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

[red card]

12 hours ago, CanadaFan123 said:

 

Thinking here: why don’t we ever try for a Mexico friendly? Have we ever faced them in a friendly in our history? Could be an easy sell out and maybe it’s expensive but at least you’re in the green somehow/some way. 

SUM has cornered the Mexico friendly market. Their deal with Mexico is to have about 5 men friendlies per year in the US.

Besides possibly an appearance fee and/or covering their costs, Canada will need to match the average of 57k that attended last year paying US$100+ ticket prices. SUM deal also includes deals with about 9 U.S. based sponsors who will look to be comped for missing out on a brand activation opportunity.

 

[Stoppage Time]

5 hours ago, Obinna said:

I think most of us are resigned to the reality the CSA finds itself in. I am "fine" with it, but in truth it's embarrassing. But our state of affairs are embarrassing, so missing a window entirely is sadly par the course now. 

And most frustrating and completely unacceptable. Some would say it's laughable.

[BearcatSA]

No friendly in September...anywhere.

Unbelievable.

Edited August 9, 2023 by BearcatSA

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, BearcatSA said:

Np friendly in September...anywhere.

Unbelievable.

Feels like we are going backwards after the World Cup, not forward. The qualifying campaign was the pinnicale in truth. It should have been the World Cup. And the worst part is it's all self inflicted. People say the men had to sieze the opportunity and fight for their rights, and I get that, but I wonder how things would have played out if they just played the Panama friendly.

Or, I wonder how things would have played out if we just played Iran despite the pressure.

Not saying things would be completely different, but it would have saved us a lot of money, it would have given us another quality game, and may have even allowed us to cap Koleosho (not cap-tie, but still). How much money did the confederation lose? How much good will did the program lose with the fans? We really lost momentum after that.

It was an own goal for sure and something which could have been totally avoided. In hindsight it would have been better to take the short term political blow-back instead of the multiple Ls which came out of that window. 

[Kadenge]

Don't think the Panama game was a difference maker, but the Iran game would have sold out in Vancouver.  There's a lack of suitably large stadiums in Canada..and Vancouver doesn't have grass which will be a factor for some teams.  So even if we got a home match vs a top team, we can't sell enough tickets, regardless of the price, to make decent  coin. Then there's the gender equality card. Temp seating at BMO for 2026 is disappointing for the growth of the game.

[Ottawafan]

9 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

Don't think the Panama game was a difference maker, but the Iran game would have sold out in Vancouver.  There's a lack of suitably large stadiums in Canada..and Vancouver doesn't have grass which will be a factor for some teams.  So even if we got a home match vs a top team, we can't sell enough tickets, regardless of the price, to make decent  coin. Then there's the gender equality card. Temp seating at BMO for 2026 is disappointing for the growth of the game.

Which is why we need to find a way to also build up Saputo and turn it into a better soccer stadium. Second grass field on the eastern side of Canada. I understand the need for more grass pitches, more access for western fans, need more money, players desire for less travel. All speed bumps. But we need to articulate what is needed. One viable stadium isn’t enough. 
Wonder if Ottawa gets a game this fall. 😉

[InglewoodJack]

24 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Which is why we need to find a way to also build up Saputo and turn it into a better soccer stadium. Second grass field on the eastern side of Canada. I understand the need for more grass pitches, more access for western fans, need more money, players desire for less travel. All speed bumps. But we need to articulate what is needed. One viable stadium isn’t enough. 
Wonder if Ottawa gets a game this fall. 😉

Would like this but unfortunately Montreal is permanently scarred from the expos, so to build the confidence in the city that IMFC could draw 25k+ regularly to fill a bigger stadium would take many years of attendance at or better than this year. I mean, they sold Camacho and a popular radio call in topic since then has been people saying this is just in preparation for the team moving to the US.

[Obinna]

Halfway through the OneSoccer vid talking about the Japan friendly and I had to hit pause and vent a little bit here. 

