Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[Markoaleks]

Re the  Gatorade ad @narduch what makes you say this? Maybe I have not yet seen it - link? 

[Kadenge]

The more successful our national teams are the more revenue CSB stand to make. It's in the interest of CSB to ensure that the national teams are properly funded and have the resources to excel. One has to think that the deal will be amended, not because CSB are nice guys but because it makes good business sense. No point in killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Sponsorship & broadcast revenues are probably significantly higher than what was projected when the deal was signed.

[Bison44]

I still remember thinking when the TV deal was rumored, it almost seemed like an afterthought that the national team TV rights were getting lumped in with CPL deal.  Now with the CIBC deal it seems like an afterthought that CIBC is going to be the shirt sponsor for the new BC team, and will prob be running ads on CPL for next few years after interest in the CMNT team dies off after the world cup.     

[narduch]

1 hour ago, Markoaleks said:

Re the  Gatorade ad @narduch what makes you say this? Maybe I have not yet seen it - link? 

Basically a slew of CanMNT players are in the ad. 

If they were pissed at CSB they would refuse.

This ad has been running on One Soccer and EPL half time on Fubo.

I will try to track it down

[DoyleG]

On 11/19/2022 at 2:06 PM, narduch said:

Basically a slew of CanMNT players are in the ad. 

If they were pissed at CSB they would refuse.

This ad has been running on One Soccer and EPL half time on Fubo.

I will try to track it down

CWNT players in it as well.

Seen it several times already.

[SthMelbRed]

On 11/20/2022 at 5:43 AM, Kadenge said:

The more successful our national teams are the more revenue CSB stand to make. It's in the interest of CSB to ensure that the national teams are properly funded and have the resources to excel. One has to think that the deal will be amended, not because CSB are nice guys but because it makes good business sense. No point in killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Sponsorship & broadcast revenues are probably significantly higher than what was projected when the deal was signed.

Has anybody explored the possibility that the much improved conditions....training bases, hotels, charter flights, etc....for this entire cycle of WCQ could be largely laid at the feet of CSB, or are we all in on the idea that they're 100% bad for the national programs?

[DoyleG]

15 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

Has anybody explored the possibility that the much improved conditions....training bases, hotels, charter flights, etc....for this entire cycle of WCQ could be largely laid at the feet of CSB, or are we all in on the idea that they're 100% bad for the national programs?

[eramosat]

15 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

Has anybody explored the possibility that the much improved conditions....training bases, hotels, charter flights, etc....for this entire cycle of WCQ could be largely laid at the feet of CSB, or are we all in on the idea that they're 100% bad for the national programs?

i doubt that anybody on this forum,  contributing to this discussion of purely business aspects of the CSB, has any knowledge of anything meaningful.  positive or negative.

as a fan, i stay in my lane and complain, maybe,  about Arfield's prospects, and that is about as far off-base as it should get.  speculation about anything the CSB does is the purest of speculations.

[Watchmen]

5 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

Has anybody explored the possibility that the much improved conditions....training bases, hotels, charter flights, etc....for this entire cycle of WCQ could be largely laid at the feet of CSB, or are we all in on the idea that they're 100% bad for the national programs?

Are you thinking that these conditions improved because of the $3m the CSB paid or because they've provided additional resources?

I'm on the side that thinks the CSB was a bad deal for the CSA, but part of that thinking is that they've never clarified who handles what aspects of the program now.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is in the CSB's best interest to be helping the CSA arrange quality friendlies and not leaving that up to the CSA alone to do out of the money already given, even if they then take an additional cut of the proceeds.

[SthMelbRed]

23 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Are you thinking that these conditions improved because of the $3m the CSB paid or because they've provided additional resources?

I'm on the side that thinks the CSB was a bad deal for the CSA, but part of that thinking is that they've never clarified who handles what aspects of the program now.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is in the CSB's best interest to be helping the CSA arrange quality friendlies and not leaving that up to the CSA alone to do out of the money already given, even if they then take an additional cut of the proceeds.

