The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[SpursFlu]

1 minute ago, zeelaw said:

Probably just stop before this gets nuked boys.

Don't worry I'm done

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

I'm interested to see a comparison of how much money our cwnt players make in comparison to a CPL team. According to the internet Sinclair makes 500k which is roughly equal to the entire wage of a CPL team.

 

Also most of the cwnt players play in Europe and their wages are subsidized by the revenue created by the men's team from their club

That is a huge assumption and probably false:

-gates are not negligible, so women's salaries are in part are being covered by ticket sales. More and more teams are taking their women's teams into the main stadium for key matches, thus even more gate.

-many sponsors have come into the game new specifically for the women's game. Tool company Stanley came into FCB to support the women.

-there are also national league sponsor deals, and NT sponsor deals, which is not funds being siphoned off the men. 

-merchandising, you'd be surprised. In a post-Messi Barça they say the most sold shirt in 21-22 was the Alexia Putellas jersey. 

-you ignore that many European clubs, but notably not the English clubs, have other sports they also fund and maintain, often at a slight loss. Euroleague basketball teams are almost all supported by a main football club, so is handball, futsal. Revenue from all these sports varies depending on the club, but in all cases of anything that is not men's football at a multi-sport club, there can be slight losses or marginal profits, all depending on media deals, sponsors, gate and other factors.

[RS]

39 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

I am brainwashed?  How can you tell?

Something, something woke mind virus.

Just ignore him.

[Ottawafan]

4 minutes ago, RS said:

Something, something woke mind virus.

Just ignore him.

Is there an ignore button?

[Aird25]

The recent OneSoccer release with Nooman interviewed was amongst the worst threads of comments I've read. That might be our biggest problem

[RS]

9 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Is there an ignore button?

You should be able to find it if you click on his name (or if you're on desktop, hover over the name).

[Watchmen]

 

[Big_M]

Some points as we learn more about this

CSA gets 3-4M yearly from CSB + CSA gets their 1M production costs removed as CSB takes it over so a 4-5M difference for CSA

Sponsorship deals now worth 15-20M (according to Westhead) but some if not all of those sponsors are paying for national teams + league(s) sponsorship so you cant attribute all of the 15-20M to national teams

Players from both national teams got endorsement deals from sponsors that CSB brought

CSB is still losing money yearly so they will have to work their butts off to bring more deals which will also mean more endorsement deals for players

 

So

A national professional league is operated and its survival ensured for a good number of years with players going on to represent mens national team (MacNaughton, Waterman)

People are working daily to get deals so that the league can operate, some players develop there and then go on to help the national mens team, some players get direct financial benefit by getting endorsement deals

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

6 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Given CSB has publicly indicated that they have already invested nearly $100m....

Invested often appears to be CanPL-speak for general expenditures. 

[Ansem]

It's quite shocking to look at those comments on Twitter and see how little some with quite following actually understands about the basics.

That being said, it's the CSA being on the hot seat in Ottawa - that won't change how CSB does business, not significantly

[Kingston]

A CBC article on this:

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-business-offers-help-1.6747883

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

35 minutes ago, Big_M said:

Some points as we learn more about this

...CSB is still losing money yearly...

What do you base that on? What would be the large expenditure by CSB that could outweigh the various income streams even if they are not as lucrative as the numbers Rick Westhead is peddling? The Mediapro deal was supposed to take in house broadcast production costs off their hands with an up front rights fee.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[narduch]

20 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

What do you base than on? What would be the large expenditure by CSB that could outweigh the various income streams even if they are not as lucrative as the numbers Rick Westhead is peddling? The Mediapro deal was supposed to take in house broadcast production costs off their hands with an up front rights fee.

Travel costs?

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

21 minutes ago, Kingston said:

A CBC article on this:

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-business-offers-help-1.6747883

Interesting snippet:

"No investor in CSB has ever taken a distribution," it added

Not the smartest move by the Fath brothers if they knew they were going to skedaddle, so there's info about how this all works that has probably yet to be revealed.

[Big_M]

1 hour ago, Big_M said:

 

Sponsorship deals now worth 15-20M (according to Westhead) but some if not all of those sponsors are paying for national teams + league(s) sponsorship so you cant attribute all of the 15-20M to national teams

 

And the "worth 15-20M" does not mean 15-20M of cash just as some thought mediapro was giving a cash handout of 100M

How much cash is actually in those deals? Likely much much less than that 15-20M...GoGo squeeZ is more likely to be giving free fruit snacks rather than throwing tons of cash

 

[PastPros]

I wonder what 10,000 Osmow's sharamas are worth?

[TFC07]

I am confused about this pay equity thing. Men and Women agree to share their prize money from their World Cup earnings only?  Or do other tournaments like Gold Gup, Nations league and Copa America are included as well?  I feel like a competitive men’s team will be contributing a lot more money into this pot of money
 

As for resources, hard to do 50/50 when men’s and women’s don’t play the same amount of games and travel to other places to play games in.   Also, it’s more expensive to hire quality coaches and staff for Men than women while securing home games against quality opponents
 

The financial dynamics between the women’s and men’s game is world’s apart.  Besides the US, is there any other nations where they have this sort of agreement between men’s and women’s programs? 
 

