Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[prairiecanuck]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Think people need to try to look at this from the vantage point of the CWNT. Women's soccer was treated as an afterthought when the CSB deal was signed because Colin Linford's mentality still very much held sway even if officeholders were smart enough to never be overt about it again after what happened to him. A domestic men's D1 pro league that could displace MLS in a Canadian context was the obsession of many influential people inside the CSA bubble, so the interests of women's soccer were sacrificed at that altar and CSA revenue driven by both national programs was deliberately siphoned off to prop up CanPL for up to twenty years. Why would the CWNT want that to be the status quo out to 2037? Of course, they want to tear it down and start afresh in a more equitable manner.

What revenue was siphoned off to prop up the CanPL.  The financials are public.  Come at me with actual numbers and facts, not platitudes.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

 

Except the CSB had indicated they had no intention of starting a women's league at this time, that their investment and concentration was on the CPL. Which is fine! It's an enormous undertaking and a risky venture, and I don't begrudge them not wanting to do that. But that doesn't give them the right to prevent others from taking a risk on a women's league. And I've always gotten the feeling that they thought they had a monopoly on it, and that  Project 8 put their noses out of joint, that they were mad it was even allowed to happen or anyone would dare attempt it. 

I don't think Project 8 succeeds. I don't think a women's league succeeds with or without the CSB/CPL involvement. But I don't begrudge someone making the attempt the way CSB always seems to.

It is actually not the real sequence. From day one there was some talk about a women's league, which we understood would be a next step; then Covid hit. That stalled any natural development, which I appreciate some might feel was not sincere or real. So Matheson stepped in, rightly perhaps, but in the context of a certain exagerated animosity as well, so I take your argument to be somewhat valid. Better to step up and not wait, fine. But in such a controversial and thus counterproductive way?

Still, it is not correct to say there was no interest from the CPL clubs in women's football. Some with venues with available dates to fill were interested, others with specific experience, like At Ottawa, expressed interest from day one. 

A further demonstration: CSB now owns League One, and the League One model has created the top level of women's competitive football in Canada. Not only that, in some places like BC, you cannot join men's without women's, or vice versa. L1 BC is men and women alongside each other, playing an equal schedule, equal reffing, side by side. How can you argue that CSB are fundamentally antagonistic in those circumstances. 

Then there was Labbé at Whitecaps, whose job was to promote women's soccer for them, ranting about the CSB when she seemed unaware that the highest Whitecaps women's team was the L1 team in a structure set up partially by L1 Canada under the auspices of the CSB. Just laughable.

19 women's teams in L1Ontario, 8 in BC, new ones in Alberta, I forget how many in Québec. A few hundred women playing this highest level of amateur in Canada and Matheson and the CWNT snubbing them, it is really so hypocritical.

Edited February 22 by Unnamed Trialist

[shermanator]

People may not realize that Calgary Foothills, who spearheaded Cavalry FC alongside Spruce Meadows, have been trying to get a women's domestic league going for years. Let's go back to 2021:

Quote

“A lot of this, unfortunately, comes down to the business of soccer, as opposed to the on-field product of soccer,” Hay explained. “So start with a pro-am league, but within two to three years, look to bring in sponsorship behind women’s soccer. I think there would be corporate dollars that could be brought in that could allow the league to flourish into a professional league.”

2.5 years later nothing has actually materialized higher than the League1 level, but given that Calgary Foothills were one of the two clubs announced to be included in Project 8 I would imagine they are heavily involved in getting this thing off the ground.

Source https://globalnews.ca/news/8122537/canadian-womens-soccer-league-calgary-push/

[Aird25]

47 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It is actually not the real sequence. From day one there was some talk about a women's league, which we understood would be a next step; then Covid hit. That stalled any natural development, which I appreciate some might feel was not sincere or real. So Matheson stepped in, rightly perhaps, but in the context of a certain exagerated animosity as well, so I take your argument to be somewhat valid. Better to step up and not wait, fine. But in such a controversial and thus counterproductive way?

Still, it is not correct to say there was no interest from the CPL clubs in women's football. Some with venues with available dates to fill were interested, others with specific experience, like At Ottawa, expressed interest from day one. 

A further demonstration: CSB now owns League One, and the League One model has created the top level of women's competitive football in Canada. Not only that, in some places like BC, you cannot join men's without women's, or vice versa. L1 BC is men and women alongside each other, playing an equal schedule, equal reffing, side by side. How can you argue that CSB are fundamentally antagonistic in those circumstances. 

