The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[CanadianSoccerFan]

And then what happens when a corporation says they only want to sponsor the men's team and their money only go the men.  You gonna be cool with that???

Same with the Own the Podium funding only being for the women.  If OTP gave money for the men only it would be a sh!t storm.  

I don't think the women have any problem pocketing millions from the men's World Cup prize money they had nothing to do with.

[DoyleG]

10 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

And then what happens when a corporation says they only want to sponsor the men's team and their money only go the men.  You gonna be cool with that???

Same with the Own the Podium funding only being for the women.  If OTP gave money for the men only it would be a sh!t storm.  

I don't think the women have any problem pocketing millions from the men's World Cup prize money they had nothing to do with.

 

Now. now, now...

We cant start being all misogynist now can we?

The women will demand their "rightful" reparations even though the impact in their sport is disproportionate and they can never hope to support themselves on their own.

We must be dutiful men in this new, woke era and submit to all their demands.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

44 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

...And then what happens when a corporation says they only want to sponsor the men's team and their money only go the men.  You gonna be cool with that???

Why not? They are two different teams playing in separate competition. There is no reason why marketing rights for the CMNT, CWNT and CanPL had to be pooled together in the manner they were. It's a Womens World Cup year so there are likely to be sponsors who only want to get on board with that over the next few months and don't understand what CSB is all about.

[ray]

55 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

And then what happens when a corporation says they only want to sponsor the men's team and their money only go the men.  You gonna be cool with that???

Same with the Own the Podium funding only being for the women.  If OTP gave money for the men only it would be a sh!t storm.  

I don't think the women have any problem pocketing millions from the men's World Cup prize money they had nothing to do with.

Exactly.  Having CSB decide what sponsorship to accept is very problematic but if the CSA has anything to say about it I would want them to stand up for both the men's and women's programs.  Anyone think the women would accept the CSA taking $$$ only directed toward the men?

[CanadianSoccerFan]

49 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Why not? They are two different teams playing in separate competition. There is no reason why marketing rights for the CMNT, CWNT and CanPL had to be pooled together in the manner they were. It's a Womens World Cup year so there are likely to be sponsors who only want to get on board with that over the next few months and don't understand what CSB is all about.

It was a rhetorical question 

[Ruud]

11 hours ago, Cblake said:

Wonder if this new women's league Matheson and company are spearheading can get their hands on it instead if the CSA is being shortsighted, turning away such cash?

Exactly, they may have avoided any CPL arrangement specifically because of the deal 

and why one soccer commentators were “excited” for the announcement in a very general way, without being specific either.  

[costarg]

4 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

It's not that complicated from a "common sense" perspective... If the CSA was just transparent about where both the current money and future potential growth in revenues was going we wouldn't have this.  It just smells of nepotism, incompetence and likely corruption by the CSA power base & CSB partners. 

And at the head of it all you've got the shadiest of them all, Bontis, who sees the presidency as an opportunity to jet set and party and hob nob in Qatar with soccer royalty (I don't know how many times he mentioned his wife hanging out with David Beckham in that FootyPrime interview?), and more importantly set himself up for future opportunities within the CSB/CFL sphere when he's eventually done as President.

 

That's exactly my point.  I'm being honest here, I don't feel the people at the CSA are putting all the money where it should be going.  Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist.  I do believe they're funneling money to their own pockets, partners, etc....  Do you really think Bontis et all, will just open up and admit they've been stealing?  That will not happen. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

I'm assuming Ontario was picked because the CSA's HQ are in Ottawa. But then I had always assumed the CSA's offices were in Ottawa because they were a federal/national organization in the first place and would be subject to federal laws rather than provincial. The company I used to work for had "Canada" in the title after the company name, but they were incorporated in the province of Ontario so arbitration clauses in contracts always referenced Ontario law would apply. I wouldn't have thought the CSA would be incorporated in Ontario.

