In theory, they pocket it for the time being, and then dip into the pocket each year to cover smaller revenue; their share of league revenues goes down with each added team. In practice, I don’t think that happens.
That’s because Beckham got a discount as part of his deal to come to MLS. You can’t use that figure in this conversation.
I was stating a fact not making an argument. I wasn't implying it had any bearing on the next expansion fee.
The expansion fee is composed of two parts, a larger part that compensates current owners for the smaller shares of current revenue that they will receive due to the same pue being shared with more teams, and a smaller actual "fee." It has already been publicly disclosed that the league would assess a relocation fee and the number kicked around is 200 million. No one is losing anything, in fact they are gaining 200m now and still getting additional expansion fees somewhere down the line, while theoretically replacing a financially insolvent market with a money making market. The team should still stay in Vancouver and I believe that at least Garber and the current local operators prefer that outcome. Insisting that MLS is obsessed with missing out on expansion fees is only one step away from the neckbeards who insist that MLS is a ponzi scheme on twitter.
agree- Cashman Filed is not suitable for MLS MLS is clear on awarding expansion teams- they want them to have their own Soccer Specific Stadium in the 25-30K range and playing on grass; the only existing cities in NFL massive stadiums are Seattle and Atlanta, and there is some hint that Seattle is exploring their own SSS sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/11/02/sounders-seek-new-investor-as-club-interested-in-new-stadium/ FYI- the Whitecaps are averaging over 24K this season and play 2x more home games than the CFL, BC Lions- as a side note, their next home game is August 1 vs LAFC and the Club is opening the upper bowl, hoping for a massive crowd of up to 55K the meeting last week drew all stakeholders or potential stakeholders seeking solutions- MLS officials, First Nations, Provincial and City government leaders, PavCo officials and the Whitecap leaders (somewhere knocking around are the serious, well-funded local investors we are hearing about, but not yet identified) the Whitecaps will stay in Vancouver
That's not true. New England and Charlotte also play in NFL stadiums. Chicago does as well at least for a few more seasons. NYCFC has played in baseball and American Football stadiums for their MLS existence as well. San Diego does not play in a SSS either. The Whitecaps also do not currently play in a SSS. It depends on the market. If MLS wants a team in a market bad enough, they'll make concessions on where a team plays it's games.
Although the Whitecaps are averaging 24K this year which is great, that's irrelevant when it comes to the outcome of the business. In the restaurant business this would be described as papering the room. Imagine a hundred people spending a dollar on a drink during happy hour and fifty people in the same room spending five dollars. You would need 250 people in the room to bring in the same revenue but in reality you would be losing more money because of the increase of expense to serve those customers. Until the Whitecaps can increase the profit margin, the increase in attendance might be only marginal compared to a team like the Union who average over 18K in a stadium they control.
Scenario A: MLS expands to Indianapolis and Vegas, getting $500M each. Scenario B: Vancouver moves to Vegas. MLS expands to Indianapolis and Phoenix, getting $500M each. No money is lost.
How can you miss Charlotte? Atlanta and Seattle (and Vancouver) both look good during MLS games as the lower bowl is full (much better still with a grass pitch), Charlotte looks like a throwback to the 1990s. New England still needs to get the new stadium over the line but it seems to be close.
Chicago has gotten a team, built a stadium, abandoned it, got a site for a new stadium, and broken ground all while New England has been futzing with their stadium issue. That's before you even talk about the more than a dozen other expansion teams and twenty-something other stadiums built in MLS and dozens more in other US soccer leagues. Lowered expectations are the way to go with this organization.
It took Boston 25 years to dig a tunnel. But if you want a fancy new government building it'll be up in no time.
Technically it was two tunnels (or more depending how you count). Have you seen the government buildings here?
Let me be clear: I am NOT advocating for the Caps to move to Vegas. There are plenty of reasons to keep the Caps in Vancouver. It's just that MLS saving $500M isn't one of them.
