Does USSF take a cut from the franchise fees MLS sells? Did CSA take a cut from when franchise fees were sold in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto? I don't think that USSF takes or will require a cut from Liga MX if they wanted to expand to US. But let's assume USSF did. MLS franchise fee is already exceeding $500M. Liga MX fees were rumored around $80M-100M. Is USSF going to require a $400M fee just so Liga MX can expand to US? Doubtful it will be that high but let's just say yes. That's still less than the price of what an MLS franchise fee will be if MLS were to expand to 32 teams. That's a damn good deal because Liga MX is more popular than MLS, doesn't do revenue sharing which means any TV contract the US based city Liga MX team gets is all for them. Everything the team makes is all theirs. Plus any other contract they get, like jersey deals, is exclusively for them without sharing with anyone else in the league. That's a big money pot there ready for the taking.
What would the CSA "ask" exactly? It seems lost to you that all MLS ever contributed financially to the CSA was the club membership fees that must be paid by all clubs CPL earns the CSA more money overall than MLS. The more they expand the pyramid, the more the gap widens since CSME can keep expanding not only in CPL but all the other tiers it's working to expand So the "ask" and "money" some of you keep referring at is a non issue. There's no mechanism where a league can "buy" a spot for one of its club into another country's pyramid. There are FIFA Statute regulating this and under such stature - the CSA would refuse. If buy a miracle they'd hypothetically said "yes", CONCACAF would flat out say "no". You'd need the USSF to agree to have a Canadian club competing in a league that it sanctions. Ultimately, FIFA would have to agree, it would never get that far. The whole premise is lazy and dumb from the tired "exceptionalism" mindset. Why would the USSF let MLS give the CSA a huge lump sump for access to they pyramid and not demand the same in return? It's just crazy talk
These two sentences have a certain, shall we say, tension. The second sentence, which is a fact, shows why the first sentence doesn’t make sense.
Money, probably What makes this discussion frustrating is you have one side (yours) that is continually making absolutist posts. You don’t write “would probably” you write “would.” You have a fool’s certainty.
Probably...not very convincing. Point to a similar scenario where what you proposed ever happened. (lump sump to an FA to compete into their pyramid) Show us a precedent. Demonstrate/explain how/why MLS would even entertain the idea of writing a cheque to the CSA for a market much smaller in comparison to some in the US still available You're frustrated because you got nothing and you refuse to accept that football is "that" different than the other top 4 leagues and heavily (overly) regulated by an organization that's much, much bigger in scope than your league
Well every Data point is still pointing in this direction. Even the owners on the board are conflicted on how to get there, yet it is still the goal. A closed league with thirty teams and a payroll of 35-50 million with little to no mechanisms would be a league of choice. Not for every top players in their prime but they would certainly be employing some of them at least for a little while.
That's the issue and why it isn't serious. Might be the league of choice if you come in as a true high paying DP, for obvious reasons. We'll see how serious they are in the next CBA.
I think what’s really telling about these moments is the level to which emotion takes over reasoning, popularly. And who made that happen and why. MLS let the relocation story out, thus initiating the outrage. They wanted the outrage so they could leverage a favorable outcome. And so many people eagerly oblige and with so much emotion. So much energy spent on arguing about things that aren’t relevant to the outcome.
I think it really depends on the situation. You mention Leagues Cup, let's take a step back and assess why Liga MX found itself in the Leagues Cup in the first place. Many would argue it's because Liga MX got frozen out of the Copa Libertadores, while Conmebol was waiting with open arms for a return. Concacaf had no problem wielding their regulatory power in that scenario.
I don't think the next CBA would be any indication of how serious they are because I believe that's a given and there is no other data that would suggest they aren't. It just comes down to how they agree to get there. Some owners want to spend more and others are fine with the slow and steady pace that has grown the league since 1994 when it was announced. If they weren't serious they would never have spent billions in building infrastructure, refined player development over thirty years and created a developmental league and partnered with global investment firm KKR to accelerate the growth of MLS NEXT Pro.