 

In any case, the illegality of the strike does somewhat change the complexion of the matter, but it's still doesn't make anyone look good on either side. The CSA release mentions that they also had the traveling fans in mind and that while that could easily just be a load of tosh for the sake of appearances, at the same time it does serve as a reminder that neither of the intended strikes (by the men or the women) seemed to bear fan support in mind at all.

Thanks G-L. So what would be the legality around losses incurred due to a wildcat strike, which we could be how we'd characterize the Vancouver incident? If a group of workers are not unionized, I imagine in some circumstances they can lay down their tools and walk out. It is defended in the Constitution, as a general principle, regardless of how a unionized shop might be governed in terms of job action. What I am saying: if you are not unionized and wildcat without notice, I'd think there is some legal protection, and not sure what sort of liability.

Basically I am asking: why did they not consider 20,000 fans going to the match in Vancouver? Why did the CSA not seek compensation for what was a considerable loss, organisation and then we had to pay off Panama, probably a few hundred thousand? Why wasn't the CSA at all aware that the strike in Vancouver was being prepared for days (as I say, Herdman let the boys go out late for drinks and more the Saturday night, knowing they weren't going to play), apart from the possible answer that the CSA board has its head up its arse and were clued out?

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Cblake said:

This whole thing about an illegal strike is interesting since all they are really doing is declining/pulling out of an international callup. People do that all the time, so it will be interesting to see what this legal exposure is that they mentioned. The only thing I can think of is the USSF taking action against the CSA if the players did not show. But for the CSA to then taken action against the women is in an interesting one since they simply could just replace them with a group of willing players. I think we would all agree that if a roster of fringe/never hasbeens took their place it would not be a good look, but it is thing the CSA could do. 

Spain WNT has been playing without 15 top players since last fall, since a group came out with an email indirectly calling for the coach, Vilda, to be removed. Seen by many as overreaching, as interference in the Federation's prerogative, and also probably unjustified in terms of results. Spain are current u-17 and u-20 world champions, and Vilda is also head of player development for Spain. They lost in Euro quarter finals taking winner England to the limit. There was no accusation of wrongdoing, and only vague complaints about not being able to reach their potential under the current system.

So the Spanish Federation said they would not play until they apologised and recognized their error. 

Then new Spain went out and handily beat the US and drew Sweden in a single week. So what was the inference of a boycott led to a mass non-call-up, on principle, defending usual hierarchy of national teams. 

It is quite possible Spain will go to the WC without key players. As Putellas has been injured since last summer, she was not involved, and may go, but maybe 8-9 usual starters may end up staying home.

[TOcanadafan]

7 hours ago, gator said:

I don't have a problem with the CSA president mixing and mingling at the World Cup and in fact I would expect it, I'm sure most Association Presidents of participating teams did so, I don't expect him to stay home and watch the games on tv! Bontis has had a succesful career before soccer with being a business prof at Mac, who knows what his long term plans are but every single CEO and president of any business is always looking at future opportunities! 

It’s not his presence at the World Cup functions that I have a problem with, it was how much of a ‘fan boy’ he sounded - have some professionalism.  Just about every public appearance Bontis conducts himself like a clown.  

[Aird25]

43 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

It’s not his presence at the World Cup functions that I have a problem with, it was how much of a ‘fan boy’ he sounded - have some professionalism.  Just about every public appearance Bontis conducts himself like a clown.  

Why is there no eye roll emoji 

[eramosat]

As per usual...anything discussing the spending of $$$ in sports on the internet is pointless.  The facts are extremely few and far between, and the opinions are ramped up.  

Who knows...I suspect the friends & family deal for Qatar actually cost a lot of $$$, $$$ that would never show up in any other budget year, took accountants by surprise and had little chance for pushback.  It ate up the 2023 budget for training.  And private planes too.

Very weird to have all this aired in public, and to be so completely schoolyard.  

[eramosat]

18 hours ago, gigi riva said:

Its actually getting annoying

was this topic ever not annoying?  for me, it started with page 1, and I'm sorry to see it flare up again, and steal my attention.