Okay, I get the equal spend push, but if it's true that we had two World Cup calibre opponents wanting to play us, offering us a decent sum, but we couldn't accept because we'd "have" to run an additional women's program (which we "couldn't" as it wasn't budgeted for), well that's cutting our nose off to spite our face, frankly. 

Why can't we be flexible? Why not take the offer and promise the women we'll match the spend in another calender year? Why can't these people figure this out? Why are we contraining ourselves like this for the sake of the calendar year?

Both programs will suffer so long as they cannot figure this out. And if I were a dual national seeing Canada struggle to get out of it's own way I would seriously think twice about committing to our program. It's a real shambles. 

[Obinna]

Another thing then I am out:

The CSA acts more like a goverment institution than a business - that's a big part of the problem.

Excuse my broad generalizations here, but government institutions don't go bankrupt. Companies do. Imagine a company turning down a revenue generating deal (which they would have taken in the past) because another department won't directly benefit from it. They would go broke real quick. 

[Obinna]

Last thing (promise):

And let's say the reverse happens and the women have a big opponent. Are they going to turn them down because they never budgeted for an equal spend on the men's side? That would be idiotic. It would hurt the women's team and hurt the CSA.

I'm pissed...

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Kadenge said:

Don't think the Panama game was a difference maker, but the Iran game would have sold out in Vancouver.

As a resident of Vancouver: The Iran game was selling really well and people were excited about playing a top team. When that was cancelled, people were disappointed but still excited by the Panama game because it was finally a chance to see the WC team after no qualifiers were here. When that was cancelled, it infuriated a lot of casual fans. Fans who'd already spent money to come over from the island or down from the interior or even who had just driven in from the suburbs and spent $30 on parking.

They burned the market, and I'm still waiting for the CSA to make it right. And if the men's team is flying to Japan for a friendly, people can stfu about how "Vancouver is too far".

[Gian-Luca]

29 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Halfway through the OneSoccer vid talking about the Japan friendly and I had to hit pause and vent a little bit here. 

Okay, I get the equal spend push, but if it's true that we had two World Cup calibre opponents wanting to play us, offering us a decent sum, but we couldn't accept because we'd "have" to run an additional women's program (which we "couldn't" as it wasn't budgeted for), well that's cutting our nose off to spite our face, frankly. 

Why can't we be flexible? Why not take the offer and promise the women we'll match the spend in another calender year? Why can't these people figure this out? Why are we contraining ourselves like this for the sake of the calendar year?

Both programs will suffer so long as they cannot figure this out. And if I were a dual national seeing Canada struggle to get out of it's own way I would seriously think twice about committing to our program. It's a real shambles. 

It's definitely absurd, if all that is accurate. The programmes need to be run on a practical basis, not an ideological one.

[Ottawafan]

40 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Would like this but unfortunately Montreal is permanently scarred from the expos, so to build the confidence in the city that IMFC could draw 25k+ regularly to fill a bigger stadium would take many years of attendance at or better than this year. I mean, they sold Camacho and a popular radio call in topic since then has been people saying this is just in preparation for the team moving to the US.

They wouldn't have to rebuild the entire stadium... just the one side.  I know it's a pipe dream but needs to happen.

[maccaliam]

7 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Last thing (promise):

And let's say the reverse happens and the women have a big opponent. Are they going to turn them down because they never budgeted for an equal spend on the men's side? That would be idiotic. It would hurt the women's team and hurt the CSA.

I'm pissed...

No, I don’t think the women would turn it down. Historically, the men’s team have been prioritized so if the women are given an opportunity unavailable to the men’s team, they (IMO likely) wouldn’t have to turn it down.
It appears it is more about equity than equality as (I am assuming here so forgive me if I’m wide of the mark) I get the feeling is that the women’s team isn’t starting from an equal footing so you can’t have an exactly equal response. 
 

I feel like this missed opportunity could have been avoided with a tiny bit of preparation (which wouldn’t have to have cost any money). Discuss a variety of options for playing during FIFA windows before other federations reach out and how the CSA could react to different scenarios (eg. Your suggestion about funding being equal over a 24-month period is an interesting idea). The women would have been more likely to have reacted positively to constructive problem-solving while still keeping the funding equal over an agreed period of time.  

