SF

That was something. MLS struggles with officiating when they aren’t using replacement referees. I’m not even a CFM supporter, but was left angry watching that.

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.

So true.

This is the crux of it. They entered a 20 year agreement with a de facto related party and did so without fully testing the market for other offers. That will be the argument the players lawsuit makes and it names the directors because they have a fiduciary obligation (codified in law) to ensure a good process was followed. Maybe a full and proper decision making process was followed, but it seems reasonable to suggest one wasn’t. This will be all about process. The players may win or lose, but that will be their legal case.

I haven't read the actual statement of claim, but I think the basis of the argument here will be that the directors failed in their roles as fiduciaries. This is a well established concept in Canadian law and one every director (paid or volunteer) should be aware of (that the directors owe their duty to the organization they serve). It is no stretch to argue that the CSA directors failed in this sense - i.e. that they did not act in the best interests of Canadian soccer, the CSA and all of its constituents. How they arrive at $40mm and whether they can prove it, I am not sure. But their central argument (if my assumption is correct) isn't crazy,

The CSA is definitely at risk of losing money. In relative terms it lost a lot of it last year - it’s right there in its audited financial statements. It’s also at risk of running out of money - happens to NFPs all the time. Literally all the time. All this aside - I suspect one of the real issues here is that hiring for this job seems exceedingly difficult. We all want a superstar (even if we disagree on how complicated the job is), but the capacity for competitive remuneration in the superstar universe is severely lacking. Anyway, the whole thing truly blows for Canadian soccer. It seems the CSA simply can’t do anything right - signing bad 20 year business deals, teams going on strike, coaches quitting, executives being turned over for endless reasons….so frustrating.

I would argue it is both an important and difficult job. The person in the role has to manage many constituencies, most of which are self interested- national teams and their lawyers, provincial associations, professional and amateur clubs, fans, sponsors, Concacaf, FIFA and more. All of this against a backdrop of a financially hamstrung organization and a Board of Directors that have proven itself to be dysfunctional and reluctant to change (any CEOs works nightmare). And we’re set to cohost a World Cup in 2026. And the job is important because financial and administrative success matter in creating good teams and players (at all levels). No different than a professional club - look at clubs that have gone into administration. Look at TFC. The top down leadership at these organizations is massively important. I don’t know Walker and I don’t know why she chose to not start the job, but it wouldn’t surprise if she got into the weeds on the above matters and had second thoughts (especially the Board and financial pieces). Regardless of why she made her decision, the job of the next GS is probably even a bit harder now.

Was is announced? A quick look through the 2022 audited financial statements shows good disclosure on the CSB transaction. The 2021 audited financial statements appear to be silent on the matter. A google search doesn't yield audited statements prior to 2021, but I would wager the disclosures look more like 2021 than 2022 (when the microscope was shining). I don't dispute the suggestion that the players should be more switched on to these things (or have representatives that are), but it's not clear to me the CSA has been especially proactive in disclosing this transaction.

This struck me too. I note that he made that quote in the context of Diana Matheson birthing a womens professional league that wasn't about personal gain, but about investing for the good of all of the Canadian game - a sentiment that is in stark contrast to so much of what the administration of Canadian soccer has traditionally been. It seems that as a soccer nation we attract people to leadership positions that would rather fight over small scraps than work together to create a bigger enterprise. Maybe I'm reading into Herdman's quote a bit, but that is what I heard.

Amen. How the CSA let that happen I will never understand.

My view is that it is an egregiously mispriced of exchange of good/services and, as such, a de facto subsidy. What the CSA is getting out of this transaction is tangible, but materially less tangible if they had negotiated this with full competence and/or good faith. Let me ask this - I buy a bag of milk in Ontario for $3 a litre. Is this a proper exchange of money for a good? Sure - but is it subsidized? You bet it is - absent this subsidy I would probably pay half that amount. And, by the way, dairy farmers don't get a cheque from the government. They only get a cheque from the consumer, but the price is controlled by the government. All of which is to say that price manipulation/subsidies can come in many forms. The best argument that the CSB deal is not a subsidy (or a transfer of CSA funds to a professional league) is that the CSA were historically naive. Which may be true, but as a fan of Canadian soccer it doesn't make me feal any better. Honestly, this is either economics 101 (it's a subsidy) or finance 101 (the CSA got its ass handed to it in a business transaction). Both suck.

Fair enough, but how does this explain how the women's team has been a hot ticket? Or maybe we should be having more woman's team games (which, I suppose, we are doing this and next month). Just strikes me that the woman's tickets are hot and the mens tickets are less hot. Not expressing a view, just making an observation.

I’ve noticed the same - the pricing for the women’s game was almost exactly the same and it sold out. The men’s game looks like it might have an awful crowd. Honest question - I wonder why? Weather? Women’s game was an Olympic qualifier? Did CSA promote the women’s game better? The men’s game is actually an important match on its own too

Well, I would say "by definition" it is a subsidized risk, no? Lots - MOST - business people take risk without subsidies

So the argument is that they are losing money and, therefore, are indifferent to losing more money? I don't know any of the CPL/CSB group, but they don't strike me as pure benefactors with an intolerance for perpetual losses (which is not a criticism, by the way).