CSA Elections May 2023

[Ansem]

6 minutes ago, SF said:

There is a lot to this, but it’s hard to deny the CSA prioritized the men over the women. 

A men's league was needed to host the 2026 World Cup, starting with CPL made sense

7 minutes ago, SF said:

they subsidized the men’s league. It would not exist absent this subsidy.

No they aren't. They sold their marketing rights to CSB. CSB is getting revenues through those and cutting a cheque to the CSA while using their cut to grow the CPL.

Prior to CSB, the CSA was getting around $1M and were paying broadcasters to air their games. Now they are getting over 3 times that without having to pay broadcasters to air all their games.

That's a massive difference.

What was subsidized? The WNT pro salaries in NWSL but they tend to tiptoe around that when that gets pointed out

 

10 minutes ago, SF said:

Two, they claim (as you have) that a women’s league was in the plans…for a league that the CSA is independent of. 

Yes, CPL through CSB was working on a women's league before Matheson went her own way with Project 8 - a strategic mistake in my opinion.

 

12 minutes ago, SF said:

This is a complex cocktail of incompetence, hypocrisy, sanctimony and good old fashioned misogyny. 

And players who don't fully understand the business side of soccer in this country along with other parties with agendas who are just too happy to see the soccer community tearing itself apart to keep this sport down

[Bison44]

Why do you keep calling it a subsidy? CSB paid cash on the barrel for rights, CSA took that money and funded BOTH PROGRAMS for years.   The CSB took all those rights, bundled it with their new league and thats how they got money from the deal. How is that a subsidy?  

[Ansem]

22 minutes ago, SF said:

old fashioned misogyny

People who keep throwing this word around need to open a freaking dictionary 

[SF]

I called it a de facto subsidy. Which it is. 
 

The CSB owners are the same as the CPL owners. They make money (which is fair enough, by the way) on the CSB such that they can sustain the CPL. The revenues from the CSB were traded away by the CSA.  Which they didn’t have to do.  

A simple tracing of the cash concludes it’s a subsidy. 

[SF]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

People who keep throwing this word around need to open a freaking dictionary 

There is clear prejudice against women - check your dictionary. Or ask the women. I’ve done both (and am not a woman, for the record) 

[Bison44]

Hey while we are checking the dictionary, check subsidy out, you'll be surprised what it says, its not what you think it means.  

[SF]

53 minutes ago, Ansem said:

However, a women's league was also in the plans but the pandemic happened slowing things down 

 

4 minutes ago, Ansem said:

People who keep throwing this word around need to open a freaking dictionary 

 

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

A men's league was needed to host the 2026 World Cup, starting with CPL made sense

No they aren't. They sold their marketing rights to CSB. CSB is getting revenues through those and cutting a cheque to the CSA while using their cut to grow the CPL.

Prior to CSB, the CSA was getting around $1M and were paying broadcasters to air their games. Now they are getting over 3 times that without having to pay broadcasters to air all their games.

That's a massive difference.

What was subsidized? The WNT pro salaries in NWSL but they tend to tiptoe around that when that gets pointed out

 

Yes, CPL through CSB was working on a women's league before Matheson went her own way with Project 8 - a strategic mistake in my opinion.

 

And players who don't fully understand the business side of soccer in this country along with other parties with agendas who are just too happy to see the soccer community tearing itself apart to keep this sport down

Right, the branding revenues are higher now. Why? Might it be because the CSA lacked the professional wherewithal to monetize their asset? Seems that way to me. 
 

Yes, the CSA did subsidize women’s professionals in the NWSL and this is good. But it’s also small potatoes relative to retaining the branding rights for an Olympic champion team. 
 

And, one more time, they sold these rights specifically to support the owners of the CPL teams. Maybe that made some sense, but (a) it included the women’s revenue stream for the men and (b) they didn’t properly disclose the transaction which destroys trust, suggests they feared the backlash and it a governance failure of epic proportions. 

[SF]

Honestly, follow the money. It’s not complicated.  Quite rudimentary really. 

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, SF said:

Right, the branding revenues are higher now. Why? Might it be because the CSA lacked the professional wherewithal to monetize their asset? Seems that way to me. 

I don't disagree but outsourcing marketing to a third party ended up bringing them more money then before and without having to spend to broadcast games.

How's any of this about the CSA subsidizing the CPL? That's just CSB providing a service to the CSA and using their cut to reinvest in another venture that ultimately benefits the CSA in the end.

It's like people expected CSB to do all the marketing work for free? 🤣

 

6 minutes ago, SF said:

Yes, the CSA did subsidize women’s professionals in the NWSL and this is good. But it’s also small potatoes relative to retaining the branding rights for an Olympic champion team.

