The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Sal333]

13 hours ago, red card said:

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.

 

 

The points you make are relevant; however US Soccer has to "service" a soccer program that covers almost 330 million people. The CSA's service covers only 38-39 million. One would think that for every 8-9 dollars the US invests the CSA can provide the same quality service at a lesser cost. US has to develop coaches, refs, camps for 330 million. The CSA has to provide the same things for only 38 mil. I don't maintain that the ratio is 1 to 8 or 9 but it is substantial less than the American program.

Also, for the last 10-15 years the Canadian women have been just  one tier behind the American women yet the CSA has been unable to drum up revenue from the women's game. An argument can be made the Canadian women are as popular in Canada as the American women are in the states. Actually, with the squabble the American women have had with their association one can say the Canadian women are more popular in their country. But the CSA has done absolutely nothing to capitalize on that popularity. And trust me, if the men go on a run, the CSA will be just as incompetent.

[Gian-Luca]

12 hours ago, grigorio said:

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… 

It makes me wonder if the incorrect comparison to what the US is getting is part of what caused the wildcat Panama match strike (which will make that decision look even more foolish) - that maybe players who have US national team club teammates heard about the US getting 90% and then thinking that this must be the benchmark (or close to it) for all the other men's teams going to the World Cup, so getting a 30% offer by comparison would thus seem "archaic" to them.

Since we are often compared to Australia in our circumstance (soccer not being the #1 sport in the country), the Socceroos are getting 40%, but there doesn't appear to be a pay equity agreement with the Matilda's, so the Australian FA is (I think) keeping more money of the payout than the CSA would be.

It took me less than 35 seconds to find this information on-line, and its dated from 2019, so it's not like the information was not available quickly:

https://www.footballaustralia.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2019-11/PFA CBA Facts Sheet_v3.pdf

The men's total of 30% (even if it stays at that level) will get topped up with the money they make from the Women successfully qualifying for the World Cup, another important bit of information that was conveniently left out of the Westhead article (which, by the way, has had a correction published to it as MAK apparently went back to Westhead to correct what Westhead wrote about the CSA's proposed travel arrangments for the players to fly business class on commercial flights - there is however no correction or noting that MAK's erroneous financial comparison).

One of the potential good things about unionizing & having representatives do the negotiating is that it hopefully takes the "fly off the handle" emotion out of the process that will come from both sides.  Even MAK's comments about "the CSA wants to keep that money for themselves" makes it sound like the CSA's interest is to pad Bontis' non-existent salary. If the CSA wants to take that money and publicly commit to holding more youth camps, friendlies, higher paid coaches than all or our recent failed youth coaches (too many to list by name), then it would be tough as a fan to argue against that. Rather than saying "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie because the Americans get", asking for transparency on where the CSA-retained money will be put into is perhaps the way to go.

 

[El Hombre]

14 hours 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. 

I suspect you're right.  When they released their first statement, it included something about equality with the women's team but it then came to light that they didn't actually consult the women's team about this.  That just smacks of arrogance.  They thought they could throw something in there that would help make their message more palatable to the masses when in the end it hurts their overall position.  Pretty sure if they had someone advising them, that would not have been in there.

Even with all that, the fact that the CSA still lost the PR war has me gobsmacked with the incompetence.

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, El Hombre said:

I suspect you're right.  When they released their first statement, it included something about equality with the women's team but it then came to light that they didn't actually consult the women's team about this.  That just smacks of arrogance.  They thought they could throw something in there that would help make their message more palatable to the masses when in the end it hurts their overall position.  Pretty sure if they had someone advising them, that would not have been in there.

Even with all that, the fact that the CSA still lost the PR war has me gobsmacked with the incompetence.

The PR war, objectively, is being won by the women because

1-they've been fighting collectively for longer

2-doing it constituted as a players' association and with representation

3-have more skilled individuals involved in their group than the men. This could be in part because most, the vast majority, also chose to play soccer AND get an education. 

And because they are not making huge incomes, and far less have salaries that ensure significant discretionary income. So that proportionally the payments from the CSA for call-ups and possible bonuses for qualifying, winning a medal, etc, are more significant for them. Thus their CSA negotiations matter much more.

And then of course,

4-they won gold so have all the credit you need. Remembering that women's soccer at the Olympics is close to the importance of the World Cup. This is unlike with the men with the Olympic age restrictions in place to protect FIFA's monopoly on the full senior men's game.

The men have the credit of qualifying for the WC, but they still have not won anything, they are waving the banner of being able to participate and everyone is thrilled. For the mere fact of getting to play. That is a sort of pathetic accomplishment considering how long it's taken to get there after '86. In other words: let's not overstate the accomplishment of getting to a WC, cause it's about damn time.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

Really wanted to give the players the benefit of the doubt but Kaye's comment is absolutely shocking. 

