The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Watchmen]

37 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You're funny. You always say how crazy the csa removing their sanction from the 3 MLS clubs but hey let's sink the CPL and still lose all the marketing revenues for the next 2 decades.

CSA just has play the long game...

Ultimately, I think the resolution is that they reach a profit sharing arrangement above a certain threshold. I don't think the CSB is even opposed to that.

[Ruud]

8 hours ago, red card said:

If not CSB, it is Greg Kerfoot of the Caps. Pre-first Olympic bronze/NWSL, he was the main provider of funds of all Canada's women teams including setting up residency camps in Vancouver.

My assumption also

[Ansem]

5 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

CSA just has play the long game...

Ultimately, I think the resolution is that they reach a profit sharing arrangement above a certain threshold. I don't think the CSB is even opposed to that.

Its CSB not CSC 

(C for charity) 

[Ruud]

Let’s not also forget CSA has provincial membership just to add to the confused nature of getting agreements amongst all parties on anything in such an association.  They all bring fees to the CSA and have say I think in most decisions on use of some form f the streams of funds. 

[Obinna]

15 minutes ago, RJB said:

It's much more complicated than just this. Sure, the women don't generate the same revenue, but how much of a head start did the men get?  

It's naive to just say you get a cut of what you generate.  It's a complicated issue. 

This is the heart of the problem.

To say you get a cut of what you generate is a statement rooted in meritocracy. The reason the issue is complicated is because meritocracy is not the only consideration in the eyes of many. For such people there is a moral element to the problem that is counter to meritocracy in this case, hence the nuance. That moral argument can simply be called "equity".

Here's what I will say (if anyone even cares):

Meritocracy and equity are on opposite sides of the spectrum, in so far as this argument goes. Both sides of this argument, both sides of the spectrum, are ideological. Achieving the ideal of equity, however, is utopian in my view. That's not to say efforts shouldn't be made, but the problem I see with that POV is that it's uncomprimising by definition, which makes it difficult. Things are either equitable or they aren't. You can make improvements, but until everything is "equitable" to the letter, they'll always be a hunger for more, rightly or wrongly, until it's achieved.

Meritocracy doesn't have that diamension. It's free market and clear cut. The problem with it comes when you associate the results to your self worth. This is not a problem when you are happy with your compensation, only when you are not, and especially when comparing yourself to others who you feel you should be compensated commensurate with. 

Like all things in life, there needs to be compromise, balance, and a sense of grey. People aren't going to change their minds. The men and women are both on the side of equity, at least publically. The realities of the situation are what they are. They money is what it is. The players are worth what they are worth from a meritocratic point of view. The soccer economy in some ways is a meritocracy, like it or not, and just because both sets of players feel they are worth x numbers of dollars in resources or compensation doesn't mean the soccer economy will bend and shape itself to satisfy their feelings, unfortunately for them.  

[Gian-Luca]

Worth a watch:

Wheeler to his credit does provide a few answers to questions I had, such as why it was Ontario labour law that was being applied to the women attempting an illegal strike (apparently the women are unionized in the province of Ontario rather than federally). Without mentioning him by name, he also accuses Westhead of failing to provide the full context his reporting that didn't provide all of the facts (although he adds a caveat that he doesn't know if the leaving out of so much context was intentional or not).

He also mentions that the U17 team, as it stands right now, won't be getting together ahead of the U17 World Cup because there is no money for them. Funnily enough, we haven't heard a peep out of the U17 boys that this is a result of ageism or "blatant sexism" on the part of the CSA, nor have they threatened to strike, which currently makes them my favourite National team to root for.

[dyslexic nam]

And just for shits and giggles I will throw this out: “equity” doesn’t actually mean equality of investment.  An equity approach usually involves asymmetrical or unequal investment to try and promote equality of outcome - or at least more substantial improvement of outcome for those worse off.  It is why we invest disproportionately in social supports targeting those with lower incomes while investing relatively less in the middle class - it is to improve outcomes for those worse off. In the simplistic graphic below, equity suggests providing more crates to the shorter people so everyone can see the game.   

In one very important sense, this sort of approach has interesting implications in a Canadian footy context.  The women have achieved much better results on a global scale than the men - consistently over a long period of time.  A true “equity” approach could argue for a greater investment of team supports into the men’s program in an effort to bring their results on par with the women’s program.

Now this logic would not apply to the income issue.  Insofar as the women would make less (presumably without exception) they would have a strong argument for more direct player payments.  And the unequal landscape when it comes to the pro game further complicates things.  But in terms of the argument for greater supports for the teams and greater investment in preparation for major tournaments, the men’s program actually requires a greater degree of investment if it is to attain anything like the level of success seen in the women’s program.  

Now I know that would never be argued in the current climate.  And it ignores the other areas of inequity i mentioned (namely player income, and the founding of a domestic men’s league) but for anyone using the word “equity” it is actually a more nuanced approach than what some are advocating.  Plus I have probably been watching too much Bill Burr.   