Overall, it will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by TFC07
Typo

[eramosat]

Just now, TFC07 said:

I am confused about this pay equity thing. Men and Women agree to share their prize money from their World Cup earnings only?  Or do other tournaments like Gold Gup, league nations and Copa America are included as well?  I feel like a competitive men’s team will be contributing a lot more money into this pot of money
 

As for resources, hard to do 50/50 when men’s and women’s don’t play the same amount of games and travel to other places to play games in.   Also, it’s more expensive to hire quality coaches and staff for Men than women while securing home games against quality opponents
 

The financial dynamics between the women’s and men’s game is world’s apart.  Besides the US, is there any other nations where they have this sort of agreement between men’s and women’s programs? 
 

Overall, it will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. 

I completely disagree when you say " it will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out."  It's not interesting...you think you want to know the details behinds the scenes, of where all the money comes from, and where it goes, and hear about every possible participant's opinion on it, and what they wanted to do with the $$$ instead??  Really?

That sounds f**king horrifying.  Not to mention completely pointless...like chewing on a 2x4 in order to to make sawdust, which is why people pay lawyers so much to do stuff like this for them instead of doing it themselves..

I'll wait for the games, thank you very much.  Hope we still get to play in both upcoming World Cups.

[TFC07]

6 minutes ago, eramosat said:

I completely disagree when you say " it will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out."  It's not interesting...you think you want to know the details behinds the scenes, of where all the money comes from, and where it goes, and hear about every possible participant's opinion on it, and what they wanted to do with the $$$ instead??  Really?

That sounds f**king horrifying.  Not to mention completely pointless...like chewing on a 2x4 in order to to make sawdust, which is why people pay lawyers so much to do stuff like this for them instead of doing it themselves..

I'll wait for the games, thank you very much.  Hope we still get to play in both upcoming World Cups.

It seems like a lot of people (including the Government) are interested how and where the money is being spent.  It sucks we are going through this now, but It will finally keep CSA in check, especially if the government gets involved though

[red card]

3 hours ago, Big_M said:

And the "worth 15-20M" does not mean 15-20M of cash just as some thought mediapro was giving a cash handout of 100M

How much cash is actually in those deals? Likely much much less than that 15-20M...GoGo squeeZ is more likely to be giving free fruit snacks rather than throwing tons of cash

 

 

CSA's financial statements say some of the commercial revenue is contributed goods & services. Prime example would likely be Gatorade. 

Globe articles about Hockey Canada says they generated around $20 million across about 15 partners in years Canada isn't hosting the World Juniors. Hard to envision Canada Soccer is already on par with HC. Even Westhead has reported the top 2 HC sponsors are only paying $2 million/yr.

With about half of post CSB Canada Soccer sponsors are also CPL sponsors, not all monies received can be allocated to CS. And back in 2016 when CS was still rolling in WWC 2015 sponsor deals, they had over 20 sponsors. CSA reported commercial revenue of just over $14 million with some of it due to international tv rights.

 

 

[The Beaver 2.0]

For what it is worth, from a PR standpoint the CSA is looking like amateurs compared to the other parties.

CSB's PR is super smart, aligning with the players and the future of soccer in this country, along with messaging that suggests they want to be part of the solution.

The CWNT is also looking pretty good PR-wise, once we acknowledge they aren't really looking for raises as much as proper support for programs and preparatory fixtures.

The CMNT is mostly looking good, though I feel they messed up by referring to the CPL as a "minor league". That was bush-league on their part; totally tone deaf.

The CSA looks terrible PR-wise, so far. No transparency, no sense that they are trying to work with any of these groups, suing the CWNT, and totally fumbling their messaging to the media.

Am I being too tough on the CSA?

Edited February 15, 2023 by The Beaver 2.0

[Cheeta]

^ Too tough?  No. 

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

For what it is worth, from a PR standpoint the CSA is looking like amateurs compared to the other parties.

CSB's PR is super smart, aligning with the players and the future of soccer in this country, along with messaging that suggests they want to be part of the solution.

The CWNT is also looking pretty good PR-wise, once we acknowledge they aren't really looking for raises as much as proper support for programs and preparatory fixtures.

The CMNT is mostly looking good, though I feel they messed up by referring to the CPL as a "minor league". That was bush-league on their part; totally tone deaf.

The CSA looks terrible PR-wise, so far. No transparency, no sense that they are trying to work with any of these groups, suing the CWNT, and totally fumbling their messaging to the media.

Am I being too tough on the CSA?

I'm not really disagreeing, but I'm not sure the CSB's PR is actually working.  From the handful of non-soccer fans I've heard from about this, the questions were along the lines of "what is the CSB and why are they taking money away from the players?"  One of them had heard the story on a major non-sports radio station.  Mind you, they were also heavily blaming the CSA.

[Unnamed Trialist]

One thing that has not been discussed here, hardly at all, is Herdman's role.