[Gian-Luca]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The PR war, objectively, is being won by the women because

1-they've been fighting collectively for longer

2-doing it constituted as a players' association and with representation

3-have more skilled individuals involved in their group than the men. This could be in part because most, the vast majority, also chose to play soccer AND get an education. 

And because they are not making huge incomes, and far less have salaries that ensure significant discretionary income. So that proportionally the payments from the CSA for call-ups and possible bonuses for qualifying, winning a medal, etc, are more significant for them. Thus their CSA negotiations matter much more.

And then of course,

4-they won gold so have all the credit you need. Remembering that women's soccer at the Olympics is close to the importance of the World Cup. This is unlike with the men with the Olympic age restrictions in place to protect FIFA's monopoly on the full senior men's game.

The men have the credit of qualifying for the WC, but they still have not won anything, they are waving the banner of being able to participate and everyone is thrilled. For the mere fact of getting to play. That is a sort of pathetic accomplishment considering how long it's taken to get there after '86. In other words: let's not overstate the accomplishment of getting to a WC, cause it's about damn time.

And 5 - the women didn't stiff their fans with a last-minute boycott of a home friendly, even though they also have yet to sign an agreement for the World Cup qualifying bonus distribution.

I feel that it would be scientifically impossible for any sporting association to win a PR "war" against its players by virtue of the fact that the general public and supporters are fans of the players and will naturally be predisposed to be on their side. Nobody goes to soccer games in Canada wearing a Kevan Pipe #10 jersey, trading their Colin Linford Soccer Administrators bubble gum card for Sunil Gulati's, or playing as Victor Montalgiani in the latest FIFA 22 Football Boardroom Governance video game on their Nintendo Switch. Compounding this is that finger-pointing back at the players or the media rarely can do any good, even if the finger pointing is accurate and justified - because in the end they will want the fans and public to support those players, making it a no-win situation if the association discredits them. As for the media, short of somehow proving that someone like Rick Westhead is a closet neo-nazi in order to end their career, it also becomes very difficult to win a PR war against them if you choose to go to war against them.

The one ally they effectively have is Onesoccer (e.g. effectively creating their own media), but that leads me to mention who I think right now is taking the biggest pounding in the PR war right now, which is CSB and the CPL. The CSA were already and always will be canon-fodder, but that's not the case with the CSB & the CPL. The CSB have been fingered by both the men and the women now as being the business masterminds standing in the way of progressing soccer in this country - a bunch of evil businessmen who are "leeching" off the toil of the downtrodden masses of male and female soccer players, all to fatten their own profits from the 25K who regularly go see York United play in some rinky dink capitalist no-name men's league. At least, that's the narrative that Westhead and now the women have collectively come up with in their articles and press releases (as I feel it's extremely likely the women wrote that last one which shat upon the CPL). I am inclined to agree with Wheeler that CSB needs to do more on the PR front and perhaps jointly with the CSA on the value of the CPL and Onesoccer, even if it seems astounding to us that the need and value for a domestic league needs to be spoonfed to not just the general public, but some of the players too.

Even in the case of onesoccer they, to their credit, fully disclose their ties to CSB which comes across as more honest than certain other folks in the media and they do feature opposing viewpoints. Case in point the other night for the women's S-F match, the impression that one got from listening to Diana Matheson and Amy Walsh is that we're worse off as a soccer nation than we were 5-10 years ago and that not only is the CSA not helping to grow the game, but that they are actively hindering growth or sending us into the dark ages. If you didn't know any better, you'd think from listening to Matheson & Walsh that Herdman and Priestman are entrepreneurs who hired themselves for their respective positions.  It was like they were trying to re-create John Cleese's "People's Front of Judea" from Monty Python's Life of Brian with a CSA version of "What has the Romans ever done for us?" sketch.

"Right! Besides the hiring John Herdman, the hiring of Bev Priestman, the expanded Canadian Championship, the creation of a men's domestic league, the recent hiring of Breagha Carr-Harris as Head of Women's Professional Soccer in order to create a domestic women's league, the creation of a dedicated media channel that we're currently speaking on (and presumably getting paid for speaking on) so that fans don't have to watch an illegal Jamaican stream when Canada plays the Cayman Islands, unprecedented working with the supporters group to help create pro-Canada atmospheres at our matches that the US still struggles with & which help to put our players in a position to succeed at home, what has the CSA ever done for us?"

"Helped get Canada into the MLS & funded a National Soccer Stadium?"

"Oh shut up!"