[InglewoodJack]

6 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

They wouldn't have to rebuild the entire stadium... just the one side.  I know it's a pipe dream but needs to happen.

I know, but that would cost a few million dollars and the team (city?) would have to be convinced it can draw into the 20k range every single week. I think spending money on sports and expecting people to care about teams that aren't the Habs are two things no one in the city believes in.

FWIW I totally agree that Montreal needs a stadium upgrade for no other reason than the fact that it's the country's second biggest city, if soccer works in Canada, Montreal needs to be a big part of that, plus, I mean, the game is growing here, so *I* agree with the need for stadium improvements, but I don't think Saputo or the Mayor's office would agree.

[maccaliam]

18 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

As a resident of Vancouver: The Iran game was selling really well and people were excited about playing a top team. When that was cancelled, people were disappointed but still excited by the Panama game because it was finally a chance to see the WC team after no qualifiers were here. When that was cancelled, it infuriated a lot of casual fans. Fans who'd already spent money to come over from the island or down from the interior or even who had just driven in from the suburbs and spent $30 on parking.

They burned the market, and I'm still waiting for the CSA to make it right. And if the men's team is flying to Japan for a friendly, people can stfu about how "Vancouver is too far".

Such a shame it all played out like this. 

[Obinna]

1 minute ago, maccaliam said:

No, I don’t think the women would turn it down. Historically, the men’s team have been prioritized so if the women are given an opportunity unavailable to the men’s team, they (IMO likely) wouldn’t have to turn it down.
It appears it is more about equity than equality as (I am assuming here so forgive me if I’m wide of the mark) I get the feeling is that the women’s team isn’t starting from an equal footing so you can’t have an exactly equal response. 
 

I feel like this missed opportunity could have been avoided with a tiny bit of preparation (which wouldn’t have to have cost any money). Discuss a variety of options for playing during FIFA windows before other federations reach out and how the CSA could react to different scenarios (eg. Your suggestion about funding being equal over a 24-month period is an interesting idea). The women would have been more likely to have reacted positively to constructive problem-solving while still keeping the funding equal over an agreed period of time.  

Agreed but should add that technically it wouldn't be the "women" turning it down, it would be the CSA. Similarly, the "men" didn't turn down these two potential games, the CSA did. 

[maccaliam]

Just now, Obinna said:

Agreed but should add that technically it wouldn't be the "women" turning it down, it would be the CSA. Similarly, the "men" didn't turn down these two potential games, the CSA did. 

That’s a fair point and I didn’t mean to suggest it would have been the women’s team’s decision (though I would hope representatives from each team would be contacted for input)

[Obinna]

1 minute ago, maccaliam said:

That’s a fair point and I didn’t mean to suggest it would have been the women’s team’s decision (though I would hope representatives from each team would be contacted for input)

I would hope so too and I do share the feeling that it's an equity push from the CSA, possibly driven by the women themselves to some degree, and/or their representatives.

Also, to your suggestion that Men have been prioritized over Women, well that's the general narrative overall, beyond the CSA and even beyond soccer, but is it true the Men have been prioritized by the CSA?

For years it felt our women were playing, especially at home, while we barely played at home and didn't play much at at all.

Is that just me? Maybe it is. It always felt to me, at least since the early 2000s, that our women were the cash cow, not the men. They were the face of the CSA, not the men, and they were the source of our pride, not the men. That's just been my perception, I don't have any data to back it up or anything. So, to say the Men have been prioritized doesn't strike me as being accurate, but I could be wrong. 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

18 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

...And if the men's team is flying to Japan for a friendly, people can stfu about how "Vancouver is too far".

Remains to be seen how many of the bigger names on the roster will answer the callup rather than finding some minor injury to use as an excuse to avoid doing those flights for a meaningless friendly. Niigata isn't exactly next door to Narita airport either once you get there.

