September and October 2023 friendly matches (plans, speculation, rumours etc.)

[Bison44]

2 hours ago, Kadenge said:

According to JDV, the Saudis offered  us $500K to play them,  but the CSA would have to spend a similar amount to arrange a match for the  CWNT and they don't have the budget for that. Something to do with gender equality apparently.

Ummm, would going to play the Saudis cause an uproar at home with certain segments of the media and cause another shit storm where CSA ends up losing a million dollars and setting all of our programs back??  

[Stoppage Time]

2 hours ago, Kadenge said:

According to JDV, the Saudis offered  us $500K to play them,  but the CSA would have to spend a similar amount to arrange a match for the  CWNT and they don't have the budget for that. Something to do with gender equality apparently.

Paying members of both teams is one thing, and that is great, but $ for $ equality on specific dates or during specific windows is very counter-productive. With this absolute quid pro quo in place along with the CSA budget issues, this arrangement is a recipe for both CMNT and CWMT to have no friendlies at all - to the detriment of both.

The reciprocity needs to be spread over time. Further, It would be expected that both teams market themselves to attract appearance fees. The men were, according to JDV, offered $500,000 to play the Saudis. Can the CWNT generate those kinds of offers? Would it not be better to put the appearance fee in the pot and share it out later? I mean, $500,000 is not huge in the football world, but it is also not peanuts. And, Canada needs friendlies.

A final note: Why is it that FIFA is offering such small prize monies to women's teams at the WQ in contrast to the men? Should both sets of players receive the same compensation? Do the larger prizes afforded to men's WC participants somehow subsidize some of the women's national teams through their associations? I am genuinely interested in seeing how this evolves particularly in Canada's experience in comparison and contrast to other nations. 

[An Observer]

1 hour ago, Stoppage Time said:

Paying members of both teams is one thing, and that is great, but $ for $ equality on specific dates or during specific windows is very counter-productive. With this absolute quid pro quo in place along with the CSA budget issues, this arrangement is a recipe for both CMNT and CWMT to have no friendlies at all - to the detriment of both.

The reciprocity needs to be spread over time. Further, It would be expected that both teams market themselves to attract appearance fees. The men were, according to JDV, offered $500,000 to play the Saudis. Can the CWNT generate those kinds of offers? Would it not be better to put the appearance fee in the pot and share it out later? I mean, $500,000 is not huge in the football world, but it is also not peanuts. And, Canada needs friendlies.

A final note: Why is it that FIFA is offering such small prize monies to women's teams at the WQ in contrast to the men? Should both sets of players receive the same compensation? Do the larger prizes afforded to men's WC participants somehow subsidize some of the women's national teams through their associations? I am genuinely interested in seeing how this evolves particularly in Canada's experience in comparison and contrast to other nations. 

The answer to your final question is simple.  The Women’s World Cup brings it no where near the revenue as the men’s.  I suspect % wise of the profit generated, the women are likely getting more than the men.  On the point about the larger prizes subsidising the women, perhaps in the more liberal countries but probably not in the less liberal ones.

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

The reciprocity needs to be spread over time.

The women have Olympic qualifying in the fall. The men have the Copa qualifying. Both need friendlies this fall.

[Stoppage Time]

3 hours ago, Watchmen said:

The women have Olympic qualifying in the fall. The men have the Copa qualifying. Both need friendlies this fall.

Fair point for certain, but do the business arrangements for each match need to be identical? If the women played the USA in Canada and cleared $500,000.00 in gate revenue profit, and the men played Trinidad and Tobago and cleared $100,00, would the women split the revenue with the men? If it was the other way around, would the men share the revenue with the women? 

The point is to arrange friendlies for both teams. Exact $ parity as a condition to playing is a fool's errand. Do the accounting after the matches are played.

[youllneverwalkalone]

[Watchmen]

7 minutes ago, Stoppage Time said:

Fair point for certain, but do the business arrangements for each match need to be identical?

That was literally the point of my initial question, of "equal dollar" vs "equal opportunity".

[Kadenge]

13 hours ago, An Observer said:

The answer to your final question is simple.  The Women’s World Cup brings it no where near the revenue as the men’s.  I suspect % wise of the profit generated, the women are likely getting more than the men.  On the point about the larger prizes subsidising the women, perhaps in the more liberal countries but probably not in the less liberal ones.

Exactly. Why aren't CPL players getting paid the same as MLS players. They are both playing Pro Soccer in North America. It's supply and demand. The fundamentals of capitalism vs socialism. 

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:24 AM, Watchmen said:

The women have Olympic qualifying in the fall...Both need friendlies this fall.

If the women play like they did today, there will be no friendlies this Fall. We will fail against Jamaica.

Only CONCACAF Nations League this Fall.

but point taken.

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

If the women play like they did today, there will be no friendlies this Fall. We will fail against Jamaica.

Only CONCACAF Nations League this Fall.

but point taken.

Which is what the CSA likely wants.  Sad.

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

If the women play like they did today, there will be no friendlies this Fall. We will fail against Jamaica.

Only CONCACAF Nations League this Fall.

but point taken.

The CONCACAF Nations is doubling as Copa qualifying.

The friendlies for the women would be to prevent what happened today against Jamaica. They'd be before, not after the Jamaica game.

