CBA Posted

Here’s some interesting info on salaries:

It is mutually agreed that during the 2020 and 2021 seasons, the minimum earnable annual compensation for all regular season games during a season payable to a Player in the C.F.L. shall be:

For a National Player and American Player – Sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000), excluding all pre-season subsistence allowance, all signing and performance bonuses and payments for pre-season, pre-season games and post season and Grey Cup Games.

It is mutually agreed that during the 2020/2021 seasons, the salary for a Global player shall be Fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000), excluding all pre-season subsistence allowance and payments for pre-season, pre-season games and post season and Grey Cup Games.

So it looks like Globals are locked in at $54,000, and they have to sign a 2+1 agreement. It had been reported in 2019 that Global players could only have that designation for 2 years, but I don’t see anything in the CBA to suggest that. I would think, though, that there must be some mechanism to allow a Global to earn more than $54,000 (though I don’t see any wording for such a mechanism in the agreement).

Also, it looks like national QBs can count toward the starting national quota only if they are playing (which is only logical, but there had been some speculation otherwise over the years), and there won’t be any special allowance for teams to dress three QBs if one is a national.

And American and global players can qualifiy as nationals after 2021, I think, if they’ve spent at least three years at a USports school and graduated from it.

Tnx for posting the link. I’ve read the relevant section (Article 23) a couple of times and I still don’t see anything that would explicitly prevent a team from dressing a third QB as either one of the designated Americans or as a backup National. Clearly anyone who is a QB cannot play any other position (altho interestingly, now that there are only two designated QBs they could conceivably kick or punt, which hasn’t been allowed for years when there were three). But it seems to me that if a team wanted to dress an import QB as a designated American who can play special teams or replace another American QB on offence, it could do so. Same for a non-starting Canadian QB – he would start the game with same status as other backup Canadians, but could go into the game on offence to replace a QB. At least that’s my first-glance interpretation. It would seem to be the most common-sense approach – why prohibit a team from “wasting” a backup NAT slot with a QB-only player, if that’s what it wants to do, but common sense has not always been paramount in this league.

I like the “nationalized player” concept, but I think it should require more time in the league and residence should be a part of it.

I would like considered:

If an american or global player plays for 5 years for the same team and makes his full time residence in Canada for at least the year previous, then they should be considered. This way if you are taking a national spot, the player has made the commitment to the team, 5 years, and the nation, making it his home.

I believe they can get year around work visa’s now. Why doesn’t the CFL and the teams help players and their families find work/home. Might be less turn over. Maybe they could add a small salary bonus from the league if a player lives in city they play in year around.

In the event of a game injury to any of the Club’s[b] ten (10) National Starters[/b], the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National above."
So, We just went from 7 to 10 starting Nationals??

CFL should have just lowered the ratio to 15 roster and 5 starters instead of this idea, as I’d be willing to bet you’re going to see a lot more “injuries” to Canadians the next couple of years.

I’m actually all for 2 Roster QB, but to hand spots to Global players that aren’t deserving is a joke. Then again, the CFl has been handing spots to Canadians for decades, so I shouldn’t be surprise.

The League really has become a joke under Ambrosie IMO.

The league has had problems long before Ambrosie showed up.

Technically, yes. But those ten players can (will) include three Americans who have been on the team or in the league long enough.

They’ve also changed the way that injured national players can be replaced, or at least added another option. For the past few years, if a national player were injured, i.e.,out of the game, teams were allowed to adjust the ratio between offence and defence, still maintaining the minimum seven starters. Now, any other long-time American player (not one of the three starters) can replace the injured player. This reduces the number of true national starters below seven.

Are we going to see a rash of injured national players? Perhaps, although that would reduce the roster size, so not sure it would really be worth it. Maybe late in the game? Or is that when having the full roster is necessary in order to give players a breather?

Absolutely, but since Ambrosie has come aboard have things improved or worsened ?

The Cohon Era took the League to new heights (tv ratings avg 807k, 5+ million avg Grey Cup numbers, record corporate sponsorship, 28,000+ average attendance, record breaking merchandise sales), but towards the end, particularly after 2013 things went downhill again. Orridge was a bad hire, but there were a couple of positives under his regime IMO, but with Ambrosie I have yet to see any positive growth… just a lot of talk.

Sadly, I think you’re both correct

I think you can take that one to the bank at this point. For sure you’re going to see more “injuries” at key points in a game.

Your Canadian starting left tackle getting beaten off the line by an “international” DE, and you can replace him with a veteran O-lineman who is a proven commodity in the league? You better believe if that lineman complains of a hangnail they’re pulling him from the game, and keeping him sidelined for “his” benefit. :wink:

Abuse of nationalized American injury replacement rule would not happen on the offensive line as CFL teams just do not carry backup Amercian OL on gameday rosters.

I am thinking receiver, defensive line, and safety are more likely. Positions that Canadians traditionally occupy as starters thatbackup Americans could occupy during the game. There still is a maximum of 20 Americans plus must be 3 designated imports, so there is a limit to how many non-import starters can be “injured” and be replaced by veteran Americans.

On the rosters of the 2020 and 2021 seasons, “there shall not be more than twenty (20) American Players, which shall include four (4) designated American players”.


This is essentially taking the Canadian out of the Canadian football League

Speedy Banks, Luke Tasker, Delvin Breaux, Bryan Burnham, Tyrell Sutton, etc. just became Nationals.
It would be a massive list of 4 year players.
What constitutes a season to be eligible, all 18 games??
Does an American on a practice roster for 3 years count as a Nat?

We may end up having more International players on the field than actual Canadians in a few years.

There`s not much choice on that front. Participation for football in this country is down 40 percent.

Given what we know now is the physically cost of playing football in the future only Americans will still play the game in large numbers.

Only three of those naturalized players are allowed to start among the ten starting Canadians.

However, as pointed out above, an injured Canadian can be replaced by an American vet with 3 years on the team or 4 years in the league.

For every “injured” Canadian who gets replaced by an American in-game the team is then playing one man short … the benefit of the “upgrade” increases the demands on all the “healthy” players on special teams.

This explains the changes in a nutshell

Notable Changes toCollective Bargaining Agreement

Wonder what strategy teams will use in regard to the few American backups on a gameday roster. On one hand, they could fill the spots with natralized Americans since there is a chance they could replace a Canadian starter should an injury occur. Veterans though would come at a cost at a higher salary than a rookie on an entry-level contract.

Teams on the other hand, might just dismiss the chance of inserting in a nationalized Amercian and instead choose to save the salary difference for the team’s more expensive players.

Looks like there is still confusion regarding of the number of quarterbacksin 2020 as Justin Dunk said he believed Randy Ambrosie’s recent commentsmeant that dressing 3 was going to be a team option.

I don't see why it wouldn't be a team option. Every team dresses 45 guys, starts 24 and dresses a backup QB and two Globals. If you want to have a guy who can play QB among your 18 other backups, including your four backup INTs, why wouldn't you be able to do so? The rule states that teams must dress two QBs, which seems to mean no fewer than two, not only two.

The question here is whether a veteran starter could be named to replace the injured national player, and then one of the rookie DIs could come in to replace the veteran starter, given that the veteran's status has now changed. Otherwise, you're right, the veterans would have to be listed as DIs. Of course, teams could get around this by listing their actual starters as DIs, and their backups as starters.

So many ways to get around the ratio...