[The Real Marc]

28 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

He also mentions that the U17 team, as it stands right now, won't be getting together ahead of the U17 World Cup because there is no money for them. 

Maybe the CSA is starving them of funds so they can't strike.

That's what gets my goat. "We don't have strong enough preparation! So in response, we're going to skip the next game!" W.T.F. Idiots.

[Cheeta]

5 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

They founded a pro league, started a huge media platform, and have elevated the profile of the game in this country.   

What is causing you to claim that they haven’t made any sort of investment.  
 

Rant Alert.

And it could be years before they've recoup the monies they have invested. 

CSB money financed the successful 2022 WCQing run.  Full stop.  On the field and off the field.  Sponsorship money on a level the CSA could never have imagined AND THEN brought WCQing to the Canadian public, at CSB's expence, like it's never existed before.  What did that cost?  More than a few shillings north of sweet-dick-all I am quite sure. 

Noonan said it in his interview earlier on OneSoccer, CSB put their money where their mouth was and assumed all the risk.  And people are offended because that investement might yet pay off?  Fu'k me.   

Everything rotten with the CSA, including it's finances and business acumen, was there looong before CSB came along with their guaranteed revenue stream and media capability investments in the CSA.  Recongnizing that was the one thing Bontos got right.  

   

[Kadenge]

 

1 hour ago, RJB said:

It's much more complicated than just this. Sure, the women don't generate the same revenue, but how much of a head start did the men get?  

It's naive to just say you get a cut of what you generate.  It's a complicated issue. 

Does each  professional soccer player get paid the same salary by their club? This applies to Pro Women and Men btw. Its not a complicated issue. Its actually very, very simple.

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

Ill give you this example.

In 1969, the Churchills Falls deal between Quebec and NFLD benefited Quebec in the amount of $28B vs $2B for NFLD as of today

In a nutshell, NFLD was forced to sell Quebec 85% of its electricity at $0.2 cents KW/h which Quebec resold at $8.2 cents KW/h. The only way out for Nfld power is through Quebec.

The balance of the 15% is just enough to power the residents of NFLD and marginal exportation needing Quebec's network to export...at a fee. This deal runs until 2041

Talk about getting finesse. A deal that might have made sense at first ended up completely one-sided decades later. Multiple attemps to break this deal in court were attempted... they all failed. Hydro-Quebec could have re-opened the deal out of the goodness of their hearts... they never did and this was highly political with national unity implications.

So you see, why on earth would CSB reopen this deal and what hope does anyone realistically have to break it in court? Zero. There's a reason we have a democratic system with separation of powers - you can't have the executive and legislative overule the legal system whenever it wants, they have to follow the law as well.

Lots of noise online but in the grand scheme of things, it's just noise... this deal is going nowhere.

Lastly, FIFA could suspend the CSA if there's too mich government interference in its affair - it's been done before.

That was a long post in the face of the CSB CEO, Noonan, openly saying they were open to renegotiating the deal.

I signed a deal to work as a consultant for a university not long ago, in 2020, then saw I'd lowballed and ask them to raise my fee nearly 50%, which was accepted.

You can take an excessively legalistic or non cooperative position, or you can talk. It's not necessary to only cite the case studies in one direction.

[A_Gagne]

53 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Well for the record, equality and equity are both clearly trespassing to avoid paying to see that game!

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Cheeta said:

...CSB money financed the successful 2022 WCQing run.  Full stop.  On the field and off the field.  Sponsorship money on a level the CSA could never have imagined AND THEN brought WCQing to the Canadian public, at CSB's expence, like it's never existed before.  What did that cost?  More than a few shillings north of sweet-dick-all I am quite sure...  

Sounds good in rhetorical terms but do you have any evidence this is actually the case given the games eventually wound up on TSN as they would have done previously rather than only being streamed through Onesoccer and the CSA would have been the ones benefiting from ticket revenues from all the unusually large crowds for home games either way?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

1 hour ago, A_Gagne said:

Well for the record, equality and equity are both clearly trespassing to avoid paying to see that game!

...and the CSB investors not having a women's league up and running is an issue either way if CWNT associated revenues are flowing in that direction.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

4 hours ago, SoccMan said:

So Bontis resigns and Cochrane is still there ? I say Cochrane for president!

Don't give them any ideas maybe, but Cochrane is the equivalent of Kevan Pipe back in the day, i.e. the paid employee doing the president's bidding. The board should really function democratically but if the president has a strong personality that can quickly turn into a rubber stamp and a culture of group think. Don't rock the boat if you want to stay on board the gravy train with the in crowd and wear one of those bespoke suits.

[Cadeau]

I guess this'll be offensive but who said life is fair? A lack of demand doesnt equate to discrimination...Personally, were far from a women's league that'd work and be profitable in this country. I know that the small-time canadian soccer media bangs that drum but thats a bit self-serving. Sports need to be merit based and supply and demand based. If that stops, peoples interest will drop.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Don't include CWNT related revenues in the CSB deal = no problems with gender equity issues on this.