Then there was Labbé at Whitecaps, whose job was to promote women's soccer for them, ranting about the CSB when she seemed unaware that the highest Whitecaps women's team was the L1 team in a structure set up partially by L1 Canada under the auspices of the CSB. Just laughable.

19 women's teams in L1Ontario, 8 in BC, new ones in Alberta, I forget how many in Québec. A few hundred women playing this highest level of amateur in Canada and Matheson and the CWNT snubbing them, it is really so hypocritical.

Plus one of the three announced Project 8 teams is Calgary Foothills, coached by Jay Wheeldon.

^Oops didn't read the last post which is better explained than my post

Edited February 22 by Aird25

[SpursFlu]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Thank you!!!!

You can add to the list 

Substantially grew the game/popularity in canada. 

getting league 1's across canada

substantially grew sponsorship revenue about 3-4x, in 4ish years

Most of these accomplishments also have been impacted by covid.  



We get it! The CSA is evil. I just wish the people who are critical would be specific over the issues instead of saying, "lack of transparency". What is it that the critics want to see improve and how can we improve it. 

This is so true. It's maddening to me to see reality completely hijacked by an orchestrated narrative. Things have never been better in this country but it feels like I'm in a movie theatre watching an amazing movie. I've got my popcorn, my nibs  the phones turned off but there is a super annoying person behind me talking and kicking my chair. Maybe a crying baby is a better analogy. This is all so annoying 

Edited February 22 by SpursFlu

[Kent]

Who here can dig up how many games current and former CMNT players have played in CPL in CPLs history and bring it up every time someone says CPL has no relevance to the national team. Guys like MacNaughton but also guys like Bekker, Issey, Haber, Balou, etc.

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Still, it is not correct to say there was no interest from the CPL clubs in women's football. Some with venues with available dates to fill were interested, others with specific experience, like At Ottawa, expressed interest from day one. 

No, I think CSB may have been interested in a women's league, they just wanted to do it on their own timeline. That didn't suit the women, which is fine. They've struck out on their own and we'll see where it goes. And I'm sure some CPL owners wouldn't mind being part of Project 8, but I also suspect the CSB mindset is "we do it ourselves or we don't participate". Which is also fine.

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

A further demonstration: CSB now owns League One, and the League One model has created the top level of women's competitive football in Canada. Not only that, in some places like BC, you cannot join men's without women's, or vice versa. L1 BC is men and women alongside each other, playing an equal schedule, equal reffing, side by side. How can you argue that CSB are fundamentally antagonistic in those circumstances. 

Then there was Labbé at Whitecaps, whose job was to promote women's soccer for them, ranting about the CSB when she seemed unaware that the highest Whitecaps women's team was the L1 team in a structure set up partially by L1 Canada under the auspices of the CSB. Just laughable.

CSB owns the L1s, but they didn't set any of them up. I don't think they deserve credit for there being men's and women's leagues there.

[Colonel Green]

4 hours ago, Bigandy said:

substantially grew sponsorship revenue about 3-4x, in 4ish years

I mean, one of the biggest arguments against the CSA is that substantially growing sponsorship revenue is meaningless now because they don't actually get any benefit from it.

As far as this broader issue goes, to me we're almost in a no-win scenario at this point. Unless there's some additional information that the women have, I don't really see that this lawsuit has any chance of accomplishing anything. But at the same time, the CSB deal as it presently exists is a financial straitjacket that basically forecloses any chance of meaningfully improving the national teams for its duration.

[Aird25]

13 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

I mean, one of the biggest arguments against the CSA is that substantially growing sponsorship revenue is meaningless now because they don't actually get any benefit from it.

As far as this broader issue goes, to me we're almost in a no-win scenario at this point. Unless there's some additional information that the women have, I don't really see that this lawsuit has any chance of accomplishing anything. But at the same time, the CSB deal as it presently exists is a financial straitjacket that basically forecloses any chance of meaningfully improving the national teams for its duration.

Does anyone think, given everything going on, anyone involved in Canadian soccer is set to make money in this fiscal by means other than litigation?

[CanSoccfan11]

31 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

I mean, one of the biggest arguments against the CSA is that substantially growing sponsorship revenue is meaningless now because they don't actually get any benefit from it.

