The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[CanSoccfan11]

What I struggle with is why the CSA should be on the hook for paying for the families of players to attend events like the World Cup.  That is millions of dollars that could better fund the programs.   

Can someone name me a company that covers the expenses of families on business trips?  That shouldn't be a requirement imo.  

[Gian-Luca]

11 hours ago, The Real Marc said:

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.

I felt men were selfish and had tunnel vision when they refused to play the Panama friendly at the last moment which not only screwed the fans but cost the association millions of dollars that could have helped give everyone more money. But the women are now somehow coming across as even more entitled, even though they don't have as much of a lack of consideration for the fans as threatening to pull out of the She Believes Cup (other than the traveling fans). If the women get a 50/50 pay "equity" deal, they will effectively be gaining $$$ at the expense of the men, given that FIFA awards far more money for qualifying for the men's World Cup than they do for the women, mainly because the men's World Cup generates billions more than the Women's World Cup. They also provide much more in the way of preparatory funds and staff for the tourney.

However, if someone point out the greater revenue generated from the men's game which is at the heart of all these issues, Janine Beckie (according to one of her own tweets) will accuse you of being "blatantly sexist" (and if you are a man, you will also be accused of "mansplaining") because (a) she knows that the men's game generates more revenue and (b) the greater revenue FIFA and the men's game provides is "beside the point". Perhaps if she's reading this, Janine can womansplain to me how it can possibly be that revenue generated is irrelevant to the issue of funding and payment of the players.

According to that video I posted Charmaine Crooks now takes over for Bontis until a new president is elected (which I gather might not happen until May, which is after the women's April friendly and their threatened strike action). I hope that she is able to talk to the women and calm them down, because the way some of their more outspoken players are acting, I have a tough time seeing a man being able to reason with them (he'll get accused of mansplaining for a start).

Edited March 1, 2023 by Gian-Luca

[narduch]

9 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

What I struggle with is why the CSA should be on the hook for paying for the families of players to attend events like the World Cup.  That is millions of dollars that could better fund the programs.   

Can someone name me a company that covers the expenses of families on business trips?  That shouldn't be a requirement imo.  

I'm guessing other soccer teams do this.

[El Hombre]

13 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

However, if someone point out the greater revenue generated from the men's game which is at the heart of all these issues, Janine Beckie (according to one of her own tweets) will accuse you of being "blatantly sexist" (and if you are a man, you will also be accused of "mansplaining") because (a) she knows that the men's game generates more revenue and (b) the greater revenue FIFA and the men's game provides is "beside the point". Perhaps if she's reading this, Janine can womansplain to me how it can possibly be that revenue generated is irrelevant to the issue of funding and payment of the players.

Dude, you're having a real hard time with a couple tweets.  You gotta let it go.

[nolando]

14 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

I felt men were selfish and had tunnel vision when they refused to play the Panama friendly at the last moment which not only screwed the fans but cost the association millions of dollars that could have helped give everyone more money. But the women are now somehow coming across as even more entitled, even though they don't have as much of a lack of consideration for the fans as threatening to pull out of the She Believes Cup (other than the traveling fans). If the women get a 50/50 pay "equity" deal, they will effectively be gaining $$$ at the expense of the men, given that FIFA awards far more money for qualifying for the men's World Cup than they do for the women, mainly because the men's World Cup generates billions more than the Women's World Cup. They also provide much more in the way of preparatory funds and staff for the tourney.

However, if someone point out the greater revenue generated from the men's game which is at the heart of all these issues, Janine Beckie (according to one of her own tweets) will accuse you of being "blatantly sexist" (and if you are a man, you will also be accused of "mansplaining") because (a) she knows that the men's game generates more revenue and (b) the greater revenue FIFA and the men's game provides is "beside the point". Perhaps if she's reading this, Janine can womansplain to me how it can possibly be that revenue generated is irrelevant to the issue of funding and payment of the players.

According to that video I posted Charmaine Crooks now takes over for Bontis until a new president is elected (which I gather might not happen until May, which is after the women's April friendly and their threatened strike action). I hope that she is able to talk to the women and calm them down, because the way some of their more outspoken players are acting, I have a tough time seeing a man being able to reason with them (he'll get accused of mansplaining for a start).

[narduch]

1 minute ago, El Hombre said:

Dude, you're having a real hard time with a couple tweets.  You gotta let it go.

Some of the comments here are a little too close to the MRA

[Obinna]

11 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

Here's my attempt to apply this meme to our situation:

Blue shirt - CMNT

Red shirt - CWNT

purple shirt - CYNTs

Boxes - CSA resources

Fence - Our challenges

Baseball field - Sucess

 

Here's what I question - do the men understand the difference between equity and equality? Nam, I am glad you pointed out that Equity is equality of outcome, whereas Equality is equality of opportunity. Big difference, which is why I have always liked this meme. 