[Ansem]

5 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

That was a long post in the face of the CSB CEO, Noonan, openly saying they were open to renegotiating the deal.

I signed a deal to work as a consultant for a university not long ago, in 2020, then saw I'd lowballed and ask them to raise my fee nearly 50%, which was accepted.

You can take an excessively legalistic or non cooperative position, or you can talk. It's not necessary to only cite the case studies in one direction.

Thats not what he said. He said that he was open to "discuss to find ways to help". The only official proposal was to host a CanWNT in a CPL stadium free of charge - i saw former CanWNT member mocking the idea on social media

This is an example of CSB not being about charity. Yes they are willing to help but not to the extend of re-opening the deal without getting something in return

 

[Ansem]

As for the whole parliamentary review of the CSA, all we'll learn I think is that the CSA overspent in a World Cup year and that the CSB deal they agreed to signed limited their revenue potential from the unexpected ealier success of the CanMNT.

The only way out is to increase players registration fees ro make up the difference, which is well within their power.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ansem

[Unnamed Trialist]

18 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Thats not what he said. He said that he was open to "discuss to find ways to help". The only official proposal was to host a CanWNT in a CPL stadium free of charge - i saw former CanWNT member mocking the idea on social media

This is an example of CSB not being about charity. Yes they are willing to help but not to the extend of re-opening the deal without getting something in return

 

Well that's what you say going into a meeting. Anyways, I can go back and find it, but there was more than that.

Everyone thinks the CSA has no bargaining position, but I think there are a few potential pressure points they could apply. For example, the CSA sanctions the CPL, and fees are paid for that. It also establishes who gets to play the Voyageurs Cup and in what term. The new board could put a fee increase on the table and let CSB decide to pay it, or build new clauses into the existing deal to get a % share in increased revenue from CSB activity.

If I'm on the new CSA board you'd see a harder line, not because of any animosity, simply because you have to serve the entire soccer constituency not just a part.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ansem]

44 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Well that's what you say going into a meeting. Anyways, I can go back and find it, but there was more than that.

Everyone thinks the CSA has no bargaining position, but I think there are a few potential pressure points they could apply. For example, the CSA sanctions the CPL, and fees are paid for that. It also establishes who gets to play the Voyageurs Cup and in what term. The new board could put a fee increase on the table and let CSB decide to pay it, or build new clauses into the existing deal to get a % share in increased revenue from CSB activity.

If I'm on the new CSA board you'd see a harder line, not because of any animosity, simply because you have to serve the entire soccer constituency not just a part.

They could cut their losses and soccer in Canada would be back to square one and be dependent on 3 MLS clubs.

People need to stop acting like they are "entitled" to private investments

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ansem

[SF]

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

They could cut their losses and soccer in Canada would be back to square one and be dependent on 3 MLS clubs.

People need to stop acting like they are "entitled" to private investments

Yeah, they can certainly try to renegotiate, but if they want to play hardball vs. a legally sound contract (we assume), they would very quickly establish themselves as an even more unreliable business partner.

If these hearings reveal the important details of this contract, we're likely only to see a deal where the CSA mispriced the asset they were trading. Happens all the time and is one of the reasons such transactions are governed by legal contracts.

[SoccMan]

5 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Don't give them any ideas maybe, but Cochrane is the equivalent of Kevan Pipe back in the day, i.e. the paid employee doing the president's bidding. The board should really function democratically but if the president has a strong personality that can quickly turn into a rubber stamp and a culture of group think. Don't rock the boat if you want to stay on board the gravy train with the in crowd and wear one of those bespoke suits.

Kevin Pipe that’s a great comparison, that guy seemed to be president forever, for a time it didn’t seem he would ever leave. 

[zeelaw]

23 hours ago, CanadaFan123 said:

Again, Canada soccer is in the best place it’s ever been.
 

I can't help but feel this way too.  I've never seen so many mainstream media people offer their shitty opinions or re-tweet blind support for the players, before they quickly move onto tweeting about hockey or whatever horseshit sport they normally do.

So many lazy journalists who want to ride the wave of public opinion.

[Kadenge]

There's more to the "The CSB/CSA agreement is legally binding and therefor non-negotiable". Other than Corp sponsorship/broadcast rights relating to the CPL, the remainder is generated from the success/performance of our National teams and over the past 2 yrs there's been a flurry of sponsors coming onboard and all time records for TV viewership. We will never know the % attributable to CPL, CMNT, CWNT as the deals are bundled, however with the 2022 WC and 2026 WC on home soil, it's fair to say that if the CMNT continues to have unprecedented success over the next 10 yrs CSB is going to be handsomely rewarded and good for them. It is therefore  in their interest, that the CMNT (and CWNT) have the required investment and resources to  attain max potential and results on the field. Our national teams are a component (perhaps massive) of the revenue streams for CSB.  There's a symbiotic relationship here and it's not in CSB's interest to be intransigent notwithstanding a legally binding agreement. I am hopeful that this will be resolved.