I don't think there will be a roll over in the sense of a publicly funded stadium, but as to why they can make a better deal, well, you're kind of getting at it. BC Place is overbuilt for two tenants, it'd be even more overbuilt for one. Yes, I think it would be fair to say it's highly situational, that's why I say it's a negotiation where both parties have their sources of power. And multiple reasons can be true at the same time. One being the Libertadores, another being that, as LMX's president noted, MLS's revenues were growing by 20% per annum, and LMX wanted in on that action (CONCACAF couldn't realistically deliver it). Both can be part of the calculus. Another example of contextuality is the LA team in the Mexican league. That was proposed in the 90s after MLS seemed to be on the horizon. Had it been seriously proposed and financially backed in 1985, it probably would have happened. I would say you'll know a lot by "MLS 3.0" and the first European calendar season. I don't love the term "seriousness" because it implies that there's only one priority out there, and I do believe MLS wants to be the best league in CONCACAF, but there's other things to balance that with. They could, tomorrow, just let LAFC spend whatever they want (or not even that, just let them mostly do that) and LAFC would oblige with a team that can really win the Cup, without endangering themselves financially. The financial problem would come downhill from LA if they did that.
When Garber mentioned never say never about Pro/Rel recently and possibly merging with another league, you realize they are forward thinking. Yet in the same conversation he mentions a 32 team league and not wanting to tell the person who just financed a new stadium they won't be playing in the league next year. He praised the growth of lower leagues and mentioned MLS Next but also said it won't happen for a while if it did. Maybe that's an eye on USL Premiere to see if they actually start building infrastructure but bottom line is they will have something happening when he keeps saying MLS 3.0. I think the only thing that will never change is much like most American leagues, there will be some kind of revenue sharing and a salary cap. There will never be teams spending as much as the want.
MLS HQ would prefer that the Whitecaps stay in Vancouver. MLS HQ would also prefer that a very wealthy ownership group purchases an expansion team for Las Vegas. MLS didn't leak the Vegas group bid, it was the group behind that bid. MLS doesn't really react all that kindly to noisy business people. Ask the Cosmos about that. MLS made Phil Rawlins sell out to a Brazilian multi-millionaire AND get a SSS approved BEFORE granting Orlando a spot. See also Sacramento. Hell, ask Joey Saputo. He balked at the expansion fee, and then ended up paying almost DOUBLE to get in the league a few years later. The louder a prospective group is, the more hoops MLS HQ is going to make them go through. A lot can be said about MLS, both good and bad. The one thing that cannot really be denied is that the ownership groups in the league have serious money behind them. Even the "poor" teams have Billionaires in their group (Richie Graham is a minority owner of the Union, and he's a Billionaire). Joey Saputo is a Billionaire. The Rapids owners..... yeah.... Kroenke/Walton money speaks for itself even if they don't want to spend it on their MLS team. Hell even Precourt is a Billionaire. Right now the best case scenario for Vancouver is the current group selling a stake in the club. Be it a majority stake or a minority stake to bring in more investment. Then they get a new stadium over the line, privately funded. They work out a more tenable short term deal to play at BC Place in the interim. For the record, the BC Lions didn't pay a f'n toonie for BC Place either. Also, WTH does PAVCO do exactly? Why haven't they sold sponsorships for BC Place in order to raise more money to pay down their debt service on the BC Place renovation? Wouldn't that be smart business? Telus Field at BC Place........ Rogers Stage at BC Place...... The Aritzia Pavilion at BC Place...... Lululemon suite level...... Wouldn't these companies want their name associated with the regions World Class sporting and concert venue?