So, what do you guys think? Do you think the men understand this difference? No way to know from the outside, but to me it seems they do not. Otherwise, they would be happy to see their resources get CUT and reallocated to the women, or even to the youth. 

Again, from what I understand, the men want more resources, and they want the women to have more resources, but the women want to have budget equity with the men, from an association with limited resources, so money has to move from one place to the other if the CSA doesn't increase its income. The logical conclusion is that pay equity will result in the men getting their budget cut. Do they realize this? How do they not (if they don't)? 

I also want to quote Gian-Luca here, because he nails it:

13 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

If the women get a 50/50 pay "equity" deal, they will effectively be gaining $$$ at the expense of the men, given that FIFA awards far more money for qualifying for the men's World Cup than they do for the women, mainly because the men's World Cup generates billions more than the Women's World Cup. They also provide much more in the way of preparatory funds and staff for the tourney.

However, if someone point out the greater revenue generated from the men's game which is at the heart of all these issues, Janine Beckie (according to one of her own tweets) will accuse you of being "blatantly sexist" (and if you are a man, you will also be accused of "mansplaining") because (a) she knows that the men's game generates more revenue and (b) the greater revenue FIFA and the men's game provides is "beside the point". Perhaps if she's reading this, Janine can womansplain to me how it can possibly be that revenue generated is irrelevant to the issue of funding and payment of the players.

 

[Ottawafan]

20 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

What I struggle with is why the CSA should be on the hook for paying for the families of players to attend events like the World Cup.  That is millions of dollars that could better fund the programs.   

Can someone name me a company that covers the expenses of families on business trips?  That shouldn't be a requirement imo.  

Every high level club and every FA.

[Gian-Luca]

6 minutes ago, El Hombre said:

Dude, you're having a real hard time with a couple tweets.  You gotta let it go.

I wish it had been just "a couple of tweets". But if Alphonso Davies, Jonathan David or whoever it is on the men's side that Platt is talking about in that video who are rumoured to be against the pay equity deal comes out and does an equivalent "Anyone who thinks that the women and men should get the same amount of money for their completely unequal WCQ campaigns is a woke, virtue-signalling, social justice warrior" series of tweets and comments, I will be just as critical of the usage of their insulting language. If anyone sees such a tweet, let me know. I won't be holding my breath in the interim though.

[Obinna]

41 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

According to that video I posted Charmaine Crooks now takes over for Bontis until a new president is elected (which I gather might not happen until May, which is after the women's April friendly and their threatened strike action). I hope that she is able to talk to the women and calm them down, because the way some of their more outspoken players are acting, I have a tough time seeing a man being able to reason with them (he'll get accused of mansplaining for a start).

Edit: The comments below are not resource-related per se, but bonus related (if this element is still at play). 

I get the sense this whole thing is largely selfish in the sense the women are fighting for their individual economic futures.

Pro female players are surely earning more now a days, but it's not on par with the men's side of the game (because the soccer economy is largely a free-market meritocracy). The USWNT players are probably the exception, not because their clubs are paying them handsomely, but because they've been able to pull concessions from the USSF using the same strategy.

The problem for the women (perhaps) is that CSA is not the USSF when it comes to resources. The USSF is simply a bigger pot that can absorb the demands from their women. The CSA is not in that position. 

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of the USWNT / USSF pay equity situation very well, so readers of this should just take the gist of what I am saying to get the point I am making. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Obinna

[Ansem]

47 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

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.

All true, however - they would argue that the long term success of the National teams has way more to do with players development --> CPL, League 1 Canada (men & women), eventually a D2 and Women's League. Taking money away from that that is equally damaging to the long term success of the national team.

It would be wise to acknowledge that having David, Davies, Eustaquio all at the same time is "exceptional" and we cannot take for granted that this will always be the case. A deeper & stronger pool help protect you from cycles without super stars. Take the USMNT, unremarkable in term of superstars but they are deep and have good players at all positions. We don't have that nor the infrastructure to ensure we get there.

For me just paying the NT whatever they want at the expend of development is shortsighted.

Best for the CSA to find way to get more revenues from areas not included in the CSB deal - One soccer were alluding to betting and "hard liquor" (maybe I heard that wrong). Nevertheless, that's on the CSA to find solutions first and foremost

[Gian-Luca]

14 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Edit: The comments below are not resource-related per se, but bonus related (if this element is still at play). 

I get the sense this whole thing is largely selfish in the sense the women are fighting for their individual economic futures.

Pro female players are surely earning more now a days, but it's not on par with the men's side of the game (because the soccer economy is largely a free-market meritocracy). The USWNT players are probably the exception, not because their clubs are paying them handsomely, but because they've been able to pull concessions from the USSF using the same strategy.

