was on a weekday with no chance of a sizeable audience.

Even if the sports networks were paying the CSA, the money would be the same or less than Mediapro. USSF recently separated from SUM and signed their own deal with Turner. They have a world champion team that gets top 5 soccer ratings even against 2 bit nations, they can get a Hispanic audience that is often larger than the English and have 10x the population. The deal was US$25 million/yr for 8 years.

[keysersoze]

5 hours ago, costarg said:

They're pro-soccer players, most of have never held a part-time job.  They're not paid or skilled enough to organize a strike.  How in the hell do you expect them to know those skills?  Something happened and they reacted the best they could given the time they had.  Yes they made mistakes, and that is completely normal.  Need to stop expecting perfection from these lads, they can stop, pass and dribble a ball, they're not super human.

Now the CSA on the other hand is paid to organize, they're the ones who are supposed to have the skills to get this shit done.  Every single road in this story points to Rome.

Who is expecting perfection? All I wanted was them to not screw over thousands of fans. If they wanted to hold out of playing games this window more power to them.

You can't pull the players are doldrums who can only kick a soccer ball when it's convenient for your argument. 

You can assign blame to multiple parties. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[InglewoodJack]

3 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

Average HOUSEHOLD income in Vancouver 79k. Median HOUSEHOLD income 63k! The 2nd most expensive city in the world. We've got Ukrainian refugees coming here taking a look around and saying thanks but no thanks. Half the city are immigrants who spent everything they have just to come here with their family and toil day to day. Now you have a bunch of kids with no dependents crying because their vanity project 2nd gig that flies them all around the world to play soccer doesn't pay enough. A platform that does pay and brings them exposure they easily monetize. The average CPL player makes 50 grand a year. Screw these guys.. what an insult

Dawg stop pocketwatching.

[goleafs67]

1 hour ago, red card said:

The heyday of cable sports tv was in the 90s to the early aughts. There was a window for Canada's national teams to get long-term investment style spending from TSN/SN as the CFL, World Juniors or curling did. But we all know it was missed.

Now paid linear tv viewing is on the decline. The penetration rate has dropped from 90% to 50% per Canadian household. The majority of tv viewers for 90% of the programs are >55 years which is of little interest for advertisers.

This means the sports networks have been in cost conscious mode. They have been laying off people and focused only on sports that can generate mass market audiences, create vertical corporate synergies and/or get it free/low cost via show to earn (i.e CHL, NLL) and via US broadcasters.

In aggregate, soccer viewership is on the fringe of being a top 5 tv sport. But given all the tourneys, leagues & 2 genders, it is fragmented in more than 10 ways. World Cup & Euros get top 5 sports viewing numbers. The rest do not. Many have enough of a core passionate base that will pay up to watch. That's why TSN/SN got outbid for the Premier & Champions Leagues and sports streamers/multicultural tv focus on soccer.

Canada Soccer rights was never a top 10 soccer property till the recent WCQs. Inventory availability is irregular and there is less than 15 M&W matches/yr. Most matches are against non top 25 soccer nations.  If against European nations, it was on a weekday with no chance of a sizeable audience.

Even if the sports networks were paying the CSA, the money would be the same or less than Mediapro. USSF recently separated from SUM and signed their own deal with Turner. They have a world champion team that gets top 5 soccer ratings even against 2 bit nations, they can get a Hispanic audience that is often larger than the English and have 10x the population. The deal was US$25 million/yr for 8 years.

This is the type of nuance and fact-based understanding that's been missing from almost all discourse on the topic. People reflexively hate on the CSA and blame them for being incompetent in signing the deal with CSB. In hindsight it may look like a horrible deal, but at the time I'd love to hear what other path could have brought in guaranteed revenue despite what most realists would have predicted would be many more years of mediocre results from the men. 

That doesn't absolve the CSA from other longstanding organizational and more recent operational issues (ie. lost merchandising revenue), but from the players' open letter it's clear they didn't bother to look deeper and went nuclear. They cost the organization, and by extension themselves, even more money l, and took an unneeded hit to the growing goodwill they've built over the past three plus years of results heading into the most important year of the organization's history. 