I don't get where you're going with this.

While I understand why the CSA felt it was justified to subsidize the WNT pro salaries in NWSL, I think it was a terrible idea. They should have done like the A-League and start small with a modest domestic league which would have grown organically over time until investors like CSB came along later to take it over.

Again when they controlled all the rights they didn't have the organization, the funding nor the expertise to make money off of those revenues. Wishing that they kept it all along doesn't mean they would have done better than CSB... (Nike deal anyone?)

 

10 minutes ago, SF said:

And, one more time, they sold these rights specifically to support the owners of the CPL teams.

No, they sold those rights because CSB made a business case that it would have been in the CSA's best interest to sell those to them. They stand to make 3 to 4 times what they did before and on top of that, wouldn't need to pay to have their game aired AND they get a Division 1 league which was a prerequisite to host a World Cup.

No matter how much you deem the CSA incompetent and corrupt, it would have been insane not to take the deal in the context of there the soccer landscape was back in 2017

 

13 minutes ago, SF said:

(a) it included the women’s revenue stream for the men and (b) they didn’t properly disclose the transaction which destroys trust, suggests they feared the backlash and it a governance failure of epic proportions. 

The lack of transparency towards the players was truly appalling and you'd expect the governing body to take the time to keep them in the loop on the business side - agreed 100%

However playing Devil's advocate here, responsibility goes both ways. None of this was a secret and how the deal worked was made public. The players only started to take an interest when they started to be successful and wanted a cut of the prize money.

Wasn't it only until like this year they got representation to look after their interest? Interesting timing... it took a magical WCQ run for them to give a shit.

Responsibility goes both ways

[Aird25]

2 hours ago, SF said:

The CSB, through the deal with the CSA, owns the branding rights to all national programs including the women.

The deal is, further, a de facto subsidy of the CPL from the CSA.

So, the CSA sold rights for the womens program to pay for a mens league.

CSB must be doing a very good job at bringing in sponsorship money, if the women's national team now attracts enough money to support a coast to coast domestic league

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, SF said:

Which is idiotic on two fronts - one, they subsidized the men’s league. It would not exist absent this subsidy.

Didn't it exist for several year while they were still overpaying national team rights? I haven't read all the recent comments in this thread yet, but that seems ridiculous

[Aird25]

I wonder what Nancy and Margaret Southern would think about being called a misoginysts

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

7 hours ago, SF said:

...And, one more time, they sold these rights specifically to support the owners of the CPL teams...

You are never going to convince some of these guys because they are driven by visceral level emotion rather than rationality.

Another point to highlight is that Victor Montagliani & Co essentially handed over the keys to a significant portion of the cash windfall that was going to be generated by the co-host in 2026. This was done in a completely premeditated way but with minimal transparency because they would have known full well that the terms of the deal were counter to the interests of other key stakeholders within Canadian soccer.

A lot of the current uproar was caused by this being brought to light when the CMNT suddenly started winning key qualifier games in a CONCACAF context and qualified for Qatar. This meant that the terms that were absurdly slanted in favour of CSB in World Cup finals participation years by having a pre-determined annual fixed fee kicked in four years earlier than had initially been anticipated.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[SF]

I agree with you.

The concept the CSB deal is fine, but the CSA (a) horribly mispriced it and (b) failed on the transparency front. Regarding the lack of transparency I am torn as to whether is was simple incompetence or cynical calculation.  Probably a mix of both, with a more material weighting to simple incompetence. 

What I find difficult is the argument that this transaction didn't diminish the women's national team program. Maybe I am missing something, but the CSA sold the rights to the women's program to a business that needed the income of the transaction in order to start a men's professional league.

This is plainly two things - a subsidy (from revenues the CSA was choosing to forego) to the men's league and slap in the face to the women.

And, yes, I know the CSB said they would get around to starting a woman's league.  And they even hired a former CWNT player to start the process.  But she eventually quit (1 guess as to why) and the CSB didn't pursue the league. Which is fine - they don't like the business. But, what this demonstrates VERY clearly, is that the CSB deal prioritized the men's program over the women's (with. again, traded CSA revenues that are being generated by BOTH the men's and women's programs).

For the record, I find no fault with CSB. They made a deal, took some risk and it's worked out. The CSA, however, has utterly failed in it's role at national governing body.

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, SF said:

I agree with you.

The concept the CSB deal is fine, but the CSA (a) horribly mispriced it and (b) failed on the transparency front. Regarding the lack of transparency I am torn as to whether is was simple incompetence or cynical calculation.  Probably a mix of both, with a more material weighting to simple incompetence. 