The problem for the women (perhaps) is that CSA is not the USSF when it comes to resources. The USSF is simply a bigger pot that can absorb the demands from their women. The CSA is not in that position. 

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of the USWNT / USSF pay equity situation very well, so readers of this should just take the gist of what I am saying to get the point I am making. 

That is part of the problem though, that "pay equity" is being used as a synonymous term applicable to prize money for a  sporting achievement, when normally it is supposed to mean "equal pay for equal work" in the context of, say, male and female teachers earning the same salary for teaching the same number of hours. Equating "equal work" with athletic achievement is fraught with difficulties. What would have happened if the men didn't qualify for Qatar? Would the women be arguing for a pay equity deal for the 2023 Women's World Cup to be shared with the men? My guess is no, because the argument rightly would be that the Women achieved their goal of qualification while the men did not...even though the actual "work" involved still would have been far greater on the men's side (even if they hadn't qualified for the Octagon, they still would have played more WCQ matches than the women did). So now it's not about equal work, but you never hear pay equity described as "equal pay for equal sporting achievements", and then the matter is further complicated by FIFA funding the men's game to a greater degree in the first place because it is the more popular and revenue-generating game.

In the broadcasts for the She Believes Cup, Clare Rustad even pointed out (when asked her opinion about Bev Priestman saying that she wants more training sessions than she does preparatory friendlies) that the women have it far easier than the men. She pointed out that the women don't have a difficult WCQ route the way the men do (traditionally - obviously 2015 & 2026 isn't what she was referring to) and have a far easier time getting high quality opponents for preparatory friendlies. The women's team also tends to play far more games than the men (until recently), which is why you've got so many higher cap numbers for the women (Jessie Fleming currently has 13 more caps than Atiba does at age 40 - and she's just 24). So even here you have a former women's team player and current commentator pointing out that the work is not really "equal" in any practical sense.

And mentioning Clare Rustad...now that I think of it -  she is who I would personally want to be the next President of the CSA. She'd be perfect. Although she might just simply be too smart to want the job!

[Shway]

Gentleman we are experience a civil war.

To continue with that illustration above....
Women want equity, more "boxes" and also want to pull boxes from the men
Men agree to equality, but want more boxes from the CSA
CSA has ran out of boxes, and doesn't know how to leverage getting new ones outside of what is provided from the CSB

[CanSoccfan11]

59 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Every high level club and every FA.

Good to know. I don't agree but if that is the industry standard then that is the industry standard.

[Ansem]

We could start there to find cash - pay up!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwidgsDYmrv9AhUXjokEHTEGAokQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadasoccer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F03%2FCanada-Soccer-Fees-2022-EN_FINAL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1u99klefCu9X2zziPThoyb
 

MLS is paying $30k per clubs --> $90k total

CPL is paying $20k per clubs -->$160k total

Pro clubs pay $2k each.

 

I think that MLS should pay much much much more per clubs and pro clubs operating in a foreign league should see their fees increased significantly. What we are charging for access to 3 of the biggest North American markets is really peanuts in comparison and the league has profited by having this privilege access to Canada by quite a margin.

There should be a massive premium on this, MLS paying less than CPL is ridiculous.

Makes more sense to me to charge MLS FIRST before trying to go for CSB for cash that's being used to grow the sport here.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ansem

[JamboAl]

27 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

Good to know. I don't agree but if that is the industry standard then that is the industry standard.

For context, the cheaper apartments in Qatar in the area that the families were staying in were pricey.  My three star apartment in a modest area was US $420 a night.  Add some to that number and multiply by whatever number of apartments for how many nights and you get the general cost of the program just for accommodations.

[Gian-Luca]

https://canadasoccer.com/news/two-women-elected-to-top-canada-soccer-board-positions/

[dyslexic nam]

Unfortunate last name.  

[Obinna]

@Mattd97 cheat code?

[narduch]

2 minutes ago, Obinna said:

@Mattd97 cheat code?

I'd like to thank him for liking my post twice.

[Mattd97]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

@Mattd97 cheat code?

I assume it's a wage gap thing.  I get 110% of everyone else's likes

[SpursFlu]

Boxes officially checked.. now can we get back to football?

 

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Makes more sense to me to charge MLS FIRST before trying to go for CSB for cash that's being used to grow the sport here.

Reminder that you have the CPL because MLS grew the game here first.

[toontownman]

1 minute ago, Watchmen said:

Reminder that you have the CPL because MLS grew the game here first.

Truth. We shall thank them for again leading the way in paying treble the fee. Then in two decades the CPL will start playing catch up. 😛

[narduch]

8 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Reminder that you have the CPL because MLS grew the game here first.

We also have the CPL because of how much the MLS teams failed on player development.