As far as this broader issue goes, to me we're almost in a no-win scenario at this point. Unless there's some additional information that the women have, I don't really see that this lawsuit has any chance of accomplishing anything. But at the same time, the CSB deal as it presently exists is a financial straitjacket that basically forecloses any chance of meaningfully improving the national teams for its duration.

They benefit from 3 to 4 million that they didn't have before and offloaded the risk of growing sponsorship to CSB.  

There seems to be some notion out there that there are better deals to be had then the CSB one or that the CSA could secure lucrative sponsorship deals itself.  Given its efforts in terms of that endeavor prior to the CSB deal I'd peg it as incredibly unlikely they'd be able to garner a consistent $3 to $4 million on their own.  Sure I'd concede that in years where the men qualify for the world cup they may secure well in excess of the annual amount given by the CSB but that is once every 4 years and outside of 2026 there was/is no guarantee the men will be a regular participant in that tournament.  I'd wager since that tournament sponsorship revenue for our national teams have plummeted.  

There is something to be said for stability and predictability in terms of a revenue source.  I'd probably take that over a non guaranteed spike every 4 years followed by periods of lower revenue amounts.

[Colonel Green]

33 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

They benefit from 3 to 4 million that they didn't have before and offloaded the risk of growing sponsorship to CSB.  

I didn't say the deal didn't increase revenue, or even that you couldn't see why the prospect was attractive at the time the deal was signed. That doesn't change that the deal's revenues are simply not adequate to fund the national teams, and will only get progressively more inadequate with the passage of time.

That's partly why it's such a no-win, because whatever it does, it also essentially forecloses any possibility of working to substantially improve national team revenues for the foreseeable future. For people like the players who want to see the program grow, that's not exactly an appealing situation.

33 minutes ago, CanSoccfan11 said:

Given its efforts in terms of that endeavor prior to the CSB deal I'd peg it as incredibly unlikely they'd be able to garner a consistent $3 to $4 million on their own. 

I might agree, but that's essentially just an admission that the CSA is bad at its job, which again, hardly something the players are going to excuse them for. They want the CSA to instead be good at its job.

[costarg]

5 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Great point! The CSA certainly needs to find solutions for more camps. That doesnt mean that all of CSA is incompetent in all areas though. 

I never said all of CSA is incompetent.  However every single person on that board that stamped and was ok with the CSB deal is not of sound mind.  Regardless of all the passes we choose to give them regarding "we needed our own league", we have a league and it's MLS.  What we didn't need is to hand over 20 years of revenue and control.  That is insane, not bad judgement.  

5 hours ago, Bigandy said:

And in fairness to CSA why would we hold camps right now? A camp poutine would be a bit of a waste with players in offseason. We have only missed one official international window with no games (i think). That was during a horrible time for CSA. 

You wanna know another company that's gone through worse shit than CSA this year?  One example is Unity Technologies.  Anyone that knows them or reads even a little of Tech articles would have heard of them and their multiple blunders this past year.  The company is literally in a pile of shit at the moment, employees are depressed, 3 rounds of layoffs in under 12 months, CEO fired, departments and products being axed, etc... and you know what?  Everyone is still showing up at the office every single day.  They don't stop working, developing or showing up.  How the hell is it ok for Canada to not have camps because "its a horrible time for CSA".  That's ridiculous.  

5 hours ago, Bigandy said:

We also dont have a coach so theres less value of holding a camp now vs when we have a clear path forward (since its finite resources). 

We have an interim coach with no path to success because there are no camps or friendlies.  Every decision is just another step back and excuse.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

7 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

I mean, one of the biggest arguments against the CSA is that substantially growing sponsorship revenue is meaningless now because they don't actually get any benefit from it...

...and that's spectacularly irresponsible/negligent of them in the context of the 2026 co-hosting where the interests of stakeholders other than CanPL are concerned. The CSA board was supposed to be representing their interests as well back in 2018. That forms the basis of the legal action.

[SF]

12 hours ago, prairiecanuck said:

What revenue was siphoned off to prop up the CanPL.  The financials are public.  Come at me with actual numbers and facts, not platitudes.

The forgone revenue from the rights to the men’s and women’s national teams (the amount is not included in the financial statements because it is an opportunity cost). There is also a $1 million annual payment from the CSA to the CPL (this is included in the audited financial statements). 

Both of which are revenues that would otherwise be owned by the CSA for use across all its programs that are being sent to the CSB/CPL. 

This is not complicated and certainly not a platitude. 