Edited February 13, 2023 by eramosat

[Cheeta]

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Thanks G-L. So what would be the legality around losses incurred due to a wildcat strike, which we could be how we'd characterize the Vancouver incident? If a group of workers are not unionized, I imagine in some circumstances they can lay down their tools and walk out. It is defended in the Constitution, as a general principle, regardless of how a unionized shop might be governed in terms of job action. What I am saying: if you are not unionized and wildcat without notice, I'd think there is some legal protection, and not sure what sort of liability.

Basically I am asking: why did they not consider 20,000 fans going to the match in Vancouver? Why did the CSA not seek compensation for what was a considerable loss, organisation and then we had to pay off Panama, probably a few hundred thousand? Why wasn't the CSA at all aware that the strike in Vancouver was being prepared for days (as I say, Herdman let the boys go out late for drinks and more the Saturday night, knowing they weren't going to play), apart from the possible answer that the CSA board has its head up its arse and were clued out?

Money maybe.  By that I mean the mens team players have more of it and aren't dependent on the NT programs for their livelyhood.  If somebody threatened them with legal action related to their voluntary non-participaton in an event that somebody was putting on I'd imagine that they, the MNT players in Vancouver, would have themselves a jolly good laugh before paying one of their lawyers a few hundred bucks to put in writing, to that somebody, that they can fu'k right off.  And that they'd have the where-with-all to drag out the legal question (if there is one) just out of spite.  Don't think that sort of legal conflict is anywhere in the CSA's budget. 

As suggested, legal obligations maybe.  Might be an apples and oranges sort of thing.  The MNT players, at that time, might well have been in a very different legal position than the WNT are at this time.  Don't know. 

Do know this.  Right or wrong, the CSA has as much as told the Lady Canucks to shut up and do what they're told, when they're told to do it.  And it bares saying, if there's a heterosexual male on planet earth who doesn't know how THAT'S going to play out ...

Disclaimer;  I suspect, in my experience, that most homosexual females also know how the events described in that last paragraph would play out as well, but it's only a suspicion. You know, because I'm a heterosexual male.  Really, heterosexaul.  I'm a Scorpio damn it!  

  

 

[Kent]

I am at least 5 pages, maybe more behind. So apologies for potentially rehashing things that have been said over and over again. And I am commenting after drinking a pretty good amount during the Super Bowl, but I will say a couple things.

1. One strike is one thing. But a second strike, where the striking players are saying similar things about no transparency, no responses, etc. I feel like Bontis needs to go. And I have been a big "benefit of the doubt" guy. I didn't judge the CSB or the CSA, or the players, on this issue when the men had their strike. But I seems to me at the absolute very least, Bontis is not a good communicator with the people he is negotiating with and ultimately leading, and that is causing enormous problems.

2. For the talk about the CPL being a bunch of mooches that haven't earned the money, while the current national team players are earning the money, that is a bit over simplified. U17 and U20 players haven't earned the money yet. Does that mean we shouldn't fund those programs? Why invest in the future when we could just give it all to the present? The CPL represents an investment in the future. Maybe they are getting more than they should, it would be hard to say with the numbers, and even harder without them. The 1986 team made it to the World Cup, and that wasn't enough to inspire a national player pool to get to the level required to make it back to the World Cup cycle after cycle. We need infrastructure, and the CPL is a very large part of that, even if it has minimal instant impact on the national team.

[Kent]

On 2/10/2023 at 9:09 PM, Watchmen said:

They qualified for the World Cup without the CPLs help. 

I know I am being retroactive, but the CSB owns the CPL and also L1O. There are 5 players from the World Cup roster that have played in L1O. Dayne St. Clair, Alistair Johnstone, Kamal Miller, Tajon Buchanan, Cyle Larin, and Richie Laryea. And of course Joel Waterman played in the CPL. So that's 6 players out of 26 that have benefitted from CSB owned leagues, and we are in the absolute infancy of these leagues.

Now back to page 66. (You guys gave me lots of homework!)