Good Whitecaps news on the horizon? @GlobalBC Sports has learned FIFA VP Victor Montagliani, representatives of 3 local First Nations bands, City of Vancouver, Provincial/Fed govt and MLS officials meeting on Weds..hope is to get MOU signed on new 4-5yr BC Place.— JAY JANOWER (@JayJanower) May 12, 2026 Good Whitecaps news on the horizon?@GlobalBC Sports has learned FIFA VP Victor Montagliani, representatives of 3 local First Nations bands, City of Vancouver, Provincial/Fed govt and MLS officials meeting on Weds..hope is to get MOU signed on new 4-5yr BC Place.
What does PAVCO do? They literally operates BC Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre, books international events, concerts, trade shows, FIFA events, Grey Cups and manages the facility year-round. BC Place isn’t just a football stadium. It’s multipurpose provincial infrastructure. There's a reason they aren't rushing to give away the venue just to help out billionaire ownees so they can maximize revenues for about 20 dates out of 365. A deal can be reach if it also makes sense for the province with assurance that they aren't going to move anyways...this would make the government look bad, understandable they are being careful On sponsorships: naming rights aren’t some magic unlimited money glitch. There’s a reason many publicly owned stadiums keep iconic names instead of rebranding every section into corporate ads. BC Place already has sponsorship and advertising partnerships throughout the venue. Selling the actual stadium naming rights is a strategic and political decision, not evidence of incompetence. Slapping “Lululemon Suite Level” on a sign suddenly pays off a billion-dollar redevelopment is wildly exaggerated. Even major Canadian naming-rights deals are usually measured in millions annually, while large stadium redevelopments are long-term infrastructure investments amortized over decades. Finally, the renovation wasn’t done just for the Lions. It was done to replace a deteriorating roof, modernize the venue, keep Vancouver competitive for global events and avoid losing major economic activity to other cities. The stadium hosts everything from FIFA tournaments to concerts to trade conventions. That benefits the province, not just one team.
So, selling sponsorships for BC Place wouldn't help PAVCO and the province pay down their debt service on the renovations made to the stadium? I understand that these things are amortized over decades, but that still shouldn't prevent the ability to pay that debt down sooner, or even make more money to help the public. I asked if selling more sponsorships would be smart business for PAVCO. I didn't say anything about selling sponsorships to "subsidize billionaires." So please stop putting words in my mouth in order to drive your agenda. We all see that you strongly dislike MLS, and any and everything associated with it. We all also see that you are unable to see the other sides of stories. You're also not denying that the BC Lions didn't pay into these renovations either......And yes, the Lions average a higher attendance than the Whitecaps. Their new owner has also brought in big name artists such as 50 Cent and Snoop Dog for opening kickoff concerts. The Lions are also suffering from the fact that they're gameday revenue is low due to their deal to play at BC Place.
The thread doesn't understand why the local three nations are there. They don't seem to have any money to become a partner. I wonder what the deal is?
You keep drifting away from the original point. Nobody said sponsorship revenue is useless. Obviously more sponsorships can help generate additional revenue. What’s being disputed is your implication that this is somehow central to the discussion. The Whitecaps don’t own BC Place. They don’t control provincial infrastructure policy, naming-rights strategy or PAVCO’s business decisions. Selling more sponsorships tomorrow would not fundamentally change MLS economics, Whitecaps ownership losses or the broader questions surrounding the club’s long-term future. The issue is that BC Place is a provincial multipurpose venue designed around broader public and economic objectives : concerts, conventions, tourism, FIFA events, CFL, MLS - not as a tool around maximizing the profitability of sports league. Also ironic to accuse others of having an “agenda” while framing every public infrastructure discussion around what’s best for MLS while ignoring taxpayers interests (nor should you have any reasons to care)
Where did I say PavCo selling sponsorships would be best for MLS??? Where have I phrased anything around what's best for MLS? You're seriously like a dog with it's favorite bone. A wagyu porterhouse could be placed right beside you, and you'd ignore it because someone mentioned PAVCO, BC Place, CPL, etc. Completely ignoring anything else mentioned or discussed.