"For greater clarity" the exact targeted wording

[Hypocritical] branding rules:

"except for sponsorship branding" 

"sponsor may not be a soccer club, which is not recognized by FIFA"

"No team may display banners, posters, or other advertisement
of any soccer entity other than the registered club"

On a cursory overview of the logos below; whose priority was in mind when these very targeted rules were presented? Are we so naive to believe that [quote from CBC article] "It's just far easier to have a simple rule … and make it universal for everyone..."?

"Universal" enough to cover alcohol, tobacco, political, religious influences? And distinguish it from social, cultural, neighbourhood community and commercial entities? Or to satisfy the pocket books of financially interested clubs by excluding others?

So, today the rationale is: no unrecognized FIFA soccer club or soccer entity. Their problem seems to be with the words soccer or club in the entity's name.

What about tomorrow? A year from now say, a Somali, Ukrainian, Rohingya, Colombian, Uyghurs, etc. community organization decides to have sports related activities to help welcome New Canadians. Then, because of their success and hard work in organizing these activities, decide to enter teams into "sanctioned soccer" and compete alongside the best of the best? Not on a separate league [like they are proposing]; a single league where everyone plays everyone else equally and earns their spot equally? No one is asking for charity here. Can they wear their community logos then? 

If these rules are at such time further revised, then we will now their objective is not as harmless as they want you to believe. People, entities will then have a case for human rights; for commercial rights; heck, sports rights.

(1) A logo is part of their identity

(2) New rule soccer dispute

(3) Jan. 24, 2023 full 30 min. CBC Newscast

 

The Great White North. Separate but [NOT] equal?

Local Somalian soccer group says 'discriminatory' rules left players sidelined - CBC News · Posted: Jan 24, 2023 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: January 24

Have you ever heard of redlining? Separate but equal?  This is the worst kind of prejudice and discrimination. The one whitewashed with "rules and regulations" intended to rationalize exclusion of one group. I didn't want to say it... I didn't want to believe it, but here we are, the Great White North, where soccer organizations obviously have [allegedly] a tiny racist minority of people, well placed in powerful roles within the governing organizations or within large clubs with substantial financial clout. And even worst, a larger complacent majority, unwittingly or disinterested just following along.

From the local level, the regional, provincial & national level you have had nothing but the same stream of people with the same stream of thinking: privileged, status-quo mentality, implementing and enforcing decades old, chaotic, contradictory, financially detrimental and exclusionary participation rules, and then call it "sanctioned soccer". I don't see the City of Ottawa emphasizing "drink from your sanctioned water supply"? I don't hear our local BIA saying "use only your sanctioned business"; your local government "vote for your sanctioned politician"? Or funnier yet, the local cartel saying "better use your sanctioned cocaine!" Ludicrous! Why; because they know there is (quite large) "unsanctioned" soccer participation. These same self proclaimed proponents of "Soccer for all!"; actually (a) have made no effort to bring in the larger community (in fact they are losing membership), (b) made it exceptionally difficult to do so; and worst of all (c) resorted to KGB style policing of Websites? Really? We have mentioned this exact same practice in previous posts. Have the "governing organizations" not learned anything from recent national embarrassing news?

We, and many others, have been complaining of lack of transparency, clear participation rules, disproportionate financial penalties on smaller clubs; and on the inverse a "whack-a-mole spaghetti chaos" of intertwining and contradictory rules between levels of governance, between governing regions, and between uncooperative paid employees of so called not-for-profit Soccer organizations. Complaints for years! (Decades I am sure, if we look at other past immigration to Canada).  But let's not steal SURADs thunder.  They deserve to be there with the best, and be proud to be where and when they can. By their own grit.

The greatest obstacle & struggle is the frustrating & suffocating silence of the majority.

CONTINUE Reading (EODSA League Rules as exactly worded)

Deja Vu - "...athletes should be able to focus on their jobs of “preparing, training and performing” instead of fighting their federation."

Still remember 2 employees from two different local league/association, colluding to bring financial fines & discipline charges to a specific individual; costing a small club hundreds of dollars, simply because they had previously (years back and unrelated); unfavorable personal experience.

And let's not forget the episode where the 6 largest clubs (with the help of the local "association") wanted to disassociate themselves into a Super league.

Many, many, many more anecdotes hidden away in secrecy by the leagues and associations with threat of "sanctioned discipline". 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ***** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

‘We’re not being respected.’ Athletes in other toxic sports hope Hockey Canada reckoning is just the start.

"Athletes in other sports, who have long been fighting to get Ottawa’s attention to fix problems with culture and accountability in their federations, were not surprised.  “Hockey is so bred and woven into the fabric of the Canadian identity it makes sense that they’re talked about more often,”

“Because at the end of the day, that’s really what this is showing: that people in smaller, less funded sports don’t have a say in their own governance.”

"...athletes should be able to focus on their jobs of “preparing, training and performing” instead of fighting their federation."