[prairiecanuck]

1 hour ago, SF said:

The forgone revenue from the rights to the men’s and women’s national teams (the amount is not included in the financial statements because it is an opportunity cost). There is also a $1 million annual payment from the CSA to the CPL (this is included in the audited financial statements). 

Both of which are revenues that would otherwise be owned by the CSA for use across all its programs that are being sent to the CSB/CPL. 

This is not complicated and certainly not a platitude. 

The sponsorship revenue is very evident in the years preceding the deal.  The sponsorship revenue the year prior to CSB deal was roughly a million dollars.  Canada soccer received no money from TV.  They spent a million dollars to get their games on TV.  So the guarantee at the time of the deal was more than 3 times what they were receiving and reduced their expenses by a million dollars.  A million dollars flowing to CSB would suggest that amount hasn't changed much.

People think the CSA is losing out on 10's of millions of sponsorship dollars.  They aren't.  First of all it peaks in World cup years, but even then the dollars aren't flowing to the organization.  Sponsorship and endorsement dollars are flowing directly to players.  It's alphonso Davies, Christine Sinclair who are getting the endorsement deals. Canada is a hockey culture and the world juniors were getting roughly 2 mil a year before that was cut drastically due to the controversies associated with the team.

The article I'm linking below indicates a deal for 10 years with an extension of 5.  I'm not sure if the broadcast rights were 10 and 10 and perhaps sponsorship revenue was 10 and 5 or there is a mistake in the article.

The bulk of Canada soccer's revenue comes from 3 sources.  Government grants, ticket prices and fees collected for getting to international tournaments.  Canada soccer still receives merchandising revenue.  There just isn't a huge appetite from Canadians to buy Jersey's because there isn't a soccer culture.  I bought my jersey from the Canada soccer store.  The CSB deal hasn't changed where the bulk of the revenue is received.

People think the CSB are a bunch of nefarious business people stealing money from the CSA.  The CSA entered this deal in 2018 offloading the sponsorship revenue to a bunch of high powered business people.  The CSA were not good at attracting this type of revenue.  These business people with their connections could very well increase these revenues, but they are revenues that the CSA wouldn't have had otherwise.  The success of the program obviously has some bearing too so while the CSA without this deal, would have made gains as well it isn't at the level people dream it to be.  As I mentioned, money flows directly to the best players in the form of endorsements.  The CSB takes all this revenue and puts it into the CPL.  The CPL is a league designed to grow the soccer culture in Canada.

The article indicates the CSB post agreement is bending over backwards to help.  They offered the use of a facility to the CSA rent free.  Bob Young is part of the CSA.  Dude's nickname is honest Bob.  He's lost plenty of money in professional sports franchises in Canada in given years over time.  There's probably a standing offer for the CSA to use Tim Horton's field rent free.  You think the MLSE is saying to the CSA,"Yeah don't worry about the 400K fee to use BMO field for your friendly.  We'll just give you the facility for free."

The CPL isn't a league that is destined to make money over it's first decade.  It may never make money, or the culture and game in Canada may grow over the next 15 to 20 years where it is a viable entity.  No CSB partner has taken a single dime from the revenue coming from the CSA and put it in their pocket.  It's all been re-invested in CPL in attempt to grow the game in the country.

If you want to have a debate about the CPL and suggest it's a worthless endeavor that isn't changing the landscape and isn't growing the culture in our country that's fine.  We can debate that.  You might be right..lol  We need to understand the genesis and how the deal came about and what the goals and objectives of the deal were holistically so we can actually have a reasonable discussion of whether or not the CSA was negligent in their duties.

 https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/article/canada-soccer-business-says-it-has-been-misunderstood-offers-to-help-national-team/

Edited February 23 by prairiecanuck

[Copes]

21 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

The sponsorship revenue is very evident in the years preceding the deal.  The sponsorship revenue the year prior to CSB deal was roughly a million dollars.  Canada soccer received no money from TV.  They spent a million dollars to get their games on TV.  So the guarantee at the time of the deal was more than 3 times what they were receiving and reduced their expenses by a million dollars.  A million dollars flowing to CSB would suggest that amount hasn't changed much.

People think the CSA is losing out on 10's of millions of sponsorship dollars.  They aren't.  First of all it peaks in World cup years, but even then the dollars aren't flowing to the organization.  Sponsorship and endorsement dollars are flowing directly to players.  It's alphonso Davies, Christine Sinclair who are getting the endorsement deals. Canada is a hockey culture and the world juniors were getting roughly 2 mil a year before that was cut drastically due to the controversies associated with the team.