I mean, by all means criticize the CSA when they falter - the sustained lack of men's youth success at the U20 & Olympic level over the past 15 years is inexcusable IMO and the recent hiring of Cochrane, while perhaps not worthy of these "Earl Cochrane is an asshole"-type mainstream media articles that have popped up recently, is rather underwhelming and has a strong whiff of "old boys" falling-up about it that we've not smelt from the CSA in quite some time - but pretending that they've done absolutely nothing positive for the game in recent years and we're somehow worse off than we were several years ago is the sort of myopic one-sided idiocy I expect to see from the more ill-informed lunkhead-type fans, rather than the pundits in the media.

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

And 5 - the women didn't stiff their fans with a last-minute boycott of a home friendly, even though they also have yet to sign an agreement for the World Cup qualifying bonus distribution.

I feel that it would be scientifically impossible for any sporting association to win a PR "war" against its players by virtue of the fact that the general public and supporters are fans of the players and will naturally be predisposed to be on their side. Nobody goes to soccer games in Canada wearing a Kevan Pipe #10 jersey, trading their Colin Linford Soccer Administrators bubble gum card for Sunil Gulati's, or playing as Victor Montalgiani in the latest FIFA 22 Football Boardroom Governance video game on their Nintendo Switch. Compounding this is that finger-pointing back at the players or the media rarely can do any good, even if the finger pointing is accurate and justified - because in the end they will want the fans and public to support those players, making it a no-win situation if the association discredits them. As for the media, short of somehow proving that someone like Rick Westhead is a closet neo-nazi in order to end their career, it also becomes very difficult to win a PR war against them if you choose to go to war against them.

The one ally they effectively have is Onesoccer (e.g. effectively creating their own media), but that leads me to mention who I think right now is taking the biggest pounding in the PR war right now, which is CSB and the CPL. The CSA were already and always will be canon-fodder, but that's not the case with the CSB & the CPL. The CSB have been fingered by both the men and the women now as being the business masterminds standing in the way of progressing soccer in this country - a bunch of evil businessmen who are "leeching" off the toil of the downtrodden masses of male and female soccer players, all to fatten their own profits from the 25K who regularly go see York United play in some rinky dink capitalist no-name men's league. At least, that's the narrative that Westhead and now the women have collectively come up with in their articles and press releases (as I feel it's extremely likely the women wrote that last one which shat upon the CPL). I am inclined to agree with Wheeler that CSB needs to do more on the PR front and perhaps jointly with the CSA on the value of the CPL and Onesoccer, even if it seems astounding to us that the need and value for a domestic league needs to be spoonfed to not just the general public, but some of the players too.

Even in the case of onesoccer they, to their credit, fully disclose their ties to CSB which comes across as more honest than certain other folks in the media and they do feature opposing viewpoints. Case in point the other night for the women's S-F match, the impression that one got from listening to Diana Matheson and Amy Walsh is that we're worse off as a soccer nation than we were 5-10 years ago and that not only is the CSA not helping to grow the game, but that they are actively hindering growth or sending us into the dark ages. If you didn't know any better, you'd think from listening to Matheson & Walsh that Herdman and Priestman are entrepreneurs who hired themselves for their respective positions.  It was like they were trying to re-create John Cleese's "People's Front of Judea" from Monty Python's Life of Brian with a CSA version of "What has the Romans ever done for us?" sketch.

"Right! Besides the hiring John Herdman, the hiring of Bev Priestman, the expanded Canadian Championship, the creation of a men's domestic league, the recent hiring of Breagha Carr-Harris as Head of Women's Professional Soccer in order to create a domestic women's league, the creation of a dedicated media channel that we're currently speaking on (and presumably getting paid for speaking on) so that fans don't have to watch an illegal Jamaican stream when Canada plays the Cayman Islands, unprecedented working with the supporters group to help create pro-Canada atmospheres at our matches that the US still struggles with & which help to put our players in a position to succeed at home, what has the CSA ever done for us?"

"Helped get Canada into the MLS & funded a National Soccer Stadium?"

"Oh shut up!"

I mean, by all means criticize the CSA when they falter - the sustained lack of men's youth success at the U20 & Olympic level over the past 15 years is inexcusable IMO and the recent hiring of Cochrane, while perhaps not worthy of these "Earl Cochrane is an asshole"-type mainstream media articles that have popped up recently, is rather underwhelming and has a strong whiff of "old boys" falling-up about it that we've not smelt from the CSA in quite some time - but pretending that they've done absolutely nothing positive for the game in recent years and we're somehow worse off than we were several years ago is the sort of myopic one-sided idiocy I expect to see from the more ill-informed lunkhead-type fans, rather than the pundits in the media.

It's rare for G-L to do an all out rant, but this was worth it. 