[DoyleG]

2 hours ago, Aird25 said:

🙄

Fixed.

[Watchmen]

5 minutes ago, Kent said:

I know I am being retroactive, but the CSB owns the CPL and also L1O. There are 5 players from the World Cup roster that have played in L1O. Dayne St. Clair, Alistair Johnstone, Kamal Miller, Tajon Buchanan, Cyle Larin, and Richie Laryea. And of course Joel Waterman played in the CPL. So that's 6 players out of 26 that have benefitted from CSB owned leagues, and we are in the absolute infancy of these leagues.

Now back to page 66. (You guys gave me lots of homework!)

Those players played in L10 well before it was owned by CSB.  I would not give credit to CSB for it.  I would absolutely give L10 credit for helping the national team.

[Unnamed Trialist]

@Cheetais a Scorpio, damn!

 

[gigi riva]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:45 PM, Cblake said:

This smells as if the USSF got involved and the CSA does not want to burn a bridge with them. Tickets were sold, tv slots were secured etc, but not sure how you can sue someone if they are not receiving compensation. There has to be an expectation of service which would not exist without cash changing hands. 

your probably right 

[Gian-Luca]

9 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Thanks G-L. So what would be the legality around losses incurred due to a wildcat strike, which we could be how we'd characterize the Vancouver incident? If a group of workers are not unionized, I imagine in some circumstances they can lay down their tools and walk out. It is defended in the Constitution, as a general principle, regardless of how a unionized shop might be governed in terms of job action. What I am saying: if you are not unionized and wildcat without notice, I'd think there is some legal protection, and not sure what sort of liability.

Basically I am asking: why did they not consider 20,000 fans going to the match in Vancouver? Why did the CSA not seek compensation for what was a considerable loss, organisation and then we had to pay off Panama, probably a few hundred thousand? Why wasn't the CSA at all aware that the strike in Vancouver was being prepared for days (as I say, Herdman let the boys go out late for drinks and more the Saturday night, knowing they weren't going to play), apart from the possible answer that the CSA board has its head up its arse and were clued out?

Best guess is that the lack of a legal entity for the men's players at the time meant that it would be difficult for the CSA to threaten to sue anyone unless they named every member of the team individually (or at least those who voted not to play if the rumours that some of the players like Davies were in favour of playing). Sinclair mentioned that the women's players' association would have been hit with the lawsuit.

The other issue is damages. If Canada pulled out of a friendly the only damages are loss in revenue from ticket holders & associated costs (Panama gets paid either way whether we had played or not). The CSA perhaps felt that, given the need for an agreement ahead of the World Cup on the bonus compensation that instead of trying to sue the players for $3 million in lost income it might be more productive to use that as a bargaining chip in negotiations (e.g. "well, we can't afford to give you everything you want because you dumb-asses cost us $3 million - if you hadn't been insane enough to refuse to play the friendly at the last minute, then maybe we could give you that extra 3% you are looking for". Whereas I can see the CSA getting sued themselves for Canada not fielding a team in the She Believes Cup (and then presumably naming the women's team & their association) as a third party in the lawsuit and telling the women that if they get sued for millions in damages by the tourney holders, the USSF & Concacaf or whoever the hell runs it, the CSA would seek to have the women's players association indemnify (aka reimburse) them for the costs that they would be on the hook for. Always assuming that the tournament rights folks didn't sue the Canadian women directly for an illegal strike on the eve of the tourney with the CSA unlikely to be able to call in replacement players at such notice to field a C team. That

Another possibility is that perhaps BC's labour laws differ from Ontario's in this regard and BC's might have applied since the men's strike was occurring in BC, but I have a feeling that is less likely than the other reasons.

This is all speculation on my part, because on the face of it, it seems inconsistent to allow one team to strike and not the other. The differing factors are the existence of a legal entity that could be sued (which existed for the women but not the men at the relevant time) and the high probability of the CSA being sued for the women pulling out of the She Doesn't Believe Cup, whereas the CSA would not get used by anyone because the men's team stiffed the Canadian fans in Vancouver, so that's where my best guesses are. I am also posting all of this without having been online yesterday so I don't even know if there have been further developments shedding any light on this.

