Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[SF]

2 hours ago, red card said:

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. 

 

Thanks for posting this - good listen on the CSB piece.

I actually don't disagree with much of what was said in defense of the CSB - this group has made a material investment in the infrastructure of soccer in Canada and this is a good thing.

The issue, which was not plainly discussed, is how this came about and that the CSA is providing a material subsidy to the CSB (and, ergo, the men's professional league).

This subsidy is at the expense of ANYTHING else the CSA might undertake - paying national team players, national development programs, subsidizing a women's league, etc. That any of these constituencies feel underserved makes rather good sense.

Also found Scott Mitchell to be somewhat condescending toward Amy Walsh. Maybe I misread that, but he didn't enthusiastically embrace her perspective, best I could tell.

[Bigandy]

57 minutes ago, SF said:

Thanks for posting this - good listen on the CSB piece.

I actually don't disagree with much of what was said in defense of the CSB - this group has made a material investment in the infrastructure of soccer in Canada and this is a good thing.

The issue, which was not plainly discussed, is how this came about and that the CSA is providing a material subsidy to the CSB (and, ergo, the men's professional league).

This subsidy is at the expense of ANYTHING else the CSA might undertake - paying national team players, national development programs, subsidizing a women's league, etc. That any of these constituencies feel underserved makes rather good sense.

Also found Scott Mitchell to be somewhat condescending toward Amy Walsh. Maybe I misread that, but he didn't enthusiastically embrace her perspective, best I could tell.

How insulting to call a business transaction a subsidy. The CSA does not give the CSB a subsidy anymore than 2 other corporations that conduct business. The CSB provides a service and the CSA pays them for it. The podcast talks about what CSB nets which should provide some clarity on the fact that CSA sponsorship isnt as lucrative as people think.  

PreCSB we paid 1 million for broadcasting and got sub 1million in sponsorship.
Post CSB we net 4 mil and reduce the 1 mil broadcasting cost.....
Based on the above, any of the constituencies should feel thankful that theres more money in the pot to pay them......

Im obviously being facetious, but all the anti CSB claims are all emotional based arguments on this fallacy that the CSB provides zero value and the CSA could equally capitilaze on the "huuuge" revenue generating potential.  No anti csb claims ever use the actual numbers to back up the claims or acknowledge that the CSA would never in a million years be able to attract sponsorship like CSB has the resources to. 
 

[SF]

I think the audited financial statements of the CSA are quite clear that it pays a $1 million direct annual fee to the CSB. It's right there in the footnotes. 

I suppose we can debate whether the trading of broadcast and sponsor rights for a fixed fee is a fairly priced market transaction or a de facto subsidy. 

But, let me ask this - would the CPL have been launched absent the CSB deal? Would it still exist?  If the answer to either is "no", I think we're pretty clearly talking about a subsidy.

I will add that the cost to the CSA for this transaction/subsidy is only going to get larger as Canada moves toward hosting a World Cup (which is one the points Amy Walsh was trying to make while being dismissed).

And - one more time - I don't blame the CSB. They took on a pile of risk and have made material investments in Canadian soccer.  Good and brave things.  What I take issue with is how they have been able to finance these investments and the incredible lack of transparency from the CSA.

 

[Aird25]

22 minutes ago, SF said:

would the CPL have been launched absent the CSB deal? Would it still exist? 

I don't see why not. It doesn't sound like any money they do receive from the CSB deal, even in a good year for the national teams, is covering very much of their expenditures. 

[SF]

28 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I don't see why not. It doesn't sound like any money they do receive from the CSB deal, even in a good year for the national teams, is covering very much of their expenditures. 

So the argument is that they are losing money and, therefore, are indifferent to losing more money? 

I don't know any of the CPL/CSB group, but they don't strike me as pure benefactors with an intolerance for perpetual losses (which is not a criticism, by the way).

[masster]

56 minutes ago, SF said:

And - one more time - I don't blame the CSB. They took on a pile of risk and have made material investments in Canadian soccer.  Good and brave things.  What I take issue with is how they have been able to finance these investments and the incredible lack of transparency from the CSA.

You said it yourself, if they are taking on the risk as part of the transaction, then by definition, it is not a subsidy. 

