The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Gian-Luca]

1 minute ago, SthMelbRed said:

The conversation probably went like this....

Players: We want a $4m share, after tax for making the World Cup.

CSA: That would mean giving you 80% of the $10m from FIFA.

Players: Yeah. So...?

CSA: We've made a commitment to give the women the same as what you get, so, we'd have to pay out $16m, but only get $10m. We can't do that.

Players: Not our problem. We get what we want, or we strike. Find the extra money from sponsorships.

CSA: We don't get any additional sponsorship money because we outsourced the rights to CSB for a fixed rate so we could get the CPL off the ground.

Players: Fuck CSB! They stole our money!

I suspect this is a pretty accurate transcript, except with a few more f-bombs put in for good measure

[Unnamed Trialist]

15 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

I suspect this is a pretty accurate transcript, except with a few more f-bombs put in for good measure

Agreed.

The piece missing, as I have insisted, is this:

CSA: we are giving you two tickets each for family for the WC and not paying their travel.

Players: Wha..? I have nine cousins bugging me for tickets and my youth soccer coach and my aunt who took me to practice.

CSA: Sorry, we only have a limited amount.

Players (to themselves): Which you are giving to suits in the provincial associations to buy their votes for future CSA elections.

CSA: do we have a deal?

Players: We want a $4m share, after tax for making the World Cup.

I'm guessing the players came up with that unreasonable figure after being pissed off about a purely personal question like family members.

[SpursFlu]

I'm not sure about you guys but when I think Honesty and Transparency I immediately think... Bell & Rogers

[Cheeta]

Didn't the CSA pull in a $6M profit in 2021?

Also, isn't that $10,000,000 in prize money US dollars?

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

Didn't the CSA pull in a $6M profit in 2021?

Also, isn't that $10,000,000 in prize money US dollars?

US dollars and the euro will be par by the end of the week anyways, they are almost par today.

[gigi riva]

On 7/12/2022 at 10:16 AM, SpursFlu said:

Think about people's issue. Just really think about it. There really is no problem. As it stands right now.. there is absolutely no problem. There is absolutely no skin off anyone's back here in this forum. It does not have anything to do with you

Just people looking to be miserable and won't rest until everyone else joins them in the pitty committee

10 years ago we were nowhere near the World Cup and we were nowhere near having a professional soccer league. 

Can someone please explain the problem again? Oh right we won't rest until we find victims. I found some, those 25 yr old millionaire professional soccer players being pampered flying around the world representing their country as a side hustle. Life is soo fking tough

I hear you SpursFlu  and I agree . Just tired of everything 

[An Observer]

11 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

The conversation probably went like this....

Players: We want a $4m share, after tax for making the World Cup.

CSA: That would mean giving you 80% of the $10m from FIFA.

Players: Yeah. So...?

CSA: We've made a commitment to give the women the same as what you get, so, we'd have to pay out $16m, but only get $10m. We can't do that.

Players: Not our problem. We get what we want, or we strike. Find the extra money from sponsorships.

CSA: We don't get any additional sponsorship money because we outsourced the rights to CSB for a fixed rate so we could get the CPL off the ground.

Players: Fuck CSB! They stole our money!

I am interpreted the request for 40% after tax as meaning 40% after the tax man takes his cut.  That’s usually what 40% after tax means so I think your narrative is incorrect (but happy to be proven wrong)

[Sal333]

2 hours ago, An Observer said:

I am interpreted the request for 40% after tax as meaning 40% after the tax man takes his cut.  That’s usually what 40% after tax means so I think your narrative is incorrect (but happy to be proven wrong)

Just to clarify matters, who said 40% after tax? Was that part of a statement made by the players or is it a smoke screen thrown up by scumbag weasel Bontis?

[TOcanadafan]

1 hour ago, Sal333 said:

Just to clarify matters, who said 40% after tax? Was that part of a statement made by the players or is it a smoke screen thrown up by scumbag weasel Bontis?

The CSA refused to even speak with the players (who had no representation) until 24 hrs before the cancelled friendly so I doubt there was even much clarity at this point.  The players were low-balled out of the gate and just reacted to what they knew their teammates from other feds were getting.  Union-buster Bontis jumped all over the opportunity to call the players greedy. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by TOcanadafan

[narduch]

Players next move

Edited July 15, 2022 by narduch

[narduch]

That tweet has now been deleted 

[narduch]

 

 

[EJsens1]

Just now, narduch said:

 

 

Good for them. Should’ve been done a while ago but we are where we are. 
The thing I’ll never understand from the CSA about the $10 million is their position that they need a lot of it for other aspects within the program (camps, youth programs, whatever else), but what if we hadn’t quantified? What money was going to cover all that if the $10 million (US dollars I should add) wasn’t coming? Those things wouldn’t just happen? Unless I missed it, there is no explanation there, so no shit the players aren’t happy about it and the CSA loses all credibility with their positions in my opinion 

[Gian-Luca]

I don’t see how it would be possible that the US men and the US women are each getting 90% of 100%, that would make it 180%. Isn’t it really 45% each under their arrangement?