The article I'm linking below indicates a deal for 10 years with an extension of 5.  I'm not sure if the broadcast rights were 10 and 10 and perhaps sponsorship revenue was 10 and 5 or there a mistake in the article.

The bulk of Canada soccer's revenue comes from 3 sources.  Government grants, ticket prices and fees collected for getting to international tournaments.  Canada soccer still receives merchandising revenue.  There just isn't a huge appetite from Canadians to buy Jersey's because there isn't a soccer culture.  I bought my jersey from the Canada soccer store.  The CSB deal hasn't changed where the bulk of the revenue is received.

People think the CSB are a bunch of nefarious business people stealing money from the CSA.  The CSA entered this deal in 2018 offloading the sponsorship revenue to a bunch of high powered business people.  The CSA were not good at attracting this type of revenue.  These business people with their connections could very well increase these revenues, but they are revenues that the CSA wouldn't have had otherwise.  The success of the program obviously has some bearing too so while the CSA without this deal, would have made gains as well it isn't at the level people dream it to be.  As I mentioned, money flows directly to the best players in the form of endorsements.  The CSB takes all this revenue and puts it into the CPL.  The CPL is a league designed to grow the soccer culture in Canada.

The article indicates the CSB post agreement is bending over backwards to help.  They offered the use of a facility to the CSA rent free.  Bob Young is part of the CSA.  Dude's nickname is honest Bob.  He's lost plenty of money in professional sports franchises in Canada in given years over time.  There's probably a standing offer for the CSA to use Tim Horton's field rent free.  You think the MLSE is saying to the CSA,"Yeah don't worry about the 400K fee to use BMO field for your friendly.  We'll just give you the facility for free."

The CPL isn't a league that is destined to make money over it's first decade.  It may never make money, or the culture and game in Canada may grow over the next 15 to 20 years where it is a viable entity.  No CSB partner has taken a single dime from the revenue coming from the CSA and put it in their pocket.  It's all been re-invested in CPL in attempt to grow the game in the country.

If you want to have a debate about the CPL and suggest it's a worthless endeavor that isn't changing the landscape and isn't growing the culture in our country that's fine.  We can debate that.  You might be right..lol  We need to understand the genesis and how the deal came about and what the goals and objectives of the deal were holistically so we can actually have a reasonable discussion of whether or not the CSA was negligent in their duties.

 https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/article/canada-soccer-business-says-it-has-been-misunderstood-offers-to-help-national-team/

This is such a great post. Very well said my friend. 

I laugh at the CSB bemoaners, including the players. I've honestly never been on the player's side about this and they are losing me more and more. 

The reason this lawsuit is nonsense is that unless there is a significant amount of behind the scenes shady shit (and I would bet a lot of money there is not) then it is very hard to prove the board did not honor their fudiciary duties. Look at this for a second. 

2018 the CSA has an aspect of the organization that is not making money and they are struggling to gain inroads in. An organization comes along and effectively proposes "Hey, we think we can do this profitably. Let us pay you and we will take the risk. If we succeed, we benefit." The board realizes they can have some revenue stability and offload something I'm sure is a hassle - and if it works they will likely also increase the quality of the product for Canadians. Rejecting that arrangement would be a bigger failing in their duties than accepting it. And the notion that there were other entities with better proposals waiting in the wings? Come on now. Anyone watching in 2018 would safely bet that wasn't the case.

Could the contract have been better? Sure, but hindsight is 20/20. Canada making the World Cup was far from a guarantee back then. And because this happened we've gained a domestic league and won a World Cup bid. Again... CSA succeeding.

Edited February 23 by Copes

[ag futbol]

In the testimony in front of parliament regarding the CSB deal, it seemed incredibly clear to me the organization was (at best) flawed in its analysis. From a business perspective, there are a ton of red flags. The one I would point to the most, is the staff member who worked on the analysis seemingly gave no value to the future growth prospects of the rights they were selling. They looked backwards at history for justification, giving no value to a potential world cup hosting, exponential improvements in the player pool, and rapidly rising popularity of the sport in general. All of these are factors that would have materially boosted the price. 

My perception of the testimony from the others in leadership who showed up in parliament, is they wanted to avoid talking about this issue and otherwise point to the guy in the corner who crunched the numbers. Well, sorry to say it, but if you’re in leadership and you sign a contract that is this transformative, you need to understand the issue inside and out, not just point to the guy in the corner.