I think it might be a bit of both. For CSB to make money, they have to actually see success for the national teams. The guaranteed funds from the CSB deal may have given the CSA the confidence to commit more finance to the WCQ campaign. CSB may have even used their influence to push those improvements. The lack of transparency over who's in charge of what at this point is shit, but I'm just suggesting that it might not be quite the flim flam that others are portraying it. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.

[Kadenge]

12 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

I think it might be a bit of both. For CSB to make money, they have to actually see success for the national teams. The guaranteed funds from the CSB deal may have given the CSA the confidence to commit more finance to the WCQ campaign. CSB may have even used their influence to push those improvements. The lack of transparency over who's in charge of what at this point is shit, but I'm just suggesting that it might not be quite the flim flam that others are portraying it. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.

Gotta think with all the negative press and reactions from various levels, CSB & CSA would be motivated to disclose any other monetary contributions (over the $3M/yr) or resources supporting the National teams

[Ansem]

More deals

 

[Cblake]

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

More deals

 

This reminds me very much like SUM was down south, its the success of the National team driving these deals, basically if you want the CMNT you have to take some CPL on the side. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Cblake

[Ansem]

[jonovision]

I have to give props to this ad from CIBC for featuring the women and men equally: 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

15 hours ago, Cblake said:

This reminds me very much like SUM was down south, its the success of the National team driving these deals, ...

The finances of SUM revolved to a significant extent around revenues skimmed off the Mexican national team playing home games in the United States and Gold Cup hostings. There is no Canadian equivalent of that. AFAIA the USSF didn't sign away 20 years worth of its own marketing and sponsorship revenues in a manner that compromised their ability to compensate their national team players during major tournaments. What they did do was find a way to package World Cup broadcasting rights with MLS ones but TSN already had the rights to 2022 and 2026 by the time CSB launched.

[DoyleG]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:12 PM, Cblake said:

This reminds me very much like SUM was down south, its the success of the National team driving these deals, basically if you want the CMNT you have to take some CPL on the side. 

[red card]

Sports Business Journal put out a piece about USSF in a post-SUM world starting next year.

They listed the yearly revenues USSF received from SUM. Unlike CSA's deal, it was much more variable & rose quite a bit over 15+ years but no details on why this happened were mentioned.

In terms of dollar value, CSA's deal is much better compared to early years under SUM and still in line on a pro-rated basis in recent years. Length of SUM deal was basically in line with CSB deal.

SUM revenue received was just US$3.31 million in its first year (2006). It first hit double-digits in 2013. Highest payout was US$30.25 million in 2020.

Going forward without SUM, USSF hired 8 senior people for their commercial team from MLS, NBA & NFL. Without CSB, CSA would need to pay up for same as it seems they only have a marketing head currently.

About 5 key USSF sponsor deals were renewed at 7 figure levels - so somewhere between US$1-9 million. Canada Soccer now has 3 key sponsors + Nike.

US English tv deal as of next year is US$25-27 million/year for at least 10 friendlies/year between the men/women. No Spanish deal yet. Prorated for the CSA, this means $2.5 million but Canada doesn't play 10 matches/year (ex WCQ years), most aren't in prime time/weekends and has no SheBelieves type tourney.

Outside of the SUM deal, Nike paid US$22.65 million in FY20. US in both men and women are considered Tier 1 by Nike while it seems Canada men will be upgraded for 2026 and the women seem to be at Tier 1 already.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/12/12/Upfront/soccer.aspx

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by red card

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, red card said:

In terms of dollar value, CSA's deal is much better compared to early years under SUM and still in line on a pro-rated basis in recent years. Length of SUM deal was basically in line with CSB deal.

SUM revenue received was just US$3.31 million in its first year (2006). It first hit double-digits in 2013. Highest payout was US$30.25 million in 2020.

But you can't really compare "dollar value" from 2006 and 2019, because of inflation. So $3.31m in 2019 is more like $4.1m.  Then you'd also have to factor the exchange rate in to it, and while there's certainly a period of strong Canadian dollar for a while in there, it's still lower in the end.  

