Everything in soccer is solvable with money. Who is willing to put up the money to solve the issue is the problem.
Saputo Stadium already has undersoil heating. It’s been there since the original build in 2008. The pitch isn’t the issue. The real problem is everything around the pitch : the stands, the wind exposure, the fact the place is basically a giant freezer from November to March. Winterizing Saputo is about making the stadium usable and safe for fans in February. You’d need a roof, wind protection, heating in the stands, snow‑load engineering and probably major structural reinforcement. That’s not a $5-10M upgrade. That’s a $150-300M rebuild, minimum. It’s not that Saputo “can’t afford it.” The real question is "what’s the payoff? Montreal winters are brutal. You’re asking people to sit outside in –15-20C with wind off the river nearby while the Montreal Canadiens are playing indoors downtown. No amount of infrastructure spending magically creates demand for outdoor soccer in February in this city. The club already struggles with early‑season attendance in April when it’s “only” +5C. To be fair to Canadian clubs - none of them envisioned that the league would go Euro calendar back in the late 2000s/early 2010s. This just won't work here, BMO Field also struggle during colder days and winters are nicer. Fans will take it here and there but not consistently especially when you have both Raptors and Maple Leafs playing indoors at the same time. Another incompatibility between both markets
Wow! If I had a nickel for every time I wished Mike was around this week, I'd have two nickels-- which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Right?
using your logic, the Columbus-Austin would never have happened the way it did-- but it did and MLS got the money by doing some business trickery- bottom line is that MLS is a business and businesses will never want to turn down $600 mill- letting Vancouver move to LV with no money coming to MLS just doesnt make sense (its why MLS found a solution for Columbus and Anthony Precourt- while it put the Columbus Crew supporters through the wringer, in the end all is well that ends well, BUT i dont think that MLS will do that again as it had a stinky smell to it- and the league would loose a very successful and passionate soccer market (terrible business optics) keeping MLS in Vancouver with a new ownership group and eventually awarding 2 expansion franchises (perhaps LV and Indianapolis) for over $1 billion makes good business and PR sense - both cities and MLS win and a weak BC Government needs some good news-- and that is what MLS is working on with all Whitecaps, Government and new investors-- and 32 sounds like a good number, including Vancouver however this sport saga works out, Vancouver will stay in MLS and 2026 will be the year it happens- living in the area, you can feel the vibes of optomism and when City and Provincial Governments are working at it together, well that is a miracle in itself PS nobody with a differing point of view from yours is as dumb as a rock- keep the dialogue respectful
You’re still not getting it. Your posts only make sense if it’s 100% that Vegas is getting an MLS team and the only issue is whether it’s the Whitecaps, or it’s an expansion team. But those assumptions aren’t 100%.
Exactly and there is no reason to believe that the current bid to buy Vancouver would still be there for an expansion team instead. Gustavson wants to play next year and said they would find a stadium until one is built. That doesn't mean if it gets delayed it's guaranteed in the future. Sacramento was approved then the owner dropped out.
Respectfully, or as respectfully as possible, this isn't a matter of opinion. It is just math. On this matter, MLS does not lose a $500 million expansion fee if the Caps move to Vegas. They just get it from another city for team #31. 2+2=4. Team #31 = $500 million. Team #32 = another $500 million. Vegas. Indy. Detroit. Phoenix. Whomever. The only way what you are saying makes any sense is if Vegas is the only city willing to pay the expansion fee. There is no evidence that this is the case. Heck, even in that case, it isn't the move itself costing them the $500 million, it is the market. Markets change. But that is a minor point. The second thing you seem not to understand, ie the Crew/Austin relocation and my "logic," is that the expansion fee isn't the only thing factoring into the decision. The prospect of losing the expansion fee isn't the thing keeping the Caps in Vancouver. And it wasn't what kept the Crew in Columbus. That was an ownership group willing to buy the team & build a stadium with (mostly) their own money. The stadium situation (and a lying prick owner) were the problems in Columbus. Precourt never seriously looked for a solution in Columbus, he always wanted to move to Austin. That was his plan from jump. I do not think the same can be said for the current owners in Vancouver. A lot of fan protest shed a light on the situation. Not just in Columbus but elsewhere. The threat of a Modell Law lawsuit also bought us some time. And certainly could have drafged it out longer, win or lose. But ultimately, the ownership group willing to build the stadium is what saved the Crew. The people in this thread who have, very politely, over and and over, tried to explain this to you are not saying the Caps will necessarily move. Nor do I. Or, I would guess anyone elsecin this thead who does not live in Vegas. There are great reasons to keep the Caps in Vancouver. Those reasons eventually won out in Columbus, but you need a stadium solution PDQ. The longer you persist in making arguments that make no logical or mathematical sense, the responses are gonna get less polite and respectful. As mine was. And, for the record, I thought it was pretty obvious you (and everyone else making this argument) were in the "not thinking clearly" bucket instead of the "dumb as a rock" one. I still do. But the longer you persist you may start to make me wonder. MLS does not lose $500 million by moving the Caps. And the expansion fee is not the only factor in the decision to stay or go. That is a stadium solution. A permanent one. If that can be found in Vancouver the Caps will stay. If not, then sadly, they will likely move.