What I find difficult is the argument that this transaction didn't diminish the women's national team program. Maybe I am missing something, but the CSA sold the rights to the women's program to a business that needed the income of the transaction in order to start a men's professional league.

This is plainly two things - a subsidy (from revenues the CSA was choosing to forego) to the men's league and slap in the face to the women.

And, yes, I know the CSB said they would get around to starting a woman's league.  And they even hired a former CWNT player to start the process.  But she eventually quit (1 guess as to why) and the CSB didn't pursue the league. Which is fine - they don't like the business. But, what this demonstrates VERY clearly, is that the CSB deal prioritized the men's program over the women's (with. again, traded CSA revenues that are being generated by BOTH the men's and women's programs).

For the record, I find no fault with CSB. They made a deal, took some risk and it's worked out. The CSA, however, has utterly failed in it's role at national governing body.

On a annual basis, how much do you think the broadcast and sponsorship rights for the women’s national team has been worth?

[Ansem]

Too many people are in their feelings and can't see facts.

[narduch]

15 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

On a annual basis, how much do you think the broadcast and sponsorship rights for the women’s national team has been worth?

I'm a little bit curious to hear from all the people who are against the CSB deal. I want to know how they think 2019-2021 would have gone down with out.

We know TSN and Sportsnet weren't willing to pay for the broadcast rights.

And you need to hire specialized paid staff if you want to try and go out and get sponsorships on your own. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by narduch

[Aird25]

 

[SF]

More than the women’s team has received to fund their own professional league 

[SF]

But the CSB is profitable, right? 
 

Totally agree CSA would have had to hire specialized staff. Growing a business is hard. Ask anyone who has done it. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

30 minutes ago, narduch said:

I'm a little bit curious to hear from all the people who are against the CSB deal. I want to know how they think 2019-2021 would have gone down with out.

We know TSN and Sportsnet weren't willing to pay for the broadcast rights.

And you need to hire specialized paid staff if you want to try and go out and get sponsorships on your own. 

All the CSB deal is missing is an incremental clause-the CSB pays the CSA a % more annually if a minimum revenue is reached-, a commission on clear windfalls-10% of revenue if over a certain annual revenue figure-and periodical, say 5-year, revisions and hinged renewals, enabling CSB to bow out and the CSA to cancel or buy out.

It's hard to believe they had no legal or financial advice in those directions, it's a mess of a contract no question.

[CanadaFan123]

29 minutes ago, narduch said:

I'm a little bit curious to hear from all the people who are against the CSB deal. I want to know how they think 2019-2021 would have gone down with out.

We know TSN and Sportsnet weren't willing to pay for the broadcast rights.

And you need to hire specialized paid staff if you want to try and go out and get sponsorships on your own. 

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. I’d wager that we wouldn’t have made the World Cup without the CSB deal. Can the deal be optimized? I’m sure it can, but I am absolutely behind the current CSA leadership for their vision to make something out of nothing and take this program to the highest point it’s ever been in the midst of a pandemic and against all odds. 
 

We are on a path to have a profitable federation, successful teams, a great World Cup, a growing CPL and a women’s league. Let’s not lose sight of that simply because some greedy athletes are throwing out buzz words on social media. 

[Aird25]

8 minutes ago, SF said:

More than the women’s team has received to fund their own professional league 

More than what CSB pays CSA every year?

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

5 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

...I’d wager that we wouldn’t have made the World Cup without the CSB deal...

Given 0 out of 60 players on the provisional roster for the 2021 Gold Cup finals were from CanPL I would love to hear your rationale for that. Just because you want something to be the case doesn't make it so.

If a significant portion of the CMNT roster was playing their club level soccer in CanPL it would be easier to justify having CMNT related revenues flowing to the league but that isn't what is happening so there is no sensible analogy with what happened with MLS and SUM twenty to thirty years ago.

Instead, qualifying for Qatar with only a very marginal CanPL influence on the CMNT roster undermined much of the rationale that was provided for making the deal in the first place. It's a bit like England's FA pumping a huge portion of the money they earn off their men's and women's national teams into the Nationwide Conference so those clubs can stay fully professional. 

Very difficult to justify to other stakeholders on the men's side of things as being of sufficient benefit to them and impossible to justify on the women's side of things because of the blatant sexism involved in favouring the development of men's soccer over women's soccer.

[narduch]

27 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Given 0 out of 60 players on the provisional roster for the 2021 Gold Cup finals were from CanPL I would love to hear your rationale for that. Just because you want something to be the case doesn't make it so.

Its not about the CPL players but the $3 million v the $1 million they used to receive from IMG.

It allowed them to do things like fly private instead of commercial.

You are so myopic in your hate for CPL that you can't see the bigger picture