And I realize that's not part of your comparison, but the fact that SUM was paying double digits 7 years later makes it a much, much better deal than the CSB.   Unless the CSB has increasing revenue for the CSA as well, but both they and the CSA have hidden all the details on it, so who knows.

[red card]

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

But you can't really compare "dollar value" from 2006 and 2019, because of inflation. So $3.31m in 2019 is more like $4.1m.  Then you'd also have to factor the exchange rate in to it, and while there's certainly a period of strong Canadian dollar for a while in there, it's still lower in the end.  

And I realize that's not part of your comparison, but the fact that SUM was paying double digits 7 years later makes it a much, much better deal than the CSB.   Unless the CSB has increasing revenue for the CSA as well, but both they and the CSA have hidden all the details on it, so who knows.

10x larger market size factor supercedes inflation adjustments while exchange rate adjusting isn't as relevant since these deals are based on the potential of respective domestic markets.

So, it's more pertinent to wonder why SUM's payout was that low in the early years of the deal given SUM had a couple more levers to pull than CSB with only about 4 more MLS teams to support than CPL today. Yes, MLS was in so-so position back then but still in a better position than the CPL today.

 

[ted]

1 hour ago, red card said:

MLS was in so-so position back then but still in a better position than the CPL today.

Not sure when you are speaking of? MLS started in 1996 and nearly went bust in the early years including losing two teams. SUM was the only thing that kept the project viable and even then only because Kraft & Anshutz were willing to throw a lot of money at the league.

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, red card said:

10x larger market size factor supercedes inflation adjustments while exchange rate adjusting isn't as relevant since these deals are based on the potential of respective domestic markets.

So, it's more pertinent to wonder why SUM's payout was that low in the early years of the deal given SUM had a couple more levers to pull than CSB with only about 4 more MLS teams to support than CPL today. Yes, MLS was in so-so position back then but still in a better position than the CPL today.

 

I mean, sure.  The potential market is a factor.  That's in part why the SUM payments jumped so quickly, it was undervalued to start.  Conversely, we've frequently talked about how CSB was built on the "potential" post-2026, and it just happened to maybe payoff a bit early while remaining a relatively flat payment.  I just think your comparable between payments by SUM in 2006 and CSB in 2019 is flawed.

[Ansem]

 

 

[red card]

Scott Mitchell showed up on Footy Prime ahead of CPL Final but also discussed CSB. Starts around 36 mins.

CPL: 20% growth in ticket revenue. ATO up 350k in local sponsors; all clubs up in local sponsors ex 1. Capacity for CPL final is 12.5k.

3 clubs had Bobby Smyrniotis as finalists in their manager search. But both Tommy & Bobby are in very good situations that will require a good deal to make them move.

Took Forge out of the shadow of the Ticats this year and ran it as a stand alone ops. Spending 82k to send Forge to Calgary for 1v2 match is a hurdle to add playoff matches. Need to get to 32-36 match season. Every team needs to find what matchday experience will work them. Concacaf likes Spruce Meadows set up. Work to do with York & Valour experiences.

CSB: Don’t make $6-8 million net in sponsorships. There is cost in activating and supporting sponsors. Need to clean up certain things and do a better job to make more money. Average CSB investor has put in $10-15 million minimum. Total investment is $100m+ and created 500 full time jobs.

What he has learned about soccer in Canada is that everybody fights all the time. 99% of the reason CSB is brought up is due to the labour dispute. Deal offered to men & women players by Canada Soccer is globally competitive and better than some of the bigger European Feds. 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

17 minutes ago, red card said:

...all clubs up in local sponsors ex 1. Capacity for CPL final is 12.5k...

Guess Greenpark Homes would have counted as a local sponsor for York United before the Baldassarras walked away, and the second bit means only the lower bowl and mezzanine because it would have been cost prohibitive to open the higher bowl for some reason.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot