The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Gian-Luca]

1 hour ago, Admin said:

Where and what did he say?

He reportedly said:

"How is the U.S. agreeing to give their players 90 per cent of newfound prize money and Canada Soccer is offering to give us like 30 per cent?” Kaye said. “That’s so little. It just doesn't make sense. They're trying to hold a lot of the money they're getting from FIFA for themselves.”

https://www.tsn.ca/canadian-men-s-soccer-team-to-create-players-association-1.1826053

The 30% for the Canadian men vs. 90% for the American men comparison is false - the American men are getting 45%, while the American women are getting 45%. If this was the basis of their outrage leading them to boycott the Panama match, it makes the actions look even more foolish.

I can't remember if it was this thread or the CSB one, but I also posted what the Aussies are getting.

 

[grigorio]

19 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

If this was the basis of their outrage leading them to boycott the Panama match, it makes the actions look even more foolish.

I can't remember if it was this thread or the CSB one, but I also posted what the Aussies are getting.

 

The alarming part of it was that this was supposedly a recent quote. So either:

•  In all the subsequent discussions between the CSA/Cochrane/Bontis and the players this somehow wasn't clarified (surely impossible... right???). The fact that this misinterpretation existed at ANY point is wild enough let alone if it still currently persists. 
• Hopefully the more likely excuse is that the CSA is dealing with this "senior group" we hear about here and there that sounds like 8 players or so and Kaye isn't one of them and therefore is out of the loop on basics? Even if that's true though, it's still really strange that the players that do understand what's going on wouldn't fill other vets in especially given this unionization. 

I really hope that the players and CSA didn't together jeopardize a TON of goodwill and momentum because they literally could not find time or capacity to actually EXPLAIN the straightforward proposal prior to people lashing out - though quotes like this tragically somehow make it sound increasingly likely?

[EJsens1]

33 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

He reportedly said:

"How is the U.S. agreeing to give their players 90 per cent of newfound prize money and Canada Soccer is offering to give us like 30 per cent?” Kaye said. “That’s so little. It just doesn't make sense. They're trying to hold a lot of the money they're getting from FIFA for themselves.”

https://www.tsn.ca/canadian-men-s-soccer-team-to-create-players-association-1.1826053

The 30% for the Canadian men vs. 90% for the American men comparison is false - the American men are getting 45%, while the American women are getting 45%. If this was the basis of their outrage leading them to boycott the Panama match, it makes the actions look even more foolish.

I can't remember if it was this thread or the CSB one, but I also posted what the Aussies are getting.

 

Ok but the story has been updated right. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, but are they (Kaye on behalf of the team in a sense) saying they’re getting 15% each..

“Canada Soccer has offered to give the players 30 per cent of the World Cup bonus, less than some other countries. The federation's offer would amount to about 15 per cent of the bonus after tax, Kaye said.”

So the men and women are getting 15% each? 

Edited July 18, 2022 by EJsens1

[dyslexic nam]

4 hours ago, El Hombre said:

Worst haiku ever.

*cough*

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, SF said:

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. 

I've thought a bit about Havaris lauding her current employer. She's only partially right in some aspects and wrong in others.

First, not all the key players developed through the Tennis Canada stream. Though I appreciate they had some key individuals who did good work years back when (Laurendeau?). They will connect promising kids with quality coaching, but it's still extremely elitist. Anyways, it's an individual sport and all those kids were boosted by parents until adolescent success. 

Then, she mentioned the Masters 1000 rotated between Toronto and Montreal. We've had that tournament for a long time. There is no other in Canada, not 1000, not 500, not even 250. Not ATP or WTA, nothing. It's actually extremely poor development with all eggs in one basket They've done nothing in fact for decades when she cites that tourney as their key event. 

So all these dreamy-eyed comments. IMO the new generation of tennis is rather similar to the footie generation, you even have similar stock. Give the Davids and Auger-Aliassimes some credit. 

[Gian-Luca]

1 hour ago, EJsens1 said:

Ok but the story has been updated right. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, but are they (Kaye on behalf of the team in a sense) saying they’re getting 15% each..

“Canada Soccer has offered to give the players 30 per cent of the World Cup bonus, less than some other countries. The federation's offer would amount to about 15 per cent of the bonus after tax, Kaye said.”

So the men and women are getting 15% each? 