And generally, any organization I know that’s worth its salt, that is looking at signing a contract this long and this impactful, would certainly retain outside advisors to verify they are thinking about it properly. Otherwise, you risk crippling the organization. 

Sitting where we are today, in an environment where the CSA can’t afford to do the basic things a normal, functional federation does (like keep its national teams active) it would appear to me this contract is a bust. Even if the CPL produced a team of world class players, we’d have no way to keep the team on the field often enough to reach the team's full potential. 

It's mystifying to me that anyone wants to argue for this contract. The best thing you can say about it is: maybe it was an okay idea, but clearly at the wrong price. 

[El Hombre]

46 minutes ago, ag futbol said:

Sitting where we are today, in an environment where the CSA can’t afford to do the basic things a normal, functional federation does (like keep its national teams active) it would appear to me this contract is a bust. Even if the CPL produced a team of world class players, we’d have no way to keep the team on the field often enough to reach the team's full potential. 

I would argue that the CSA wasn't able to do this prior to the CSB contract either.  Our one saving grace has been that the gold cup is every two years, otherwise our men's team would not have got together much between 2002 and 2018.  During those years we would rely on friendlies in Europe to fill the gaps but those are much harder to come by these days with the European schedule filled up with either WCQ, Euro qualifying or nation's league.

Add on the added expenses of travelling for our own expanded tournaments (nation's league, extended WCQ etc.), I would say expenses for the CSA have gone through the roof over the last 6 years and they were able to meet them all while also providing chartered flights and top class accommodations.  Other than Mexico or the US, which other CONCACAF countries charter flights for their teams?  Not to mention funding a domestic victory tour for our Olympic champions and just recently organizing a cross-Canada victory lap for one of the players that is currently suing them.

Would I like more camps?  Sure.  But to say that they aren't keeping their teams active, I would disagree and say that we're seeing much more (and the players are travelling much more comfortably as well) post-CSB as compared to pre-CSB.

[Bigandy]

13 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

I mean, one of the biggest arguments against the CSA is that substantially growing sponsorship revenue is meaningless now because they don't actually get any benefit from it.

As far as this broader issue goes, to me we're almost in a no-win scenario at this point. Unless there's some additional information that the women have, I don't really see that this lawsuit has any chance of accomplishing anything. But at the same time, the CSB deal as it presently exists is a financial straitjacket that basically forecloses any chance of meaningfully improving the national teams for its duration.

This is a bit of a red herring. The CSA for the past 6ish years have benefitted from increased profit of 3-5 million if you include the broadcasting fee.  The argument that the CSA will not benefit further is theoretically true with one condition. That revenue generated is substantially bigger than the profit of 3-5 million. In a world cup year, the CSB generated 8.2 million in REVENUE for both the CMNT/CWNT AND CPL. Take out the CPL and add the costs to get the revenue and 3-5 million is not horrible. 

How much revenue would CSB need to generate in order for us to say the CSA's cut is so substantially low that our entire organization is being hindered from growing? 

Its this same sentiment that theres unlimited money going around but the only figure we have is a low sum. 

Edited February 23 by Bigandy

[Bigandy]

11 hours ago, costarg said:

I never said all of CSA is incompetent.  However every single person on that board that stamped and was ok with the CSB deal is not of sound mind.  Regardless of all the passes we choose to give them regarding "we needed our own league", we have a league and it's MLS.  What we didn't need is to hand over 20 years of revenue and control.  That is insane, not bad judgement.  

You wanna know another company that's gone through worse shit than CSA this year?  One example is Unity Technologies.  Anyone that knows them or reads even a little of Tech articles would have heard of them and their multiple blunders this past year.  The company is literally in a pile of shit at the moment, employees are depressed, 3 rounds of layoffs in under 12 months, CEO fired, departments and products being axed, etc... and you know what?  Everyone is still showing up at the office every single day.  They don't stop working, developing or showing up.  How the hell is it ok for Canada to not have camps because "its a horrible time for CSA".  That's ridiculous.  

We have an interim coach with no path to success because there are no camps or friendlies.  Every decision is just another step back and excuse.

The flip side that no one wants to hear is that the CSB is not generating large numbers in revenue. Sure, theres a great argument that 20 years is much too long. However, based on the 8.2 million in revenue (not profit) during a WC year for the combined CSA and CPL sponsorship, what is the amount that the CSA is being screwed on?  