[Ansem]

CSB pretty much copied what SUM did. The difference which is HUGE, is that USMNT/USWNT have been successful for decades and winning medals/trophies brings cash prizes going straight into the USSF coffers.

I'm not sure if its was SUM getting all the revenues for all NT home games ticket sales so I won't include that.

 

Our NT was never that successful in comparison and the CSB deal was anon issue until our CanMNT started becoming more successful a cycle too early (The whole WC jersey fiasco)

Qualifying to WC (which doesn’t seem like it will be a problem anymore) and winning trophies is critical to increase the revenues and be able to do it all, invest in programs AND pay the players what they deserve.

The WC prize money in this cycle isn't enough to do it all and the players started digging the closer they got to Qatar into a deal that was signed over 5 years ago and no one cared to bring it up until now.

The whole bashing CPL from ex/current MLS players is kind of rich knowing that their MLS clubs benefited from the same scheme. 

The solution? It will be ugly either way... you pay the players but cut into youth/developmental programs OR keep those investments and go on a multi-year war and PR nightmare with the national teams. Winning trophies and cash helps of course

I do understand the players saying the CSA could do it all if it wasn't for the CSB contract but I seriously doubt the CSA could have raised those deals on its own, it didn't have the staff, expertise or resources to get the people to do that, it did what the USSF did. We have to acknowledge that NO ONE believed the CanMNT could have this level of succes a cycle earlier - a gamble the CSA lost as in retrospect, it wasn't a bad deal had the CanMNT missed Qatar and been as mediocre as past cycles.

Lastly, its pure delusion to believe that CSB will come to the table now and renegotiate without getting more in return. I argue it's more of a say, voice or control over decision making of CSA affairs as it has nothing else to bargain with. Soccer still being way more niche than people realizes, it's bad optics sure but not enough to shame CSB back at the table. A very tiny vocal minority in this country understands/cares about the current issue -CSB knows that and will do business as stipulated in the contract 

Keep in mind that MLS would be a very different league without SUM and it undeniably helped the USMNT a lot. CPL's goal is the same, it's good business to get there too.

Eventually, the CSA will be able to take care of its own marketing like the USSF who no longer outsource that to SUM. The CSA is a few cycles behind and will have to do with CSB until 2039ish and then I expect them to handle it on their own as well. By then, CPL/League 1 Canada should strong and established enough to do things on their own without needed the NTs marketing revenues.

Same model as SUM really 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Ansem

[Ansem]

8 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Those players played in L10 well before it was owned by CSB.  I would not give credit to CSB for it.  I would absolutely give L10 credit for helping the national team.

Who owned L1O at that time isn't the point. The point is that this "infrastructure" has played a big role in getting guys to the next level. Investments into that tier and all current / future L1 leagues is obviously needed. Imagine how much better it could do with more resources, funding and much needed upgrades on all metrics. 

CSB now owns L1O and looks to owns/invest heavily there and thus far, it's looking promising for the future.

[Ansem]

All of the above doesn't excuse the way the CSA is currently handling the situation, Bontis needs to go - there are clear communication issues towards the players, the media and the public.

That's inexcusable

[Shway]

3 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Who owned L1O at that time isn't the point. The point is that this "infrastructure" has played a big role in getting guys to the next level. Investments into that tier and all current / future L1 leagues is obviously needed. Imagine how much better it could do with more resources, funding and much needed upgrades on all metrics. 

CSB now owns L1O and looks to owns/invest heavily there and thus far, it's looking promising for the future.

Not only L1O, but all the other provinces that have started similar setups…

There’s just way to much blind eye pointing without seeing the entire picture. 

The CSB has been great for the Canadian player aspiring to become a professional, and the Canadian professional players who want to hone their craft in their country.