The CSA offer was for 30% for the men and 30% for the women. The Americans have agreed to 45% for the men and 45% for the women. This is all before tax is taken off by the CRA and the IRS, respectively. That's the easiest way of looking at things.  While it may be cause for the players to bargain a bit higher based on a US precedent, it would not be for 80% each or 90% just for the men, since nobody is getting that in the US, despite what Kaye mistakenly indicates.

Australia doesn't have a revenue-sharing agreement between the men and the women, their men get 40% of the World Cup money and their federation keeps 60% (more than the CSA would) to spend on friendlies,  better hotels for staff & players, U20/Olympic team camps and other "useless" stuff like that. The Canadian men will also get half of the Women's WC bonus money, which means that their 30% may end up being closer to the Australian 40% in actual dollar totals even if they don't get an increase via their negotiations.  Either way, it doesn't strike me that it was worth striking over and depriving everyone out of revenue from the Panama friendly, never mind screwing the BC-based fans in the process.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, grigorio said:

The alarming part of it was that this was supposedly a recent quote. So either:

•  In all the subsequent discussions between the CSA/Cochrane/Bontis and the players this somehow wasn't clarified (surely impossible... right???). The fact that this misinterpretation existed at ANY point is wild enough let alone if it still currently persists. 
• Hopefully the more likely excuse is that the CSA is dealing with this "senior group" we hear about here and there that sounds like 8 players or so and Kaye isn't one of them and therefore is out of the loop on basics? Even if that's true though, it's still really strange that the players that do understand what's going on wouldn't fill other vets in especially given this unionization. 

Or professional athletes have no obligation to be particularly bright about other things. I personally have always felt that if you can play marvellously you have no obligation to be good at other things, like money, parenting, public speaking, dress style. From a fan perspective. 

Most pro athletes these days have everything NOT on the field held together by clubs, agents, lawyers, accountants, PAs, family, wives (soccer players are marrying very early lately).

BTW, I have heard that all players in the core pool, including those not at the camp in Vancouver, were involved in all discussions and negotiations and were party to all relevant information.

[DoyleG]

5 hours 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. 

Seems that they don't seem to have any understanding at all. The lack of understanding how bonuses are handed out and trying to the use the women's team as a stepping stool are indicative of that.

The criticism coming from some circles is less about making the CSA accountable than certain people who benefited from the same type of administration for a extended period of time. All of that and, in their minds, being unceremoniously "kicked to the curb" for something that isn't in their own interests.

That gets helped by a media that doesn't want to pay the fir when it comes to soccer and its knowledge is even worse.

[RJB]

I guess this is where decades of mistrust gets you. 

Not sure who to side with really, but the players aren't looking great.  Mind you, the CSA isn't looking too hot themselves. 

I've said it earlier, but hopefully this opens the door on the CSA if for no other reason than they are a public organization that represents us all. 

[Ruud]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I've thought a bit about Havaris lauding her current employer. She's only partially right in some aspects and wrong in others.

First, not all the key players developed through the Tennis Canada stream. Though I appreciate they had some key individuals who did good work years back when (Laurendeau?). They will connect promising kids with quality coaching, but it's still extremely elitist. Anyways, it's an individual sport and all those kids were boosted by parents until adolescent success. 

Then, she mentioned the Masters 1000 rotated between Toronto and Montreal. We've had that tournament for a long time. There is no other in Canada, not 1000, not 500, not even 250. Not ATP or WTA, nothing. It's actually extremely poor development with all eggs in one basket They've done nothing in fact for decades when she cites that tourney as their key event. 

So all these dreamy-eyed comments. IMO the new generation of tennis is rather similar to the footie generation, you even have similar stock. Give the Davids and Auger-Aliassimes some credit. 

She was good but gave nothing away about what %  CSA should be getting out of every new sponsor. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, Ruud said:

She was good but gave nothing away about what %  CSA should be getting out of every new sponsor. 

I suspect she is so recent to Tennis Canada that she really does not know, she sounded green and the constant praise of our tennis people was a bit much, given she works for them. 

She wanted to attribute the entire success of our younger generation to Tennis Canada, while the entire success of our soccer youth was entirely not attributable to the CSA. Not credible.

Very opportunistic as well for her to say she would not work for the CSA in the current set up. Not even she believes that: if she were to be hired at better pay to have a role in the sport she prefers, she would obviously take it. 

I don't get how people listening to someone like that are so innocent and lacking in a critical ear.

[narduch]

18 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I suspect she is so recent to Tennis Canada that she really does not know, she sounded green and the constant praise of our tennis people was a bit much, given she works for them. 

She wanted to attribute the entire success of our younger generation to Tennis Canada, while the entire success of our soccer youth was entirely not attributable to the CSA. Not credible.

Very opportunistic as well for her to say she would not work for the CSA in the current set up. Not even she believes that: if she were to be hired at better pay to have a role in the sport she prefers, she would obviously take it. 

I don't get how people listening to someone like that are so innocent and lacking in a critical ear.

I thought the interview had very little depth. Guessing she didn't leave CSB on good terms.

And after the interview the Footy Prime guys were pretty soft on the CSA. They don't really have issues with Bontis or Cochrane 

[SF]

7 hours ago, narduch said:

I thought the interview had very little depth. Guessing she didn't leave CSB on good terms.

And after the interview the Footy Prime guys were pretty soft on the CSA. They don't really have issues with Bontis or Cochrane 

Just listened to the interview.  I think the reviews here are a bit harsh (though I am surprised when people give interviews like that).

For me there were two themes - one, the matter of trust and authenticity. I've said it a number of times here, but that relationship is broken between the CSA and the players.  Who is at fault doesn't matter, but progress only comes when it is fixed.

Two, Tennis Canada had an inflection point about 20 years ago and set out to build its business. I don't know the details, but I am going to guess that there needed to be a lot of self evaluation and, in many cases, harsh truths accepted. This takes a real level of maturity, but I don't think that seems to exist at the CSA in its present form.

Also, don't love the assigning of motivation to people who are speaking on these issues. We all carry bias, and we're all amateur psychologists, but I think we can asses views on there merits (e.g. the issues around institutional trust). 

[narduch]

36 minutes ago, SF said:

Just listened to the interview.  I think the reviews here are a bit harsh (though I am surprised when people give interviews like that).

For me there were two themes - one, the matter of trust and authenticity. I've said it a number of times here, but that relationship is broken between the CSA and the players.  Who is at fault doesn't matter, but progress only comes when it is fixed.

Two, Tennis Canada had an inflection point about 20 years ago and set out to build its business. I don't know the details, but I am going to guess that there needed to be a lot of self evaluation and, in many cases, harsh truths accepted. This takes a real level of maturity, but I don't think that seems to exist at the CSA in its present form.

Also, don't love the assigning of motivation to people who are speaking on these issues. We all carry bias, and we're all amateur psychologists, but I think we can asses views on there merits (e.g. the issues around institutional trust). 

My issue is that her complaints were vague. i get it though she probably isn't going to get into the weeds.

The interviewers were also a bit 2-faced as they agreed with her but are never really that critical of the CSA in general.

Edited July 19, 2022 by narduch

[SF]

21 minutes ago, narduch said:

My issue is that her complaints were vague. i get it though she probably isn't going to get into the weeds.

The interviewers were also a bit 2-faced as they agreed with her but are never really that critical of the CSA in general.

They were vague and likely trying to find that balance between wanting to do the interview and not personalize the critique. But, it was pretty clear - she wanted nothing to do with the CSA in it's current state. I don't know her and she may or may not be a great leader (CV looks good, to be fair), but that general critique does ring true given what we've seen over the last number of months.

And what also rang true is her view that if you see a dysfunctional organization that hasn't taken the time to self evaluate, run a million miles away. If you live long enough you will be there and it can be soul destroying (especially for the "true believers"). 

Don't really have a view on the interviewers, except that a good interview isn't about the opinions of the question asker, but is about the opinions of the question responder.  But this is a unique medium, so fair enough on Forrest, Brennan, etc.

[Aird25]

The issue of trust confuses me a bit. People keep talking about decades of trust issues and dysfunction, but has anyone, on either side of the debate, been around that long. If the same issues happen over and over again with different individuals involved doesn’t that reflect more on the challenges of the situation rather than this individual point in time?  

[SF]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

The issue of trust confuses me a bit. People keep talking about decades of trust issues and dysfunction, but has anyone, on either side of the debate, been around that long. If the same issues happen over and over again with different individuals involved doesn’t that reflect more on the challenges of the situation rather than this individual point in time?  

Suspect you're right.  May also be a culture that endures, kind of passing itself down.