[SF]

33 minutes ago, masster said:

You said it yourself, if they are taking on the risk as part of the transaction, then by definition, it is not a subsidy. 

Well, I would say "by definition" it is a subsidized risk, no?

Lots - MOST - business people take risk without subsidies

[blueseeka]

Gotta admit, it has been nice to come to the forum and actually talking about players.

Here we go again, CSA, CSB and contract talk

[Aird25]

3 hours ago, SF said:

So the argument is that they are losing money and, therefore, are indifferent to losing more money? 

I don't know any of the CPL/CSB group, but they don't strike me as pure benefactors with an intolerance for perpetual losses (which is not a criticism, by the way).

I was just answering your question. What I gather though, is that CPL was created in an environment where the national teams were not bringing in a lot of sponsorship money and there were not very good prospects of that changing at this point in the league's history. So why would anyone assume that the league wouldn't exist now if not for unexpected returns from the deal with CSA?

[Shway]

2 hours ago, blueseeka said:

Gotta admit, it has been nice to come to the forum and actually talking about players.

Here we go again, CSA, CSB and contract talk

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cy7P_S0sLr3/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cy7TbEUMXxC/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Well here's CMNT players promoting the CPL final. Which could ease tensions/dispel rumours.

[Kent]

For people that think the national teams are giant moneymakers, look up tickets for the Canada vs Jamaica game next month and see how many tickets are available, despite them not even opening the upper level of the stadium (or any section that doesn’t still contain a lot of blue dots, with the exception of the supporters tickets).

The women are probably doing better with their Sinclair send off friendlies at least. Did much better in Toronto for sure.

[narduch]

5 hours ago, Kent said:

 

The women are probably doing better with their Sinclair send off friendlies at least. Did much better in Toronto for sure.

Both the Halifax and Montreal games are sold out.

[SF]

6 hours ago, Kent said:

For people that think the national teams are giant moneymakers, look up tickets for the Canada vs Jamaica game next month and see how many tickets are available, despite them not even opening the upper level of the stadium (or any section that doesn’t still contain a lot of blue dots, with the exception of the supporters tickets).

The women are probably doing better with their Sinclair send off friendlies at least. Did much better in Toronto for sure.

I’ve noticed the same - the pricing for the women’s game was almost exactly the same and it sold out. The men’s game looks like it might have an awful crowd. Honest question - I wonder why?  Weather? Women’s game was an Olympic qualifier?  Did CSA promote the women’s game better? 
 

The men’s game is actually an important match on its own too  

 

[Wasp]

1 hour ago, SF said:

I’ve noticed the same - the pricing for the women’s game was almost exactly the same and it sold out. The men’s game looks like it might have an awful crowd. Honest question - I wonder why?  Weather? Women’s game was an Olympic qualifier?  Did CSA promote the women’s game better? 
 

The men’s game is actually an important match on its own too  

 

Their insistence on playing every home game at BMO, in my opinion, is one of the main factors in the weak ticket sales. Toronto has the Leafs and Raptors just starting up their seasons, and CANMT games have lost their "event" status since there have been so many there in the past 3-5 years. Why not have them play at Stade Saputo? Or BC Place? The former is the only other MLS-level grass field in the country, and the latter at least holds MLS matches on the regular and can expand into the upper decks if there is a lot of demand. I get the travel concerns with playing in Vancouver, but the fact that they have never played in Montreal at Stade Saputo is pretty inexcusable. International airport, closer to Europe than Toronto, and MLS-level grass field and training facilities. They really need to start playing games elsewhere than Toronto.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Wasp

[narduch]

1 minute ago, Wasp said:

, but the fact that they have never played in Montreal at Stade Saputo is pretty inexcusable.

I like to wipe the memory of Canada v Honduras in Montreal for WCQ out of my brain too.

[dyslexic nam]

14 hours ago, SF said:

I suppose we can debate whether the trading of broadcast and sponsor rights for a fixed fee is a fairly priced market transaction or a de facto subsidy. 

I am not sure how you are making this argument.  This is an exchange of good or services - not a one-way subsidy.   The CSA is getting something very tangible out of the transaction - they aren’t generously providing funds to some NGO.   Framing this sort of negotiated arrangement as anything other than a negotiated business deal seems pretty misleading.  