[Aird25]

45 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

Good for them. Should’ve been done a while ago but we are where we are. 
The thing I’ll never understand from the CSA about the $10 million is their position that they need a lot of it for other aspects within the program (camps, youth programs, whatever else), but what if we hadn’t quantified? What money was going to cover all that if the $10 million (US dollars I should add) wasn’t coming? Those things wouldn’t just happen? Unless I missed it, there is no explanation there, so no shit the players aren’t happy about it and the CSA loses all credibility with their positions in my opinion 

Agreed, I think it's great these players are forming a union. In a way I wish it extended to the women and other professional players as well, but it seems like a good development.

Haven't we been complaining for years about the lack of camps and youth programs? If we hadn't qualified, I imagine we'd continue to have a lack of those things

Edited July 15, 2022 by Aird25

[Gian-Luca]

10 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

Agreed, I think it's great these players are forming a union. In a way I wish it extended to the women and other professional players as well, but it seems like a good development.

The women's team got ahead of the game (or rather, ahead of the men) and had already formed their own association - it was under that rubric that the the women issued their statement against the men, pointing out that equal percentages doesn't mean equal pay. Based on MAK's comments, the men seemed to have now accepted this. But on the downside, they seem to be equating the men's team getting a 30% offer with the US men & women combined getting a 90% deal, - this ought to be a 60% offer vs 90% once the women are accounted for in each case.

If I am the lawyers at Aird & Berlis I would be telling MAK to publicly shut up about this, because the first thing the CSA will do is show the players the US is (from what we've heard) a huge outlier in how much it pays that prize money (Belgium getting 15% for example), rather than the norm. They are giving them ammunition to the folks on the other side of the bargaining table before they even get to it.

[Big_M]

yeah kaye doesnt look good with those comments

[Aird25]

12 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

The women's team got ahead of the game (or rather, ahead of the men) and had already formed their own association - it was under that rubric that the the women issued their statement against the men, pointing out that equal percentages doesn't mean equal pay. Based on MAK's comments, the men seemed to have now accepted this. But on the downside, they seem to be equating the men's team getting a 30% offer with the US men & women combined getting a 90% deal, - this ought to be a 60% offer vs 90% once the women are accounted for in each case.

If I am the lawyers at Aird & Berlis I would be telling MAK to publicly shut up about this, because the first thing the CSA will do is show the players the US is (from what we've heard) a huge outlier in how much it pays that prize money (Belgium getting 15% for example), rather than the norm. They are giving them ammunition to the folks on the other side of the bargaining table before they even get to it.

Great, so we have 3 or 4 different unions for professional soccer players then?

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

The women's team got ahead of the game (or rather, ahead of the men) and had already formed their own association - it was under that rubric that the the women issued their statement against the men, pointing out that equal percentages doesn't mean equal pay. Based on MAK's comments, the men seemed to have now accepted this. But on the downside, they seem to be equating the men's team getting a 30% offer with the US men & women combined getting a 90% deal, - this ought to be a 60% offer vs 90% once the women are accounted for in each case.

If I am the lawyers at Aird & Berlis I would be telling MAK to publicly shut up about this, because the first thing the CSA will do is show the players the US is (from what we've heard) a huge outlier in how much it pays that prize money (Belgium getting 15% for example), rather than the norm. They are giving them ammunition to the folks on the other side of the bargaining table before they even get to it.

You correctly point out a few contradictions.

I personally think that if the CSA offered them 30% before taxes, three million to be divided between 26-28 (there may be some subs and spares), clearing over 50 grand each after taxes, the final figures won't vary too much from that.

About their legal counsel, however, I think if you are just at the start of the process for an elite sports entity, it is good to hear individual voices. It is not really like a union shop where there's three guys in shipping, a couple in picking and the guys doing finishing on the machines and they have no public presence as individuals. Where they only exist as a collective entity and only make the news if the picket becomes an issue.

In those cases you keep everyone in line and let the union people guide your negotiating; in this case there are going to be constant statements and they are hard to avoid. I mean, I know you are right that a bargaining process requires some degree of confidentialilty, but in this case I'd imagine the law firm, with experience in sport and entertainment, might leverage certain statements and identify certain athletes. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

Great, so we have 3 or 4 different unions for professional soccer players then?

You are suggesting we have a "Professional Athletes Union of Canada (PAUC)" and the rest just be Locals?

[Gian-Luca]

42 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You correctly point out a few contradictions.

I personally think that if the CSA offered them 30% before taxes, three million to be divided between 26-28 (there may be some subs and spares), clearing over 50 grand each after taxes, the final figures won't vary too much from that.

About their legal counsel, however, I think if you are just at the start of the process for an elite sports entity, it is good to hear individual voices. It is not really like a union shop where there's three guys in shipping, a couple in picking and the guys doing finishing on the machines and they have no public presence as individuals. Where they only exist as a collective entity and only make the news if the picket becomes an issue.

