Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[prairiecanuck]

4 minutes ago, ag futbol said:

Stepping back, the real questions are:

1. Are the terms of the contract fair?

2. Pointedly, is the length of the contract sensible?

3. Did the CSA have other alternatives? 
 

For question 1, it’s hard to say (because we only have the fuzziest of details).

Question 2, looks a tad dicey. 10 years might be fair, with the logical trade off being get up front revenue now and benefit of the World Cup boom later. The rumoured extension to 20 years however, sounds horrific.

Question 3… again, tough to tell. 

We have no idea what that option looks like.  It could be at the same terms or at market value, a right of first refusal type thing.  It could be a mutual option the CSA can opt out of.  We have no idea.  That's where transparency comes in.

[prairiecanuck]

Based on my estimation of fair value based on the number of viewers of the Canadian men's team in it's current format a major broadcaster might pay roughly 500K per game on a longer term deal.   Not every year is a world cup year.  Nations league, friendlies and even the gold cup don't draw like world cup qualifiers.   That fair value in 2018 was arguably 0 to a max of 50K per game.  The value was non-existent.  

[MauditYvon]

Ok. Are you forced to sign for 10 years?

[Watchmen]

2 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Ok. Are you forced to sign for 10 years?

In this scenario, probably. The value on the contract was expected to be at the end, if it happened at all. The men being better early is the curveball that's causing the issues now. The possible 10 year extension is the part they never should have signed.

[Aird25]

4 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Ok. Are you forced to sign for 10 years?

Yes, being part of a World Cup bid is a long term process

[MauditYvon]

Bad bad move to sign for 10 years. Qatar was, for the first time in my life, a legit possibility. 

We were disgusted to lose to Haiti in 1/4 at the Gold Cup. That means everybody saw us as a top 4 concacaf team, which means possibly WC.

[ag futbol]

14 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

We have no idea what that option looks like.  It could be at the same terms or at market value, a right of first refusal type thing.  It could be a mutual option the CSA can opt out of.  We have no idea.  That's where transparency comes in.

Yes, exactly. My fear would be an additional 10 years purely at the option of CSB

[Watchmen]

4 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Bad bad move to sign for 10 years. Qatar was, for the first time in my life, a legit possibility. 

We were disgusted to lose to Haiti in 1/4 at the Gold Cup. That means everybody saw us as a top 4 concacaf team, which means possibly WC.

That loss occurred in 2019, after the deal was already signed.

[prairiecanuck]

1 minute ago, ag futbol said:

Yes, exactly. My fear would be an additional 10 years purely at the option of CSB

Honestly going through things and coming to a better understanding of the deal, I don't have a problem with the first 10 years.  It would be less than ideal if the option for the CSB for the second 10 was at the same terms.  That would be a disaster.  I hope that's not the case.  If Bontis grew a pair, he'd just come out and answer these questions.

[MauditYvon]

Just now, Watchmen said:

That loss occurred in 2019, after the deal was already signed.

True, got it wrong (because CSB sold the rights to mediapro in 2019?).

Still a bad deal, 0 vision. Of course CSA and Canadians were losing for years 2022-2029 (7 of a 10 years deal, 70%).

[BradMack]

7 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Bad bad move to sign for 10 years. Qatar was, for the first time in my life, a legit possibility. 

We were disgusted to lose to Haiti in 1/4 at the Gold Cup. That means everybody saw us as a top 4 concacaf team, which means possibly WC.

Nobody would've put a bunch of money on Qatar. We've always had bigger names than a lot of Concacaf minnows and routinely lost to them. 

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, SpecialK said:

If the CSA had a Brain and good people working there, They would have signed an agreement with mediapro. Not use an middle man like CSB. Clearly the value was there. 200 million over 10 years. 

They didn't have the staff nor resources to do what CSB does for them, that's the whole point of outsourcing. It COST money to make money - and that's money the CSA didn't have upfront. There's a cost to have someone else take MOST of the RISK for you.

 

1 hour ago, reggietfc said:

my math is not so good,,,how do we get from 20 mil to 3 mil.are they lining some other pockets

See above - It cost a shit ton of money to set up that kind of operation at CSB, getting most of the returns in exchange of the value they are providing makes sense. People are oversimplifying this AF

 

 

[prairiecanuck]

Just now, MauditYvon said:

True, got it wrong (because CSB sold the rights to mediapro in 2019?).