It doesn't make sense to go nuts about CSA incompetence in the face of failure on the field, and then, when you get success on the field, give no credit at all to the CSA. It actually discredits your argument and shows bad faith.

About the CSA: I came onto this board over 20 years ago for a number of reasons, but the main one was to complain about the CSA. And the handling of the national programme. And the endemic failures to qualify for a World Cup. And the loss of dual nationals. And the mistreatment of players which made it hard for them to commit. And the incompetent coaching we were often submitted to (though I think Holger was competent). I was not even expecting them to create a properly tiered structure of competitive football, though it was there in my mind. Never mind improving private academies.

Every year we failed to achieve our goals, it was natural and perfectly reasonable to have a go at the CSA, and we were rarely wrong. The players would report of going to matches from Europe  to Central America changing planes 4 times. CSA's fault. Not making the Hex, ditto. Or they would not schedule a friendly at home. Or they would but they rival supporters would dominate the atmosphere and we'd pay for them to do so. 

So now that we are succeeding on the field, it is simply mean spirited and a sign of bad faith to argue the CSA is still the enemy. But here too: Bontis not being able to argue himself out of that wet paper bag is pretty damning.

[Gian-Luca]

7 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's rare for G-L to do an all out rant, but this was worth it. 

It doesn't make sense to go nuts about CSA incompetence in the face of failure on the field, and then, when you get success on the field, give no credit at all to the CSA. It actually discredits your argument and shows bad faith.

About the CSA: I came onto this board over 20 years ago for a number of reasons, but the main one was to complain about the CSA. And the handling of the national programme. And the endemic failures to qualify for a World Cup. And the loss of dual nationals. And the mistreatment of players which made it hard for them to commit. And the incompetent coaching we were often submitted to (though I think Holger was competent). I was not even expecting them to create a properly tiered structure of competitive football, though it was there in my mind. Never mind improving private academies.

Every year we failed to achieve our goals, it was natural and perfectly reasonable to have a go at the CSA, and we were rarely wrong. The players would report of going to matches from Europe  to Central America changing planes 4 times. CSA's fault. Not making the Hex, ditto. Or they would not schedule a friendly at home. Or they would but they rival supporters would dominate the atmosphere and we'd pay for them to do so. 

So now that we are succeeding on the field, it is simply mean spirited and a sign of bad faith to argue the CSA is still the enemy. But here too: Bontis not being able to argue himself out of that wet paper bag is pretty damning.

My timeline is similar in that I joined November 2000 (just after the Canada-Mexico WCQ match at Varsity) upon hearing about the Voyageurs for the first time in Neil Davidson's post-match article. I was in a much more positive frame of mind when I joined in part because I felt we were headed in the right direction under Holger (despite the WCQ failure, it was still the same year as the Gold Cup triumph), partly because the CUSL plans had just been announced and partly because I was coming off my most rabid anti-CSA phase, which was 1997/98. I hated that the CSA was punishing the fans in Toronto by deliberately not holding any WCQ's for France 1998 on the basis that the CSA had allowed some 8000 tickets to be sold to busloads of Mexican-Americans in May 1993 who weren't even from Canada, let alone Toronto; I thought Lenarduzzi should have been replaced after game 4 of the Hex (at the start of his second go round in a failed qualification attempt we were 0-2-2, having not scored a goal in 4 matches, played 2 scoreless draws at home and he had talked about being "satisfied" after starting off with two lopsided losses away to Mexico & the US - and this was before I found out that he would manage to alienate Radzinski and wasn't even bothering to take a look at the defender playing in top flight Brazil (Menezes)); and most of all I was incensed that we voluntarily donated our Gold Cup spot in 1998 to Jamaica in order to help them prepare for the 1998 World Cup - I mean can you imagine that happening now? But even then I never blamed the CSA for absolutely everything or suggested that it was Kevan Pipe who told Pesch to flip the corner flag in the face of a diving El Salvadoran - but that is the sort of thing I discovered way too much of with social media with the CSA. 

(Its long forgotten now, but the Pesch corner flag flip incident was never quite matched in its impact by its sequel, the Stalteri water bottle toss incident, because the latter didn't put us down to 10 men. I guess the Raheem Edwards sarcastic clap incident can be considered part 3 in the trilogy, although like most trilogies, they tend to get less potent with each installment).