[Colonel Green]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:23 AM, Stoppage Time said:

Fair point for certain, but do the business arrangements for each match need to be identical? If the women played the USA in Canada and cleared $500,000.00 in gate revenue profit, and the men played Trinidad and Tobago and cleared $100,00, would the women split the revenue with the men? If it was the other way around, would the men share the revenue with the women? 

The point is to arrange friendlies for both teams. Exact $ parity as a condition to playing is a fool's errand. Do the accounting after the matches are played.

The issue was not dollar parity, it's that there are fixed costs to holding friendlies and camps that are the same for both teams.

[youllneverwalkalone]

45 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

The issue was not dollar parity, it's that there are fixed costs to holding friendlies and camps that are the same for both teams.

I've sort of lost the plot over what we are fighting for but, if we want the CSA to have more money and spend it at all levels, it must be difficult to make sound decisions on this basis. Like I don't want the women to stay in a motel 6 while the men are at the Four Seasons, but the length of camp, the opponent, the location all need to be dictated by the preparation purpose and (if you want to make money) the ROI.

For years, the women have had more matches, more home matches, and probably with good reason financially. But with Copa America around the corner, which has an estimated purse of $20m USD, can we focus on the men for a bit longer?

Part of me wonders if the delay in announcing friendlies or having none at all goes back to the financial repercussions of Iran and Panama. I guess it's easier financially to balance fixed costs between the teams than it is to arrange friendlies if the men are just going to walk out at the last minute to prove whatever point they are making.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

The CONCACAF Nations is doubling as Copa qualifying.

The friendlies for the women would be to prevent what happened today against Jamaica. They'd be before, not after the Jamaica game.

There is no Women's window before they face the Jamaican WNT.

The October and November (Women's) window will become (Women's) CONCACAF Nations League if they fail against Jamaica.

[Stoppage Time]

1 hour ago, Colonel Green said:

The issue was not dollar parity, it's that there are fixed costs to holding friendlies and camps that are the same for both teams.

Would the variable costs such as appearance fees paid either way not depend on the opponent? A  CWNT friendly against England played in Canada would require a higher fee appearance paid than would a friendly paid against, for example, Panama. Correct?

This is the tough part of the parity equation. Is it practical for either of the CWNT and CMNT to expect exact $ for $ investment since different opponents potentially cost more or less and generate different amounts of revenue? 

Could it work better if the CMNT generate and keep all revenue related to playing matches and the CWNT do the same? Or, would it better for one of the two teams to subsidize the other in order to create $ parity? Would it be fair if the women played a well attended home friendly against France, for example, and generated "X" dollars while the men played a poorly attended home friendly against Belize, for example, generating fewer dollars, and the women were then expected to subsidize  the men based on parity?

Clearly, revenue generation and use must be carefully and practically thought so youth programs and lower national squads can be maximized to the ultimate benefit of the senior teams. 

Man, did the women's WC performance ever show that their program needs work so this compensation better be figured out quickly and practically.

[Shway]

55 minutes ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

There is no Women's window before they face the Jamaican WNT.

The October and November (Women's) window will become (Women's) CONCACAF Nations League if they fail against Jamaica.

The way it looks now is that it's very likely. Jamaica look on par with Canada and have a huge x factor.

 Sinclair needs to retire. She's just being selfish at this point.

[Stoppage Time]

Just now, Shway said:

The way it looks now is that it's very likely. Jamaica look on par with Canada and have a huge x factor.

 Sinclair needs to retire. She's just being selfish at this point.

Is it time for a coaching change? Such failure cannot be rewarded.

[Ottawafan]

31 minutes ago, Stoppage Time said:

Is it time for a coaching change? Such failure cannot be rewarded.

Absolutely.  She should have fallen on her sword after that performance.

[Watchmen]

12 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Absolutely.  She should have fallen on her sword after that performance.

It's been 5 hours. Did you want to her to announce she was quitting during the post game press conference?

[Ottawafan]

5 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

It's been 5 hours. Did you want to her to announce she was quitting during the post game press conference?

Usually when a managers resigns. 

[Watchmen]

19 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Usually when a managers resigns. 

I'm guessing it's not, it just stands out when it does.

[costarg]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:38 AM, Kadenge said:

Exactly. Why aren't CPL players getting paid the same as MLS players. They are both playing Pro Soccer in North America. It's supply and demand. The fundamentals of capitalism vs socialism. 

And why aren't the U16's getting paid the same as the senior men and women?  They're also entitled, otherwise its just ageism.  

[MrR]

47 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

It's been 5 hours. Did you want to her to announce she was quitting during the post game press conference?

Stephen Hart did the honorable thing right after the 8-1 loss in San Pedro Sula.

[Watchmen]

8 minutes ago, MrR said:

Stephen Hart did the honorable thing right after the 8-1 loss in San Pedro Sula.

No, he didn't. He resigned 2 days later. Not in the post game press conference.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/stephen-hart-resigns-as-canadas-mens-soccer-coach/article4621666/

Edited July 31, 2023 by Watchmen

[MrR]

1 hour ago, Shway said:

Sinclair needs to retire. She's just being selfish at this point.

Sinclair has cost Canada the last 2 World Cups.

In 2019 she should have taken the penalty, but instead she decided to ask Beckie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCI530oIobU

This time around against Nigeria she shouldn't have take the penalty, but she decided to take it.

No player on the team is going to argue with Sinclair. However, it's not her decision to make. That's why we have a coach.