Still a bad deal, 0 vision. Of course CSA and Canadians were losing for years 2022-2029 (7 of a 10 years deal, 70%).

The deal was struck in 2018.  You can say lack of vision, but when TSN tells you we're not paying anything to broadcast your games, Rogers laughs so hard when you call they can't even throw out a get lost and a group anyone comes in and says we'll give you 3 mil.   Put yourself in the shoes of those at the CSA. It's easy to be captain hindsight.  

[BradMack]

17 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

Based on my estimation of fair value based on the number of viewers of the Canadian men's team in it's current format a major broadcaster might pay roughly 500K per game on a longer term deal.   Not every year is a world cup year.  Nations league, friendlies and even the gold cup don't draw like world cup qualifiers.   That fair value in 2018 was arguably 0 to a max of 50K per game.  The value was non-existent.  

I assume you're basing this on the CFL deal which works out to about 500k per game. One thing I would add is the CFL is an extremely stable TV product where Canada Soccer is not. TV audiences will greatly fluctuate based on competition, opponent, etc. Also the CFL is a predicable product in that you generally know when the games will be and how many you will get, allowing TSN to capitalize on long term advertising. CFL is also football, which is 90% commercials. Id guess Mediapro might get 200K per WCQ, as sportsnet has to make money on ads for it to make sense. 

[prairiecanuck]

4 minutes ago, Ansem said:

They didn't have the staff nor resources to do what CSB does for them, that's the whole point of outsourcing. It COST money to make money - and that's money the CSA didn't have upfront. There's a cost to have someone else take MOST of the RISK for you.

 

See above - It cost a shit ton of money to set up that kind of operation at CSB, getting most of the returns in exchange of the value they are providing makes sense. People are oversimplifying this AF

 

 

It's OK for people to oversimplify.  We need the players to stop doing this!  We need them on the pitch this Thursday.  We needed them on the pitch yesterday for that matter!  They all just used 100 dollar bills to wipe their own asses yesterday and cost the association they are trying to get money out of a lot of actual money!

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, BradMack said:

Lol, no. The value was not there, and it still isn't there. Mediapro is losing money on this deal. The CPL plays a massive role in this deal as they attempt to establish an in to the Canadian sports market and needed to create content. 

Absolutely - CPL was a mean to enter the North American market. They were willing to accept losing money on this deal if it got them in a good position to get more lucrative deals down the road on this side of the ocean which potential is unbelievably underrated. They already made good gains with CONCACAF, imagine if they could pitch similar deals to Mexico or South America? We aren't the end game, we're the stepping stone/guinea pigs. We are being used to show other big fish in the America's what they can potential get with MediaPro.

Takes money to make money - plenty examples of that in real life

 

[BradMack]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

Absolutely - CPL was a mean to enter the North American market. They were willing to accept losing money on this deal if it got them in a good position to get more lucrative deals down the road on this side of the ocean which potential is unbelievably underrated. They already made good gains with CONCACAF, imagine if they could pitch similar deals to Mexico or South America? We aren't the end game, we're the stepping stone/guinea pigs. We are being used to show other big fish in the America's what they can potential get with MediaPro.

Takes money to make money - plenty examples of that in real life

 

I'm not so sure we aren't the endgame. I think they legitimately believe in a MediaPro TV channel in Canada. 

[MauditYvon]

Just like that you justify the strike, because Canadian players now also can say (from your point of view) it takes money to make money.

[narduch]

25 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Bad bad move to sign for 10 years. Qatar was, for the first time in my life, a legit possibility. 

We were disgusted to lose to Haiti in 1/4 at the Gold Cup. That means everybody saw us as a top 4 concacaf team, which means possibly WC.

Nobody believed that when the original qualifying format was announced. 

Hell I don't think we really knew it was possible until the Davies goal v Panama.