How much is the number thats fair? 

[Bigandy]

3 hours ago, prairiecanuck said:

The sponsorship revenue is very evident in the years preceding the deal.  The sponsorship revenue the year prior to CSB deal was roughly a million dollars.  Canada soccer received no money from TV.  They spent a million dollars to get their games on TV.  So the guarantee at the time of the deal was more than 3 times what they were receiving and reduced their expenses by a million dollars.  A million dollars flowing to CSB would suggest that amount hasn't changed much.

People think the CSA is losing out on 10's of millions of sponsorship dollars.  They aren't.  First of all it peaks in World cup years, but even then the dollars aren't flowing to the organization.  Sponsorship and endorsement dollars are flowing directly to players.  It's alphonso Davies, Christine Sinclair who are getting the endorsement deals. Canada is a hockey culture and the world juniors were getting roughly 2 mil a year before that was cut drastically due to the controversies associated with the team.

The article I'm linking below indicates a deal for 10 years with an extension of 5.  I'm not sure if the broadcast rights were 10 and 10 and perhaps sponsorship revenue was 10 and 5 or there is a mistake in the article.

The bulk of Canada soccer's revenue comes from 3 sources.  Government grants, ticket prices and fees collected for getting to international tournaments.  Canada soccer still receives merchandising revenue.  There just isn't a huge appetite from Canadians to buy Jersey's because there isn't a soccer culture.  I bought my jersey from the Canada soccer store.  The CSB deal hasn't changed where the bulk of the revenue is received.

People think the CSB are a bunch of nefarious business people stealing money from the CSA.  The CSA entered this deal in 2018 offloading the sponsorship revenue to a bunch of high powered business people.  The CSA were not good at attracting this type of revenue.  These business people with their connections could very well increase these revenues, but they are revenues that the CSA wouldn't have had otherwise.  The success of the program obviously has some bearing too so while the CSA without this deal, would have made gains as well it isn't at the level people dream it to be.  As I mentioned, money flows directly to the best players in the form of endorsements.  The CSB takes all this revenue and puts it into the CPL.  The CPL is a league designed to grow the soccer culture in Canada.

The article indicates the CSB post agreement is bending over backwards to help.  They offered the use of a facility to the CSA rent free.  Bob Young is part of the CSA.  Dude's nickname is honest Bob.  He's lost plenty of money in professional sports franchises in Canada in given years over time.  There's probably a standing offer for the CSA to use Tim Horton's field rent free.  You think the MLSE is saying to the CSA,"Yeah don't worry about the 400K fee to use BMO field for your friendly.  We'll just give you the facility for free."

The CPL isn't a league that is destined to make money over it's first decade.  It may never make money, or the culture and game in Canada may grow over the next 15 to 20 years where it is a viable entity.  No CSB partner has taken a single dime from the revenue coming from the CSA and put it in their pocket.  It's all been re-invested in CPL in attempt to grow the game in the country.

If you want to have a debate about the CPL and suggest it's a worthless endeavor that isn't changing the landscape and isn't growing the culture in our country that's fine.  We can debate that.  You might be right..lol  We need to understand the genesis and how the deal came about and what the goals and objectives of the deal were holistically so we can actually have a reasonable discussion of whether or not the CSA was negligent in their duties.

 https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/article/canada-soccer-business-says-it-has-been-misunderstood-offers-to-help-national-team/

Fantastic post!

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

20 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

...How much is the number thats fair? 

What you are overlooking is that the protests made by the CMNT and CWNT players put a significant dent into what could have been generated by the CSA under its own steam during a World Cup year.

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

What you are overlooking is that the protests made by the CMNT and CWNT players put a significant dent into what could have been generated by the CSA under its own steam during a World Cup year.

How so? Im not disagreeing but the protests costs the CSA money from a revenue stream that is unrelated to sponsorships. 

I assume you mean that the protests scared off new investors. This is probably true to some extent. However, many of the sponsorships were already in place so are unaffected. Then we also saw some sponsorships that were geared specifically towards the women which likely wouldnt have happened/been structured this way if not for the protest. So although I agree that protests hurt sponsorships, there was a small increase as well.