[Wasp]

13 minutes ago, narduch said:

I like to wipe the memory of Canada v Honduras in Montreal for WCQ out of my brain too.

That was 15 years ago. I should've been more specific and said "never played in Montreal this cycle".

[Kent]

I think you are right that playing every game that they can in Toronto does hurt attendance. It's still shocking to me how few tickets have been sold. The lower level is finally creeping up to about half sold, and that doesn't include sections 124, 125, and 126 which never went on sale. Are they reserved for Jamaican fans or something? Jamaica may not be a super sexy opponent, but they do have a lot of fans that typically show up in Toronto.

I guess Nations League still hasn't proven itself a draw, even now when it's also Copa America qualifying. So far the most attended home games for Canada in Nations League history are the 17,216 that showed up in Vancouver for the Curacao game, and the 2nd most was against USA in Toronto with 17,126 (which is pretty sad for that big an opponent).

[RS]

Is Stade Saputo functional in late November?

We’ve just heard rumours of the water at Saputo not being turned on until two days before CFMTL’s first game there so it wouldn’t surprise me if the club would turn down hosting a game there so late in the year.

Agreed they need to go there again but this one may have just been down to logistics (and cost).

[nolando]

32 minutes ago, Kent said:

I think you are right that playing every game that they can in Toronto does hurt attendance. It's still shocking to me how few tickets have been sold. The lower level is finally creeping up to about half sold, and that doesn't include sections 124, 125, and 126 which never went on sale. Are they reserved for Jamaican fans or something? Jamaica may not be a super sexy opponent, but they do have a lot of fans that typically show up in Toronto.

I guess Nations League still hasn't proven itself a draw, even now when it's also Copa America qualifying. So far the most attended home games for Canada in Nations League history are the 17,216 that showed up in Vancouver for the Curacao game, and the 2nd most was against USA in Toronto with 17,126 (which is pretty sad for that big an opponent).

It's ludicrous that Vancouver gets ignored as a venue choice for the men. We certainly have done everything we can do to prove we are a decent draw, even vs minnows. I'd argue that that the MNT owes us one (or two, even), but we've certainly earned a meaningful match on merit alone.

You could make a case that Victoria deserves a smaller friendly even, as they were slated to play in Langford only to be cancelled at the very start of the pandemic.

But there are no deafer ears in this country than Toronto-centric ones.

 

 

 

[Free kick]

Juegos Panamericanos 2023 (results-santiago2023.org)

Looks like we didn't send a team to the Pan Am games, usually its a u23 event.  .  We didn't send a Men's team nor a Women's team.    The Pan Am games is one of those very rare opportunities to play good competition (in a meaningful - non friendly event) that we so rarely get.   Should someone ask the CSB why?   Or who should be asked?  

Edited October 28, 2023 by Free kick

[narduch]

14 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Juegos Panamericanos 2023 (results-santiago2023.org)

Looks like we didn't send a team to the Pan Am games, usually its a u23 event.  .  We didn't send a Men's team nor a Women's team.    The Pan Am games is one of those very rare opportunities to play good competition (in a meaningful - non friendly event) that we so rarely get.   Should someone ask the CSB why?   Or who should be asked?  

I always enjoy when people bring up months old news.

There were 2 issues here.

1. We couldn't commit to the Pan Am games because if we didn't defeat Jamaica in September we would have had to play Gold Cup qualifiers in the October window.

2. The Pan Am games go beyond the FIFA window meaning you probably can't call in players still playing in professional leagues.

Honestly missing the Pan Am games isn't really that big a deal.

[Free kick]

Its a U23 tournament.  Nobody sends their first team to these events.    As for the FIFA window argument,  well how did the others manage? 

[narduch]

4 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Its a U23 tournament.  Nobody sends their first team to these events.    As for the FIFA window argument,  well how did the others manage? 

The Men's tournament is U22. 

The Women’s has no age restrictions. 

We don't have the depth like the Americans to send a B team to something like this. And there would probably be very little utility in doing something like that 

[Aird25]

Regardless, what does CSB have to do with it, and why is it being discussed in this thread, now?