[Unnamed Trialist]

33 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

My timeline is similar in that I joined November 2000 (just after the Canada-Mexico WCQ match at Varsity) upon hearing about the Voyageurs for the first time in Neil Davidson's post-match article. I was in a much more positive frame of mind when I joined in part because I felt we were headed in the right direction under Holger (despite the WCQ failure, it was still the same year as the Gold Cup triumph), partly because the CUSL plans had just been announced and partly because I was coming off my most rabid anti-CSA phase, which was 1997/98. I hated that the CSA was punishing the fans in Toronto by deliberately not holding any WCQ's for France 1998 on the basis that the CSA had allowed some 8000 tickets to be sold to busloads of Mexican-Americans in May 1993 who weren't even from Canada, let alone Toronto; I thought Lenarduzzi should have been replaced after game 4 of the Hex (at the start of his second go round in a failed qualification attempt we were 0-2-2, having not scored a goal in 4 matches, played 2 scoreless draws at home and he had talked about being "satisfied" after starting off with two lopsided losses away to Mexico & the US - and this was before I found out that he would manage to alienate Radzinski and wasn't even bothering to take a look at the defender playing in top flight Brazil (Menezes)); and most of all I was incensed that we voluntarily donated our Gold Cup spot in 1998 to Jamaica in order to help them prepare for the 1998 World Cup - I mean can you imagine that happening now? But even then I never blamed the CSA for absolutely everything or suggested that it was Kevan Pipe who told Pesch to flip the corner flag in the face of a diving El Salvadoran - but that is the sort of thing I discovered way too much of with social media with the CSA. 

(Its long forgotten now, but the Pesch corner flag flip incident was never quite matched in its impact by its sequel, the Stalteri water bottle toss incident, because the latter didn't put us down to 10 men. I guess the Raheem Edwards sarcastic clap incident can be considered part 3 in the trilogy, although like most trilogies, they tend to get less potent with each installment).

I too clicked into the Voyageurs after Mexico at Varsity, but looking at old Network54 I think I didn't post until later. 

Imagine me just lurking on the board, I've matured so much since then. 

But also agree: the mood wasn't bad. We'd gone like 15 without a loss under Holger but ran out of steam for the Hex. 

[SpursFlu]

I forgot MAK was on the national team. Maybe he can help by covering the difference with all that money he stole from the Rapids. But maybe he lost all his money in crypto and donating to Buy Large Mansions 

Edited July 17, 2022 by SpursFlu

[TOcanadafan]

12 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's rare for G-L to do an all out rant, but this was worth it. 

It doesn't make sense to go nuts about CSA incompetence in the face of failure on the field, and then, when you get success on the field, give no credit at all to the CSA. It actually discredits your argument and shows bad faith.

About the CSA: I came onto this board over 20 years ago for a number of reasons, but the main one was to complain about the CSA. And the handling of the national programme. And the endemic failures to qualify for a World Cup. And the loss of dual nationals. And the mistreatment of players which made it hard for them to commit. And the incompetent coaching we were often submitted to (though I think Holger was competent). I was not even expecting them to create a properly tiered structure of competitive football, though it was there in my mind. Never mind improving private academies.

Every year we failed to achieve our goals, it was natural and perfectly reasonable to have a go at the CSA, and we were rarely wrong. The players would report of going to matches from Europe  to Central America changing planes 4 times. CSA's fault. Not making the Hex, ditto. Or they would not schedule a friendly at home. Or they would but they rival supporters would dominate the atmosphere and we'd pay for them to do so. 

So now that we are succeeding on the field, it is simply mean spirited and a sign of bad faith to argue the CSA is still the enemy. But here too: Bontis not being able to argue himself out of that wet paper bag is pretty damning.

Listening to Diane Matheson before the Jamaica game, she made it a point to say the National teams have had success in spite of the CSA.

Eva Havaris (interviewed on the Footy Prime podcast on Friday) a most reputable sporting business mind and leader wants nothing to do with the rotting CSA… and completely slammed it in a professional way.  
I agree, it was great that the CanMNT didn’t need to transfer planes 3 times on it’s way to Honduras, and they did hire Herdman… so maybe CSA has come from a  1/10 to a 3/10, but give me a break, out National teams have succeeded in spite of the CSA. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, TOcanadafan said:

Listening to Diane Matheson before the Jamaica game, she made it a point to say the National teams have had success in spite of the CSA.

Eva Havaris (interviewed on the Footy Prime podcast on Friday) a most reputable sporting business mind and leader wants nothing to do with the rotting CSA… and completely slammed it in a professional way.  
I agree, it was great that the CanMNT didn’t need to transfer planes 3 times on it’s way to Honduras, and they did hire Herdman… so maybe CSA has come from a  1/10 to a 3/10, but give me a break, out National teams have succeeded in spite of the CSA. 

You know what the problem with this reasoning is? There are plenty of clubs run by incompetents who screw financials up. And then the club wins a league or a cup, because the coach is good and the players perform. In fact, Lille is a good example of a bit of a mess of a club on various levels, and they won Ligue 1 last year.

And then you have many national associations with serious problems, there are litigations and legal proceedings all over the place. And infighting, and complaints that this or that association/federation is biased in favour or against one or another interest. Elections for national soccer associations/federations expose the problems constantly. 

So saying the they were successful in spite of the CSA, that is fine. That happens. 

But the point is that for 20 years, for the men, we have been saying that the main or a key reason for the men not performing is the incompetence of the CSA. That the CSA was mostly to blame. If that argument had any validity, then when you get it right you have to concede something. Otherwise the line of argument loses credibility.

During this qualifying process we did not hear a single internal complaint about travel, hotels, practice fields, foreign fans, food, physios, home venues, home support, starting 11s, subs, not a thing. Not a single sour face and verbal complaint about not playing. That means the CSA-Herdman-Players alliance worked. Live with it.

[Gian-Luca]

That Matheson comment was the main one that I was parodying with the Life of Brian sketch that I re-wrote - it's fine to make that claim but no purported evidence was put forward to back up the assertion. If you are going to say that the national teams are succeeding in spite of the CSA, you are also saying (at minimum) that they are succeeding in spite of the coaches and their staff (e.g. someone like Eric Tenllado). Yet all we've heard from the players (including the ex-players like Matheson who are now posing as pundits) is how incredibly awesome our coaches have been for the two national teams. The head coaches are not some 3rd party volunteer service who happen to be passing by and get asked to sit behind the bench on their day off, they are part of the CSA, particularly as they are hired/fired, employed by and paid by the CSA. Crap/inappropriate coaching (along with a lack of friendlies/prep) tends to be the #1 bone of contention from fans and pundits about the CSA, so you can't then just pretend that it doesn't count for anything when claiming that they have got the coaching staff right. If you do pretend that, you end up looking like the People's Front of Judea.

Now if Matheson had said Priestman was the wrong hire, a poor coach who is holding the team back with her selections & tactics and the team would be playing much better and be more successful with her old buddy Wilkinson as the coach, whether one agreed with that assertion or not, that at least offers some kind of criteria in support of her claim. But nothing like that was offered.

[Free kick]

 

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

. 

So saying the they were successful in spite of the CSA, that is fine. That happens. 

But the point is that for 20 years, for the men, we have been saying that the main or a key reason for the men not performing is the incompetence of the CSA. That the CSA was mostly to blame. If that argument had any validity, then when you get it right you have to concede something. Otherwise the line of argument loses credibility.

During this qualifying process we did not hear a single internal complaint about travel, hotels, practice fields, foreign fans, food, physios, home venues, home support, starting 11s, subs, not a thing. Not a single sour face and verbal complaint about not playing. That means the CSA-Herdman-Players alliance worked. Live with it.

We didnt hear a single complaint because the team was successful on the field.  That will always paper over mismanagement and eliminate in fighting.  Good talent will do that and we do have good talent in a couple of key areas. Something we never had in our history, so we have a golden generation now emerging but the CSA had nothing to do with that.

I would counter that it is not everyone that would say that the CSA was "MAIN" reason for our lack of of performance.  You might get a slightly greater consensus that they may have been "ONE" of the reason or one of several.   I have always believed that the game is played on pitch and that its the talent that ultimately decides it.  Just because we qualified does not mean that the organization has transformed itself.   We should feel just as skeptical today as before.   And this deal with CSB is proof that it no more competent today than 10-20 years ago because, IMHO this is the biggest example of mismanagement that i have ever seen from the CSA.  And it happening at a time when we have achieved our greatest success. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Free kick

[TOcanadafan]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You know what the problem with this reasoning is? There are plenty of clubs run by incompetents who screw financials up. And then the club wins a league or a cup, because the coach is good and the players perform. In fact, Lille is a good example of a bit of a mess of a club on various levels, and they won Ligue 1 last year.

And then you have many national associations with serious problems, there are litigations and legal proceedings all over the place. And infighting, and complaints that this or that association/federation is biased in favour or against one or another interest. Elections for national soccer associations/federations expose the problems constantly. 

So saying the they were successful in spite of the CSA, that is fine. That happens. 

But the point is that for 20 years, for the men, we have been saying that the main or a key reason for the men not performing is the incompetence of the CSA. That the CSA was mostly to blame. If that argument had any validity, then when you get it right you have to concede something. Otherwise the line of argument loses credibility.

During this qualifying process we did not hear a single internal complaint about travel, hotels, practice fields, foreign fans, food, physios, home venues, home support, starting 11s, subs, not a thing. Not a single sour face and verbal complaint about not playing. That means the CSA-Herdman-Players alliance worked. Live with it.

I get your argument, that ultimate success of a single team in a snapshot is not too dependent on its management, if the players and coaches are there.  And that in this case, Herdman was convincing enough to get the CSA to pony up for adequate funds.  

I’m just glad that both our national teams are having enough success to bring the failures of the CSA into public light so that perhaps we don’t have to settle for mediocrity in the future when perhaps the stars don’t align and everything doesn’t falls into place.

I get it, the reality is that Canada doesn’t really have to worry about making World Cups anymore with the change in format.  But they’ll come a time when people will get tired of just getting to the dance, and realizing that much more is possible.
 

For this to happen you need to have competence throughout the entire organization, not just with the head senior coach.  Just go to the U20 thread and you see everyone complaining about this and that… was it player talent? lack of preparation?   No, it’s because the CSA has no ability to set vision nor provide adequate funding down to the elite youth levels.  Sure, the CPL and MLS academies will help with player development, but an efficient National program set-up is vital too.

The Footy Prime interview with the Tennis Canada exec really opened my eyes as to if you’ve got your shit together then you can punch above your weight (like Tennis Canada) instead of just hoping for a few mega talents and a great coach.  They have created a pipeline of continual talent, stars at the top that want to work with, support and give back to the federation and not fight them.  Plus they’ve built themselves up so that they have sponsors banging on their door, money going directly to the federation and the support of their athletes and development… not into the pockets of some 3rd party who we hope will allow some to trickle down to the CPL which is just a part of the entire picture.

[apbsmith]

Finally decided to open this thread and go through it from where I left off (around page 20), wish I had not :(. I feel like I just took a trip on the spinning in circles insanity wheel and now I feel like joining the insanity wheel by making my one and only post in this thread. 

The last 5-6 pages of this thread have become more cringe than the CSA rebuttal statement to "the article". Which was one of the driving forces to what led to the women's statement.  

Still mind boggling the CSA did not release a professional and respectful max 1-2 liner response statement to "the article". In my humble opinion, I really hope internal or outside counsel did not advise that or someone with a business background was in charge of that statement. Regardless of the intentions to make that long winded CSA statement, irrelevant, nothing good would ever come from that. 

I have been waiting to see if the CSA was going to send the "defamation 1st notice" in response to "the article". We are almost at the statutory deadline and the article is still live and no statement about serving legal notice by the CSA. 

This is not legal advice but I'd be deeply concerned for any individual  that powered through the CSB deal, if even 70% + of that TSN article was true/accurate. However, I am not privy to CSA policies so perhaps nothing for them to worry. Based on the article though, definitely could be potential to have pierced the corporate seal and be held personally responsible.  For the record, imo, I don't think anyone on the CSA board or those allegedly involved in powering through the CSA deal are bad people personally, and that's why I'm slightly concerned for them. 

Credit to Unnamed Trialist , who multiple pages back predicted the eventual true forming of a players union.  

Really glad this message board is no longer officially associated with The Voyageurs, and I am glad the admins opted not to release a statement on the issue. 

I'll go back to avoiding this thread like the plague, my apologies if I offended anyone. None of my statements are personal attacks and simply my personal opinions and thoughts. 

Hopefully the majority of this gets resolved by the end of the summer and the majority of it stays behind closed doors until an official statement is released.

I'd honestly fully support locking this thread in the interim until an official and public statement of a resolution is reached. 

just my 2 cents. 

[SpursFlu]

There is nothing to resolve 

The players get what they get and they don't get upset

90% of their time should be focused on their primary means of income. Maybe they should refuse to take the field for their next club game lol. I guess not, they only like to bully the CSA because it's easy and the biggest media company in this country has their back

In the meantime I'll continue supporting CPL

Edited July 18, 2022 by SpursFlu

[SpursFlu]

"Sir such and such from Canada has refused to play today until he gets a larger percentage of the revenue and equal pay for women"

"Who?... oh right, just loan him to Shepherds Pie Town of the Northern Purple Square division and that will be that. We already pay him nearly a million dollars to just practice and clown around the club house all day"

"OK so now he says he just wants transparency"

"OK now he just kinda wants you to admit you're incompetent"

Edited July 18, 2022 by SpursFlu

[SF]

13 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

I get your argument, that ultimate success of a single team in a snapshot is not too dependent on its management, if the players and coaches are there.  And that in this case, Herdman was convincing enough to get the CSA to pony up for adequate funds.  

I’m just glad that both our national teams are having enough success to bring the failures of the CSA into public light so that perhaps we don’t have to settle for mediocrity in the future when perhaps the stars don’t align and everything doesn’t falls into place.

I get it, the reality is that Canada doesn’t really have to worry about making World Cups anymore with the change in format.  But they’ll come a time when people will get tired of just getting to the dance, and realizing that much more is possible.
 