In those cases you keep everyone in line and let the union people guide your negotiating; in this case there are going to be constant statements and they are hard to avoid. I mean, I know you are right that a bargaining process requires some degree of confidentialilty, but in this case I'd imagine the law firm, with experience in sport and entertainment, might leverage certain statements and identify certain athletes. 

I've never been involved with a union so I'll defer to you on that front. I don't negotiate contracts anymore these days as a lawyer but did so for about 20 years (and supervised a team of negotiators) and that's the aspect of it that would have me tearing my hair out (if I had any left)  if I'd seen someone go public with a statement that (seemingly deliberately) conflates two different things and then complains it doesn't make sense. I'd be worried that my opponents would do as you suggest (only for their side of the negotiations) -  leverage statements like that one (by saying the players clearly don't understand or are making statements disingenuously (and thus in bad faith)) against them in the negotiations.

Anyway, hopefully this association-forming will be the end of  or the start of the end of all this argy-bargy - as the Minister ordered, get negotiations underway, hammer out a deal behind closed doors with your appointed representatives and start letting us - and everyone for that matter - enjoy and look forward to this World Cup far more than we have been.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Gian-Luca

[red card]

4 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

I don’t see how it would be possible that the US men and the US women are each getting 90% of 100%, that would make it 180%. Isn’t it really 45% each under their arrangement?

MAK doesn't have his figures correct. And Westhead should have noted it.

It is indeed 45% each for US women & men totalling 90% of FIFA prize money (no after tax wording is included). It drops to 80% for 2026/27 World Cup cycle.

MAK also doesn't seem to realize the US Fed generates 2-3x more revenue than the CSA and has 9x more assets. The US women's team is a marketing powerhouse. They have had a 30 year head start in becoming a soccer nation. So, they can be much less reliant on FIFA prize money. 

Nike signed a deal in late 2021 that was deemed the biggest commercial deal in US Soccer's history. Terms weren't disclosed but a previous Nike deal ending 2006 paid out US$12 million/year. Their new English tv deal is US$25 million/yr based on offering 20 matches/yr. Spanish language rights are TBD.

In comparison, CSA signed on to get $3 million/yr from CSB which implies they were getting less than that in commercial monies and we know they were getting nothing from tv rights. The reported CIBC deal of $5 million/yr may be the largest in CSA's history even if it is a combo deal with the CPL and/or CSB gets its cut but it pales in comparison to the US deals.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by red card

[grigorio]

5 hours ago, Big_M said:

yeah kaye doesnt look good with those comments

I’m honestly floored that these are recent quotes from MAK… these boys better get their story and facts straight in a hurry to continue to be taken seriously in this… 

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

I've never been involved with a union so I'll defer to you on that front. I don't negotiate contracts anymore these days as a lawyer but did so for about 20 years (and supervised a team of negotiators) and that's the aspect of it that would have me tearing my hair out (if I had any left)  if I'd seen someone go public with a statement that (seemingly deliberately) conflates two different things and then complains it doesn't make sense. I'd be worried that my opponents would do as you suggest (only for their side of the negotiations) -  leverage statements like that one (by saying the players clearly don't understand or are making statements disingenuously (and thus in bad faith)) against them in the negotiations.

Anyway, hopefully this association-forming will be the end of  or the start of the end of all this argy-bargy - as the Minister ordered, get negotiations underway, hammer out a deal behind closed doors with your appointed representatives and start letting us - and everyone for that matter - enjoy and look forward to this World Cup far more than we have been.

The players are in constant contact now, so I suspect they are somewhat coordinating statements. I agree with you that a union shop or management team would require negotiating discipline. Anyone breaking it could be reprimanded.

Most pro players however are somewhat skilled in mixing public statements with their agent's negotiating, and since they speak to the press regularly you'd imagine different bargaining paradigms. Just musing about this. 

My personal view is that the men had no original intention of coordinating with or seeking equity with the women. They stumbled into it and it'll end up meaning taking a worse deal than they intended. They are sort of dummies: the best deal would have been to hide their agreement from the women (ie do it separately and quietly) and let the CSA deal with the ladies. I know this sounds nasty but at no point did the men seem to be at all attuned to the women's position. 

[TOcanadafan]

4 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

My personal view is that the men had no original intention of coordinating with or seeking equity with the women. They stumbled into it and it'll end up meaning taking a worse deal than they intended. They are sort of dummies: the best deal would have been to hide their agreement from the women (ie do it separately and quietly) and let the CSA deal with the ladies. I know this sounds nasty but at no point did the men seem to be at all attuned to the women's position. 

Yes, I agree, they probably had no idea that it would go this route… but it is the right thing to do.  Ironic, you say they should have hidden their agreement (which I agree would likely have gotten them a better deal) when so much of all of this is about transparency - another reason it needs to be 50/50 now.   Plus, the women have been way more organized and smarter on this, so the men kinda owe it to them at this point.