Edited June 6, 2022 by narduch

[prairiecanuck]

1 minute ago, BradMack said:

I assume you're basing this on the CFL deal which works out to about 500k per game. One thing I would add is the CFL is an extremely stable TV product where Canada Soccer is not. TV audiences will greatly fluctuate based on competition, opponent, etc. Also the CFL is a predicable product in that you generally know when the games will be and how many you will get, allowing TSN to capitalize on long term advertising. CFL is also football, which is 90% commercials. Id guess Mediapro might get 200K per WCQ, as sportsnet has to make money on ads for it to make sense. 

Roughly.  I know the TV viewer numbers for the CFL.  I know what to expect for TV numbers for the Canadian men's team.  I understand competition and opponent will fluctuate viewers but on a 4 year cylce there's no way the current version of the team is only 40% of CFL.  The CFL averages 650 to 700K per game and that average is bumped up by 100K just by the playoffs alone.  The regular season average 550 to 600K.   Can friendlies on a major network might draw 250 to 300K at times?  Sure, but big games against the US will now do over a million IMO.  I think the comparison is pretty good and CFL is actually around 520K a game if I'm not mistake.  Even if you call the market value due to the fact that it's not as established around 400 to 450K that could be more reasonable.  It's a pretty subjective non scientific number.  Unless the rights come up for bid we won't really know and that's not happening for a long time! 

[BradMack]

5 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

Roughly.  I know the TV viewer numbers for the CFL.  I know what to expect for TV numbers for the Canadian men's team.  I understand competition and opponent will fluctuate viewers but on a 4 year cylce there's no way the current version of the team is only 40% of CFL.  The CFL averages 650 to 700K per game and that average is bumped up by 100K just by the playoffs alone.  The regular season average 550 to 600K.   Can friendlies on a major network might draw 250 to 300K at times?  Sure, but big games against the US will now do over a million IMO.  I think the comparison is pretty good and CFL is actually around 520K a game if I'm not mistake.  Even if you call the market value due to the fact that it's not as established around 400 to 450K that could be more reasonable.  It's a pretty subjective non scientific number.  Unless the rights come up for bid we won't really know and that's not happening for a long time! 

The key is that CFL allows for a ton of ad time just because of the way football works. Tons of stops in play that allow many ad breaks. Thats why the NFL is the advertising monster that it is. Its not an apples to apples comparison because you're going to get way more advertising money for a football game than a soccer game based strictly on the amount of ads shown. 

[prairiecanuck]

1 minute ago, BradMack said:

The key is that CFL allows for a ton of ad time just because of the way football works. Tons of stops in play that allow many ad breaks. Thats why the NFL is the advertising monster that it is. Its not an apples to apples comparison because you're going to get way more advertising money for a football game than a soccer game based strictly on the amount of ads shown. 

You could be right.  There is add pre, post and at half time.  It's been so long, I can't remember seeing the national team!  I feel like there might have been some in game split screen advertising as well.  I'd be fine with having some of that if it meant more revenue.  There's usually some injury time throughout a game to fit that in.  

[BradMack]

6 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

You could be right.  There is add pre, post and at half time.  It's been so long, I can't remember seeing the national team!  I feel like there might have been some in game split screen advertising as well.  I'd be fine with having some of that if it meant more revenue.  There's usually some injury time throughout a game to fit that in.  

Yeah its just a completely different beast soccer vs north american football. There's not really CFL numbers but it is essentially the same as the NFL, which on average will have almost an hour of the broadcast dedicated to advertising. Its also that much of this time is delivered in short bursts between plays and not at halftime where you lose a lot of viewers. Even if Canada Soccer can manage bigger TV audiences a couple times per year, they are for the most part significantly less valuable than the CFL from a TV advertising prospective.

We are also talking about major fluctuations here in terms of viewers per opponent. The numbers I've seen floated around for games against countries not in the top 5 of Concacaf are under 100k.

[ag futbol]

48 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

Honestly going through things and coming to a better understanding of the deal, I don't have a problem with the first 10 years.  It would be less than ideal if the option for the CSB for the second 10 was at the same terms.  That would be a disaster.  I hope that's not the case.  If Bontis grew a pair, he'd just come out and answer these questions.

Yes, the first 10 years could be okay. The argument would be without the money we’d never have the CPL or have qualified for the WC in this cycle. I know  the player pool is hugely improved but this was the first time in memory we operationally did things like charter flights and other stuff that make it easy for the team to travel.

 

[MauditYvon]

We qualified because of COVID.