Let's say the average MLS shareholding is worth $500 million. 1. Vancouver move to Vegas. The average MLS shareholding is still worth $500 million. 2. Vancouver stays in BC and Vegas pays an expansion fee of $500 million. The average MLS shareholding is still worth $500 million. Any owner dividend would be (anything Vegas pays in excess of $500 million - the bit the league takes - the dilution in the share value)/30. It's not like the owners get to split the expansion fee 30 ways.
That's exactly what happens: MLS expansion fees are multi-hundred-million-dollar buy-in costs paid by new ownership groups to enter Major League Soccer. These fees act as both an equity investment into the league and a compensation mechanism to protect the value of existing franchises. [1, 2] The primary purposes of these fees include: Compensating Existing Owners: When a new team joins, the league's overall revenue (such as national television rights) is split among more franchises. The expansion fee serves as a "buy-in" that is usually divided equally among existing, fully vested club owners to compensate them for this dilution of their market share. Buying Equity and League Rights: New investor-operators aren't just paying for the right to play; they are purchasing a share of the league’s central assets, intellectual property, and a vote on the league's Board of Governors. Establishing Franchise Value: Because MLS is a single-entity structure, new locations aren't founded organically from lower tiers but are essentially purchased. The soaring cost of these fees—reaching up to $325 million—helps establish and elevate the enterprise valuation of all teams in the league. Funding League-Wide Growth: Portions of these fees can be utilized to improve central operations, build out academies, or enhance national broadcast and marketing deals, which ultimately benefit every club Here's some more context. Anthony Precourt originally bought the Columbus Crew from Hunt Sports Group for an estimated $68M in 2013. He then sold the operating rights for the Crew to Haslam Sports Group in 2018 for an estimated $150M (which is what Minnesota United and Nashville paid for an expansion fee). Precourt then used the money from that sale to help fund Q2 Stadium in Austin. Sacramento's expansion team is technically on hiatus. It's possible that MLS could grant a team to Sacramento under the original agreed upon fee ($200M) once they've secured an approved ownership group with the required financial backing. Which, if this happens to be the case, the league may be reluctant of forgoing a potential hefty expansion fee for a team in a "premier" sports market such as Las Vegas.
I guess FIFA really is all powerful, lol: Let me get this straight...the Lions and Whitecaps get no revenue from parking around BC Place, but FIFA comes to town and gets the revenue, while charging $75.00 for a spot? Lol...make it make sense. https://t.co/nSHZNmbh7N— BCLionsDen 🇨🇦 🍁 (@BCLionsDen) May 23, 2026 Let me get this straight...the Lions and Whitecaps get no revenue from parking around BC Place, but FIFA comes to town and gets the revenue, while charging $75.00 for a spot? Lol...make it make sense.
I looked at the FIFA parking site, and they are only selling accessible parking for CAD$75. BC Place is a downtown stadium without its own general parking, so that's not really a revenue source for the Caps or Lions to deal with in this saga.
The CFL is moving some games exclusively to streaming as part of their new media rights deal ($500M). These BC Lions fans are less than thrilled: "No one supports the CFL more than you and I in this market, I will not be paying.."@DonTaylor5 and @DhaliwalSports talked about the new CFL media rights deal, including streaming exclusive games on DAZN.https://t.co/GAYm4jT6bu pic.twitter.com/cNMGHoO1bp— Donnie & Dhali (@DonnieandDhali) May 28, 2026
This further debunks the assumption that a Canadian-only deal cannot secure a significant media deal over time. It's up to CPL to improve it's audience growth, market penetration via expansion and relevance. What the league has going for it long term is that soccer has more scalability and global relevance than CFL, so a long-term higher ceiling. CFL supports a saly cap + luxury tax of ~$6.28M which will increase with the new deal.
They're also reducing fields from 100m to 100 yards, reducing the end zones and moving the posts from the goal line to the end line. USFL&CFL is next.
@Paul Berry, sheesh, ALWAYS "moving the goal posts" in every discussion! Try to stay on topic for once, PB!
More to the point, it's a 6 year, $500 million deal, which, with nine teams in the league, works out to about $10 million per team per year. So, more per team but less per year than the MLS-Apple deal, which is several years older. The salary cap, based on his numbers given, might or might not jump past that of MLS, but I doubt it, especially if he's talking in CAD, which would drop the money behind MLS even on a per team basis. I also doubt that the CPL deal would be anywhere near a CFL deal.