Posted this on the calendar thread. Similar issues could be coming for CF Montreal with Olympic Stadium (owned by the Government of Quebec). Although they have a stadium, can't play games there in the cold. Tough stadium negotiation coming to Montréal after Vancouver Post: This podcast was hosted today by Gavino Da Falco who worked with Apple for CF Montreal games, 98.5fm radio in Montreal and now covering FC Supra on TVA Sports. He gave insights based on sources from within the club regarding the winter calendar According to this : starts at (25:30) in French MLS is increasingly frustrated with CF Montréal having to start every season on the road. If the team makes the playoffs this year, they may not even be able to host matches in Montréal, as the Olympic Stadium is currently under renovation. Looking ahead, the upcoming winter schedule (February to April) presents a major challenge: most matches cannot be played at Saputo Stadium due to weather conditions, while Olympic Stadium will remain unavailable. The league wants this situation resolved by 2028 and the club is hoping the ongoing renovations will be completed by then though that timeline appears unlikely. MLS has made it clear that it is not prepared to tolerate the current status quo until 2030 or beyond. A deadline of Fall 2028 has reportedly been set for CF Montréal to have a stadium that meets league standards. MLS has already provided its specifications which would require interior renovations estimated at $400M–$500M CAD (excluding the roof and acoustics, which are already funded). Meanwhile, the Quebec government has allocated roughly $170M for upgrades to seating, corporate suites, and locker rooms but not until 2030 or 2032. This funding is both insufficient and too delayed to meet MLS expectations. According to sources, the government has indicated that no additional funding for interior upgrades will be approved before this year’s October election, especially with the current ruling party trailing in the polls. CF Montréal has hinted that it could consider relocating if progress is not made. This may be a strategic move to pressure the government into accelerating and financing the required upgrades. However, this would likely lead to complex negotiations: the government would most likely prefer/expect the team to play all its home games at Olympic Stadium, while the club would likely want to split games between Olympic Stadium and Saputo Stadium. If the team were to play exclusively at Olympic Stadium, it could face significant financial losses similar to the Vancouver Whitecaps. At the same time, the government is being asked to significantly increase its investment to accelerate renovations for a team that would primarily use the indoor venue only during the colder months.
Except Montreal hasn't traditionally started the season on the road. They played their home opener at The Olympic Stadium every season but one between 2012 and 2024. The only reason they're having to start on the road is because of the OS renovations. Notts County installed undersoil heating and hybrid grass in 2024. If a League Two team can afford it there's no reason Saputo can't.
The "lose out on expansion fee if Vancouver moves" crowd is not thinking clearly. Or dumb as a rock. MLS will lose nothing. The only way that makes sense is if one assumes the only place they can get an expansion fee is from Vegas. Which is absurd. Current 30 + 2 expansion teams vs Current 30 - Van, +LV + 2 expansion teams MLS gets 2 expansion fees either way. I can get to 45 viable cities without breaking a sweat: Vegas, Detroit, Phoenix, Indy, Tampa, Raleigh, SF/Oak, Baltimore, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, Louisville, New Orleans, + OKC. And that is leaving places like El Paso, Rio Grand, Buffalo, Hartford, and more off the board. MLS gets 2 expansion fees either way. In fact, if Vegas is more profitable, the others will make more $$ from the Vegas move via revenue sharing. Though not a ton once it gets divvied up. The part that is true is the Vegas' ownership saves a ton of $$. They get a team without paying the full expansion fee. Just like Precourt did with the Crew when he bought them form Hunt and then moved them to Austin. The Haslams then "bought" the Crew, and paid for a new stadium. MLS got their "expansion" fee from the Haslams. The Crew was saved so Columbus was happy. Precourt got to move to Austin and never paid an expansion fee, only the bargain price from the Hunts, so he was happy. And other MLS "owners" did not care because they got their fee from Jimmy & Dee. But the Haslam's paid the real/current expansion fee, or something close, while Precourt did not, though his purchase was earlier. The winner here on a move is Vegas' ownership. The loser is Whitecaps fans & Vancouver. MLS won't lose a dime.