They could benefit from hiring outside counsel to run the negotiation and allow themselves to focus on WC preparations. As seen through the years with other federations, these negotiations take time and (the potential  spectre of) legal action. Other national teams rarely resort to the solution the men did Sunday, even after years of protracted negotiations and frustrations.

Get together, get it sorted, and move on with what should be the best year ever for Canadian soccer. 

[Soro17]

6 hours ago, SF said:

Why would they put a rival network on their channels? Put another way, why would OneSoccer allow that?  They own the rights.

I mean, they did for the last phase of WCQ, but that was a transaction, no?  I suppose they could do it again, but that would mean finding a price point that makes sense.  

These are businesses and they have to play by rules and, if things are OK, make profits - true of Rogers, Bell and, yes, OneSoccer.  

I’m no expert in this stuff, but I think the CRTC is supposed to regulate this kind of anti-competitive crap. Failing them, the Competition Bureau. The problem is that it is excessively expensive and time consuming to advance any kind of complaint. 

[The Beaver 2.0]

5 hours ago, footyfooty said:

It appears the major sticking point to all of this is the CWNT. They have stated they will accept nothing other than what they consider to be "equal pay", meaning the same money that the CMNT makes. It seems likely that they are pushing for prize money to be pooled in a similar way the USMNT and USWNT have agreed upon. It also appears that the CSA has committed to paying the CWNT "equally" with their 30% to each team offer.

It is also clear that the CMNT do not want to share this money with the CWNT. At some level the CSA will need to use money generated by the CMNT to subsidize the CWNT. The question, is how should that be done? and what is to be considered "equal" ?

The men say it is an equal % of their own prize money and the same wage for appearances. The women and CSA appear to be saying it is pooling money and paying it out equally.

Great summary!  And how in the hell do you solve such a thing? What is the equitable thing to do? How do you ground such a deliberation? In my mind, this can only be solved by something outside of these two propositions, some other understanding of what "equity" looks like in the face of a truly difficult debate.  This is beyond me...

[SpecialK]

5 hours ago, Razcal said:

The traditional broadcasters weren’t airing qualification games unless the CSA paid them to do so.

You act like it’s an easy thing for a 80-100th ranked team to book a top 25 friendly at home when we have limited facilities and times that would actually work.

TSN and Sportsnet were decreasing their coverage and letting their soccer people go. This is an undeniable fact.

 

If other lower end tier teams can get Friendlies vs top teams , Canada could have as well. I am sorry I’m buying that bullshit. Yes Sportsnet was decreasing soccer for sure. TSN well they still have MLS and they did cover Canada vs big matches. Yes TSN let go a lot of people but they did that as whole. 

[Colonel Green]

50 minutes ago, SpecialK said:

If other lower end tier teams can get Friendlies vs top teams , Canada could have as well.=

If you're talking about domestic matches, we don't currently have venues suitable to host the top teams in the world. The grass stadiums don't have enough seats, and the stadiums that have enough seats aren't grass.

In addition to the issue that a strategy of inviting the world's best to come and shellack us multiple times a year would not have done anything for the team's reputation nationally (or internationally). You might have gotten people to tune in for one or two, but after the second or third 10-0 blowout they'd know better.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Colonel Green

[The Beaver 2.0]

5 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

You know who should get everyone's share

CPL men and women 

Maybe we can get the players above the poverty line or in the case of the women have them exist 

Karl, is that you? 

[Obinna]

5 hours ago, Fresh Prince of MTL said:

You do realize there are guys on or near the main team not making much more than your so called poverty line. Koné is on $68k for example, a lot of MLS rookie deals are around $100k. If you’re playing in Canada a big chunk is gone to taxes. I can’t imagine Fraser, Kennedy or Brym have been making much higher than that either. This bonus is a big help to some of our current players they aren’t all on Davies and David level salaries. 

Not to take away from your point, because the bonus money would work out to be over 100k per player, which would definitely help most of these guys out, but wanted to point out MLS salaries are reported in American dollars, so Kone on 68k is more like 85k. Your point stands, but just want to bring more accuracy to your comment.