We know that he comes from a background that supported working class job action, regardless of his politics he's sympathetic to striking. I think that is admirable.

But then, he has shown difficulty differentiating between his job and the men's locker room dynamics. He's a CSA employee, as are his staff, and his job goes further than the MNT as well. The impression is that he facilitated the men's boycott last summer. He was fine with them not training, basically not doing his job (a coach goes to the practice field, for the called session, and if they don't show up they are off the team--in any club in the world). He let them go out the night before a match knowing it was not going to be played, but not telling his boss and, worse, not caring to inform his fellow Vancouverites the game was off when he knew 24 hours earlier. 

Since then we've heard, ie from Kloke the other day, that only a core group of men are leading this line. We have also heard that many of the players did not agree and went along with it regardless. So I conclude that there should be dissent, dissenting voices, voices saying I do not agree with this--with not playing in Vancouver, with calling the CPL minor league. Maybe those voices are being heard in discussions (the players regularly zoomed together to discuss these things btw, after Vancouver, and a broad group of the potential roster was included). Without Herdman, it seems.

Then they went to Qatar without a deal. They did not play under protest. Maybe the dissenters got their say and the team was convinced that they had to play, regardless of not having a deal. Which would mean either Vancouver was an exception, and a glitch, or that Qatar was a turnaround.

It also seems that the women are a real bother for the men, they do not seem happy about discovering their efforts will lead to less benefit to them as they end up sharing with the women. Last summer it seems they were caught out, they were late getting legal representation, their own support letter was lamer and more poorly conceived.

But my main conclusion regards the brotherhood, or the team cohesion. Herdman seems to believe the team is more cohesive and will be more successful if he helps it have this sort of adversarial position against his own employers. There is the suggestion, however, that it is being leveraged coercively. Since Herdman is part of the job action, and not independent of it, players shut up and put up with the decisions being made, because they perceive it could hurt their call-up chances, or playing chances. It makes no sense that individuals openly support the harder line, in statements to press even, but none of them support a more conciliatory line. Less so now that some of the core group are either on their way out, or pissed about Qatar, or both (Piette, Henry).

I would imagine that for the women it is the same, where the hierarchies are even stronger and there is an even harder core of veterans with winning prestige.

My idea of the role of a coach is different. He goes to bat for his players, indeed, but also need to go to bat for his employers,  and for the integrity of the refs, and CSA staff supporting his vision. And has to be present for the press and fans.

[narduch]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

One thing that has not been discussed here, hardly at all, is Herdman's role.

We know that he comes from a background that supported working class job action, regardless of his politics he's sympathetic to striking. I think that is admirable.

But then, he has shown difficulty differentiating between his job and the men's locker room dynamics. He's a CSA employee, as are his staff, and his job goes further than the MNT as well. The impression is that he facilitated the men's boycott last summer. He was fine with them not training, basically not doing his job (a coach goes to the practice field, for the called session, and if they don't show up they are off the team--in any club in the world). He let them go out the night before a match knowing it was not going to be played, but not telling his boss and, worse, not caring to inform his fellow Vancouverites the game was off when he knew 24 hours earlier. 

Since then we've heard, ie from Kloke the other day, that only a core group of men are leading this line. We have also heard that many of the players did not agree and went along with it regardless. So I conclude that there should be dissent, dissenting voices, voices saying I do not agree with this--with not playing in Vancouver, with calling the CPL minor league. Maybe those voices are being heard in discussions (the players regularly zoomed together to discuss these things btw, after Vancouver, and a broad group of the potential roster was included). Without Herdman, it seems.

Then they went to Qatar without a deal. They did not play under protest. Maybe the dissenters got their say and the team was convinced that they had to play, regardless of not having a deal. Which would mean either Vancouver was an exception, and a glitch, or that Qatar was a turnaround.

It also seems that the women are a real bother for the men, they do not seem happy about discovering their efforts will lead to less benefit to them as they end up sharing with the women. Last summer it seems they were caught out, they were late getting legal representation, their own support letter was lamer and more poorly conceived.

But my main conclusion regards the brotherhood, or the team cohesion. Herdman seems to believe the team is more cohesive and will be more successful if he helps it have this sort of adversarial position against his own employers. There is the suggestion, however, that it is being leveraged coercively. Since Herdman is part of the job action, and not independent of it, players shut up and put up with the decisions being made, because they perceive it could hurt their call-up chances, or playing chances. It makes no sense that individuals openly support the harder line, in statements to press even, but none of them support a more conciliatory line. Less so now that some of the core group are either on their way out, or pissed about Qatar, or both (Piette, Henry).

I would imagine that for the women it is the same, where the hierarchies are even stronger and there is an even harder core of veterans with winning prestige.

My idea of the role of a coach is different. He goes to bat for his players, indeed, but also need to go to bat for his employers,  and for the integrity of the refs, and CSA staff supporting his vision. And has to be present for the press and fans.

You can probably figure out who is on which side based on which male players tweeted out the latest letter.

I believe MAK, Millar and Johnston all did.

Davies and David didn't for example. 

There were rumours Davies didn't want to boycott the June friendly