However, the biggest issue with your statement is to say "the CSB deal is bad because the players protested it". Its a bit of a nonsensical argument. We cannot prove that statement true or false or the extent of it. What number is "significant dent".... no one knows. However, we can say that in a world cup year CSB had 8.2m in revenue. The year prior was said to be quite a bit less. If its quite a bit less, then i would argue that demand for Sponsorships is low regardless of the protests and to make an argument that "if the players didnt protest, we would be rich" is incorrect.  

I do agree with the sentiment that these protests are nasty for CSA though and as I think @dyslexic nam said, Salts the ground 

[ag futbol]

2 hours ago, El Hombre said:

I would argue that the CSA wasn't able to do this prior to the CSB contract either.  Our one saving grace has been that the gold cup is every two years, otherwise our men's team would not have got together much between 2002 and 2018.  During those years we would rely on friendlies in Europe to fill the gaps but those are much harder to come by these days with the European schedule filled up with either WCQ, Euro qualifying or nation's league.

Add on the added expenses of travelling for our own expanded tournaments (nation's league, extended WCQ etc.), I would say expenses for the CSA have gone through the roof over the last 6 years and they were able to meet them all while also providing chartered flights and top class accommodations.  Other than Mexico or the US, which other CONCACAF countries charter flights for their teams?  Not to mention funding a domestic victory tour for our Olympic champions and just recently organizing a cross-Canada victory lap for one of the players that is currently suing them.

Would I like more camps?  Sure.  But to say that they aren't keeping their teams active, I would disagree and say that we're seeing much more (and the players are travelling much more comfortably as well) post-CSB as compared to pre-CSB.

Yeah I agree, our financial issues (and ability to fund programs or have friendlies) didn’t start with the CSB contract. It’s a long standing problem for the organization.  And in no way do I want to trivialize that because it’s always been a thorn in our side. 

But I respectfully disagree on some of your other points. This organization should be setting its sights on how it builds towards having the resources / program depth of other top nations (top 30 nations, to be fair).  Looking towards the non-U.S. / Mexico nations of CONCACAF is not giving us the example of how to get there. They have societal issues and other constrains Canada as a country does not have. Their sometimes qualification / sometimes stumbles really reflects the broader circumstances they have to deal with. 

We need to be working towards establishing a program that we can be confident qualifies in every cycle and then aspirationally improves from there. We need to look towards nations that are currently hitting those kind of targets as examples. 

Personally, as a general example, would look towards the number of games we’re playing on the men’s side vs. other ongoing WC qualifying nations. Think it would very much shake out that we’re on the light side.

[costarg]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

The flip side that no one wants to hear is that the CSB is not generating large numbers in revenue. Sure, theres a great argument that 20 years is much too long. However, based on the 8.2 million in revenue (not profit) during a WC year for the combined CSA and CPL sponsorship, what is the amount that the CSA is being screwed on?  

How much is the number thats fair? 

That's a good point.  I didn't expect CSB to be particularly successful with their venture either.  I don't think I'm explaining myself all that well, juggling this really deep subject with quick posts while working isn't ideal.  Chatting over a beer would be so much more fun and productive.

I'm not saying CSB is competent and intelligent in all this either, and I'm also not siding with CANWNT in this.  I'm just astonished at the complete failure to read the room by all parties as well as the incompetence across the board.  It's a complete shit show from all sides.  My main point and feeling is the board needs to go, fresh start is the only way forward for CSA.  It's toxic and dysfunctional.  I don't feel the intended end-game for this law suit is to "win" $40m.  It's to expose the crap, end the entitlement and not put up with the status quo anymore.  I do feel there is more to this than we know, nothing to do with conspiracy theories.  Having worked in contracts with partners, vendors, clients, etc for years, this is just to ridiculous to claim it was just bad judgement.

Canada is a small minor league market for anything that is not hockey.  Outside of our major market/city, events are probably the second most popular thing nation wide (stampede, F1, tennis, etc...).  We're even minor league at skiing now, how in the hell does that happen for a northern country with plenty of snow and mountains?  If I'm being honest, I feel MLS is the greatest thing to happen to Canada Soccer.  More than the CANMWNTs success, CANMNT and CPL, all of it.

Although I love what CPL is offering and producing, I don't feel the current model was the best path forward.  I don't believe a Canadian women's league will ever be self-sufficient and successful long term.  MLS and an MLS feeder league was the way forward.  Canada is too small and the markets to far apart to succeed at this without our southern neighbor.

CSA - with proper and good management - could have done this.  Outsourcing it all was just them knowing they were in over their heads.  They had the wrong people in place with no vision or belief in Canada, soccer or themselves.