Whatever the reason(s), there needs to be a concerted effort to (re)build that relationship.  Not easy, but it has been done.

[Unnamed Trialist]

I'm just saying: Nestor cannot be attributed to Tennis Canada success.

Nor Raonic, really, or at least debatable. 

So the entire argument is Auger-Aliasssime, Shapo, Leyla, and of course Andreescu winning the US Open. Then getting to the Davis Cup final with Popsipil. That's it: Tennis Canada is great because they are doing well. End of argument. 

[TOcanadafan]

11 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I'm just saying: Nestor cannot be attributed to Tennis Canada success.

Nor Raonic, really, or at least debatable. 

So the entire argument is Auger-Aliasssime, Shapo, Leyla, and of course Andreescu winning the US Open. Then getting to the Davis Cup final with Popsipil. That's it: Tennis Canada is great because they are doing well. End of argument. 

Tennis Canada is the envy of the tennis world.  It wasn’t over night… 20 years ago they set up for reform, and now they’ve achieved success.  The fact that another star comes along every year or so is testament to the fact that they are doing a lot right.  Plus they have sponsors calling them, while the head coach of our National soccer team has to knock on doors. Why not learn from them, instead of dismissing their success by saying “it’s just a fluke” just so we can be content with our dysfunction. 

[SpursFlu]

12 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

Tennis Canada is the envy of the tennis world.  It wasn’t over night… 20 years ago they set up for reform, and now they’ve achieved success.  The fact that another star comes along every year or so is testament to the fact that they are doing a lot right.  Plus they have sponsors calling them, while the head coach of our National soccer team has to knock on doors. Why not learn from them, instead of dismissing their success by saying “it’s just a fluke” just so we can be content with our dysfunction. 

We currently have 2 women in the top 100 and 2 men in the top 100

If we're the envy of the tennis world what do they consider Estonia and Czech Republic? They must walk on water

[johnyb]

16 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

Tennis Canada is the envy of the tennis world.  It wasn’t over night… 20 years ago they set up for reform, and now they’ve achieved success.  The fact that another star comes along every year or so is testament to the fact that they are doing a lot right.  Plus they have sponsors calling them, while the head coach of our National soccer team has to knock on doors. Why not learn from them, instead of dismissing their success by saying “it’s just a fluke” just so we can be content with our dysfunction. 

I don't know enough about Tennis Canada to have an informed opinion, but by your logic, Canada's success in Soccer (especially the women) also shouldn't be "just a fluke". The CWNT have medaled in 3 straight Olympics, yet we constantly hear they are successful "despite" the CSA. It's BS, they have their issues but they are obviously doing some things right. 

[TOcanadafan]

11 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

We currently have 2 women in the top 100 and 2 men in the top 100

If we're the envy of the tennis world what do they consider Estonia and Czech Republic? They must walk on water

For a country with virtually zero previous tennis success, to now both be in the Top 6 seeds of Davis / Fed (BJK) Cup is a huge turnaround and accomplishment. 
Plus putting the big 4 just in the “Top 100” is definitely selling their accomplishments short.

[SpursFlu]

50 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

For a country with virtually zero previous tennis success, to now both be in the Top 6 seeds of Davis / Fed (BJK) Cup is a huge turnaround and accomplishment. 
Plus putting the big 4 just in the “Top 100” is definitely selling their accomplishments short.

But you are aware that accomplishing things is not exclusive to Canada? Other people tend to be able to accomplish things as well 

[Ruud]

1 hour ago, TOcanadafan said:

Tennis Canada is the envy of the tennis world.  It wasn’t over night… 20 years ago they set up for reform, and now they’ve achieved success.  The fact that another star comes along every year or so is testament to the fact that they are doing a lot right.  Plus they have sponsors calling them, while the head coach of our National soccer team has to knock on doors. Why not learn from them, instead of dismissing their success by saying “it’s just a fluke” just so we can be content with our dysfunction. 

1 Hiring excellent coach- Borgis(sp?)

2 national training centres.  

3 ownership of annual revenue stream though Rogers cup

 

We can attest to some degree of similar success in CSA on similar actions to these. As a soccer dad I did like her idea that coaches shouldn’t have to pay thousands to take courses 

[Free kick]

Tennis Canada turned things around when they hired Louis Borfiga, from France, as a high performance coach.  Its from that time that we started to see “top 20” ranked talent emerge. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Free kick