[maccaliam]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

I would hope so too and I do share the feeling that it's an equity push from the CSA, possibly driven by the women themselves to some degree, and/or their representatives.

Also, to your suggestion that Men have been prioritized over Women, well that's the general narrative overall, beyond the CSA and even beyond soccer, but is it true the Men have been prioritized by the CSA?

For years it felt our women were playing, especially at home, while we barely played at home and didn't play much at at all.

Is that just me? Maybe it is. It always felt to me, at least since the early 2000s, that our women were the cash cow, not the men. They were the face of the CSA, not the men, and they were the source of our pride, not the men. That's just been my perception, I don't have any data to back it up or anything. So, to say the Men have been prioritized doesn't strike me as being accurate, but I could be wrong. 

 

I would agree that the women’s national team has been the big draw for home matches for a large part of the past 20 years as they were perceived as the “successful” team. 
As to your question about the CSA prioritizing one program over the other, I wasn’t sharing a personal opinion but rather what I assumed was the feeling from many who have voiced concerns about inequity between the programs. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by maccaliam

[Stoppage Time]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

Okay, I get the equal spend push, but if it's true that we had two World Cup calibre opponents wanting to play us, offering us a decent sum, but we couldn't accept because we'd "have" to run an additional women's program (which we "couldn't" as it wasn't budgeted for), well that's cutting our nose off to spite our face, frankly. 

Why can't we be flexible? Why not take the offer and promise the women we'll match the spend in another calender year? Why can't these people figure this out? Why are we contraining ourselves like this for the sake of the calendar year?

Both programs will suffer so long as they cannot figure this out. And if I were a dual national seeing Canada struggle to get out of it's own way I would seriously think twice about committing to our program. It's a real shambles. 

This!

[Kadenge]

A big part of this equity/equality issue came about during the WCQ string of games. The CMNT had to go through an extensive route to the Octo, playing lots of minnows, significant travel & covid. Then during the Octo the team started getting a lot of attention...games sold out, TV viewership set records, media coverage was unprecedented and corporate sponsorship started to flow in.  This was something that JH had predicted if we qualified for the WC. The new found fame triggered a reaction from the Women who were not used to sharing the stage. The issue with equal spending even over 24 mths is still going to be an  issue unless the CWNT find teams that are willing to pay them a  500K appearance fee for eg. It costs 700K -1M to run a camp. So while the men could have played SA & SK for 200K net, there were no such offers for the CWNT. That's the reality and it relates to the new success of the CMNT and the FACT that there's more money in the Men's game

Edited August 9, 2023 by Kadenge

[Stoppage Time]

8 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

So while the men could have played SA & SK for 200K net, there were no such offers for the CWNT. That's the reality and it relates to the new success of the CMNT and the FACT that there's more money in the Men's game

This is the present reality between men's and women's national team soccer. FIFA clearly shows this market reality through the very much higher prize money offered to men's teams. Will policy overcome the market or will national programs like those in the CSA become paralyzed through the inability to hold ANY, or a sufficient number of, games due to policy equality in an unequal world market? Serious question at this time.

[YorkRegionFan]

4 minutes ago, Stoppage Time said:

This is the present reality between men's and women's national team soccer. FIFA clearly shows this market reality through the very much higher prize money offered to men's teams. Will policy overcome the market or will national programs like those in the CSA become paralyzed through the inability to hold ANY, or a sufficient number of, games due to policy equality in an unequal world market? Serious question at this time.

This paralysis is going to be the reality for all the programs run through the CSA and if this "one for one" equality thing continues,  it is going to doom the Olympics for the CWNT and 2026 World Cup for the CMNT.   As it stands, the Japan game is likely the only one going to happen, even though it makes common sense to have a South Korea match as well.    There has to be a more pragmatic approach , something like promising a set number of camps/friends for a calendar year as opposed to each FIFA window.

Regardless, the CMNT will have to work with what they have.  Maybe during the September window, they will be able to hold a chalkboard sessions to discuss tactics ?