For this to happen you need to have competence throughout the entire organization, not just with the head senior coach.  Just go to the U20 thread and you see everyone complaining about this and that… was it player talent? lack of preparation?   No, it’s because the CSA has no ability to set vision nor provide adequate funding down to the elite youth levels.  Sure, the CPL and MLS academies will help with player development, but an efficient National program set-up is vital too.

The Footy Prime interview with the Tennis Canada exec really opened my eyes as to if you’ve got your shit together then you can punch above your weight (like Tennis Canada) instead of just hoping for a few mega talents and a great coach.  They have created a pipeline of continual talent, stars at the top that want to work with, support and give back to the federation and not fight them.  Plus they’ve built themselves up so that they have sponsors banging on their door, money going directly to the federation and the support of their athletes and development… not into the pockets of some 3rd party who we hope will allow some to trickle down to the CPL which is just a part of the entire picture.

Fully agree with this and the Tennis Canada analogy is a great one.  I also think of some of the North America sport franchises that have created cultures of achievement over a long period of time (club soccer is obscured by money). Pittsburgh Steelers, as an example. The roster has had its important mainstays and they've had 3 head coaches in 50+ years (which is insane), but in a league where the financial footing is generally equal, they continually succeed because their system/culture/management is consistent. 

Even in international soccer you see it - nations that overachieve over the long run. Generally down to the management of the system. 

And in a country like Canada, where professional soccer is still emerging, we can't afford poor administration. 

[SpursFlu]

You are a poor administrator

Why so?

Because I said so

[El Hombre]

17 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

You are a poor administrator

Why so?

Because I said so

Worst haiku ever.

[shermanator]

Regarding the following portion of the players statement

Quote

The sponsorship and broadcast revenues associated with the National Teams for the next 15 years — important future revenue streams that are growing as a result of the players' success and the excitement surrounding the FIFA World Cup coming to Canada in 2026 — are being transferred to owners of a for-profit professional men's league and used instead for their benefit.

I am not certain if the players realize this, but the CSA subsidized the NWSL from 2013 to 2021 via the Federation Players agreement, along with both the USSF and FMF (until 2015). This helped launch and stabilize the league until the most recent CBA was signed, giving WNT players much needed playing time in a professional environment while not having to worry about making ends meet, while the for-profit professional women's league got to reap the financial benefits.

The players seem to be okay with the CSA subsidizing a women's professional league in another country, but not subsidizing a men's professional league, and eventually a women's profession league, in their own country.

I think everyone here can understand why the NWSL subsidy was critical to the long term success of the women's national team. Why is it suddenly different when we try and launch leagues in our own country? 

Edited July 18, 2022 by shermanator

[grigorio]

11 minutes ago, shermanator said:

I am not certain if the players realize this, but the CSA subsidized the NWSL from 2013 to 2021 via the Federation Players agreement, along with both the USSF and FMF (until 2015). This helped launch and stabilize the league until the most recent CBA was signed, giving WNT players much needed playing time in a professional environment while not having to worry about making ends meet, while the for-profit professional women's league got to reap the financial benefits.

The players seem to be okay with the CSA subsidizing a women's professional league in another country, but not subsidizing a men's professional league, and eventually a women's profession league, in their own country.

I think everyone here can understand why the NWSL subsidy was critical to the long term success of the women's national team. Why is it suddenly different when we try and launch leagues in our own country? 

Sorry to keep harping on the guy but if MAK is at all representative of the players' current understanding of things then I am certain the players don't realize this. 

[Admin]

5 minutes ago, grigorio said:

Sorry to keep harping on the guy but if MAK is at all representative of the players' current understanding of things then I am certain the players don't realize this. 

Where and what did he say?

[mpg_29]

1 hour ago, shermanator said:

Regarding the following portion of the players statement

I am not certain if the players realize this, but the CSA subsidized the NWSL from 2013 to 2021 via the Federation Players agreement, along with both the USSF and FMF (until 2015). This helped launch and stabilize the league until the most recent CBA was signed, giving WNT players much needed playing time in a professional environment while not having to worry about making ends meet, while the for-profit professional women's league got to reap the financial benefits.

The players seem to be okay with the CSA subsidizing a women's professional league in another country, but not subsidizing a men's professional league, and eventually a women's profession league, in their own country.

I think everyone here can understand why the NWSL subsidy was critical to the long term success of the women's national team. Why is it suddenly different when we try and launch leagues in our own country? 

This actually raises a question for me...if the pay for the national teams are going to equalized irrespective of revenue sources...would there be the same argument for subsidies for women's and men's professional teams in Canada?