The league could decide to let those 3 owners operate with a higher cap. That offer was extended to the Ottawa Fury to convince them to leave USL willingly for CPL before CONCACAF denied their application. While they wouldn't be able to hold on the the contracts, should they be allowed to spend more - they could still be the super clubs of CPL (more like Barca, Real and Atletico). I like how Vancouver built their roster this year - quality, depth but nothing flashy. You could see a version of that down the road. Hypothetically, if the league was willing to accommodate OSEG - I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for MLSE, Saputo, Van group due to the value they bring with them. Disparity in wages in football is the norm - not the exception. Forge, Cavalry and Ottawa would raise their level to compete, less so the rest for now.
Hypothetically, yes. As much as I want that to happen (and I'm sure you do too) it just won't happen. CPL isn't lucrative enough right now for them to jump over. Although if I'm the Vancouver owner, I would sell the MLS franchise, run all the way to the bank and restart for cheap in CPL. And in 20 years or so sell the CPL team to run once to again to the bank.
The profitability of the CPL isn't the main issue. MLS has simply reached a point where survival requires structural changes. High operating costs in US dollars while generating revenue in Canadian dollars have severely impacted financial sustainability. Clubs likely ensure that accumulated costs never exceed their potential return on investment (ROI) when selling, which explains in part why Vancouver is looking to cash out, especially as one of the lowest-valued teams in the league. Vancouver’s situation is largely tied to playing at BC Place, where the financial model isn’t working. As for Joey Saputo, having moved to Italy, he prefers to invest in Bologna rather than Montreal, and it remains uncertain how long he will tolerate losing $20 million a year before deciding to sell. While he owns the stadium, he does not own the land. Meanwhile, MLSE can offset Toronto FC’s losses through its ownership of the Maple Leafs, Blue Jays, and Raptors, but with Bell selling its 37.5% stake, the question remains whether Rogers (75% shares) is willing to sustain TFC’s financial losses on their own long term. Ultimately, this is a business decision and if these teams join CPL, they would maintain their monopoly in three of North America's biggest markets, enter at a low cost, significantly reduce operating expenses, and still see their clubs appreciate in value over time after exiting MLS. However, they’d also sacrifice the higher revenues and global exposure of MLS. Meanwhile, the CPL continues to grow, reporting a 14% increase in attendance and a 13% rise in league revenue compared to last year, though on a different scale than MLS.
Also forgot...The winter calendar will hurt the 3 clubs tremendously. No way they can compete against the NHL and NBA/MLB in Toronto. MLS are effectively handing summer to CPL on a silver platter
And.... to add TFC and Whitecaps to CPL (not possible but, whatever) does not equal 10 teams because York and Vancouver FC would be contracted/die pronto. The hellfire bent on growth of the game via expansion of top tier football in North America is a farce. Adding the Hartford Centennials and Team Hawaii just won't work... though Tulsa Roughnecks were pretty legendary.
lets not get political. Canada has 40 million people. But had 30 million 20 years ago, so you are growing fast. If this keeps up the CPL will grow a lot and also if MLS wants to grow they will have to find a way to make space. Nothing is forever. Business terms can be amended. Just watch. You'll see things start to move in 5-10 years.
Garber will make it happen; he'll take some ownership of CPL and become their marketing arm or something. He's crafty. You lay out the pathways though; that is insightful sir. The Champions League is the most exicting even in football, outside of World Cup. So the business appeal is there. Once Garber sees dollar signs he'll start moving. We can only have a good Champions League if Canada is strong. Otherwise it doesn't work. Its just a redundant competition between US and Mexico at this point. UEFA CL is a global event. Do you want to be like Europe or not? Yes we do. The central American and Caribbean countries won't grow big enough, so its all on Canada to make this happen
So CPL is already reporting an increase in revenue but MLS going on 30 years is still losing "$20M a year". Riiiighhhttt. If Saputo were losing $20M a year he would've sold a long time ago. No need to hold on to something that is making you lose money year after year. Heck, I would sell the money pit and join CPL that already has revenue increases in just 5 years of existence.
US as in MLS Let me rephrase, its a competition between MLS and Liga MX Which only further proves my point Now imagine if the Whitecaps were in the CPL. That would be wayyy more interesting
I understand the skepticism, allow me to elaborate. League vs club finances MLS operates as a single-entity league, meaning the league handles most major contracts (TV rights, sponsorships, player deals) and redistributes revenue. The league (and its marketing arm, SUM) may be profitable, but individual clubs can still operate at a loss due to local costs, attendance, sponsorships, etc. Why owners tolerate losses Even if Saputo is losing money annually, CF Montréal’s franchise value has increased significantly since joining MLS. Like in the NHL, where teams like the Coyotes have lost money but owners still hold on, it's a long-term investment play, short-term losses in exchange for asset appreciation. It's fine until the accumulated losses vs the overall value of the asset no longer makes sense (Montréal’s remains one of the lowest with Vancouver). Cashing out before the business venture becomes a net loss makes sense hence the club restricting its spending CPL Is on a different scale The CPL’s revenue growth is great news but it's still a young league with smaller budgets, travel, and operating costs. Growth means progress, clubs are losing money but the CPL/CSB business model is viable, they are the marketing arm of bot league and all CSA properties after all This isn’t unique to football This dynamic exists in the other major leagues who can make money overall, while certain teams struggle. That’s why revenue-sharing and financial controls exist, but not every team comes out ahead every year. Clubs have been moved including in MLS despite being those leagues being profitable So yes, it's absolutely possible (and even very likely) that Saputo loses money on paper even if MLS/SUM are thriving.
All this "MLS is losing money every year, they are just waiting to cash out" makes no sense at all. If Montreal has been losing $20M each year ever since they joined then up to date (and counting) they have lost $260M. Plus how much did they pay for the franchise? And he will continue to lose money because some sucker will come and buy the franchise for a billion dls in several more years just so that sucker can keep on losing even more money? Yea, I don't buy that. If so, I would join CPL right now that it is already reporting profits, join while it is cheap and it is only spending $1.2M on player salaries and get rid of the money pit that is MLS.
That’s the flaw in all these “it’s a pyramid scheme and doomed” screeds. I can buy he’s lost $20M over the whole time he’s owned the team, but no, he hasn’t lost that each year. One, it makes no sense given what we know of payrolls, two, nobody would willingly lose THAT much, and three, if he was losing $20M a year the franchise would be worth less than nothing…LITERALLY.
The Saputo are one of Canada's wealthiest family, there's no point lying about annual losses when they are worth over $7.5B. Montreal will be a club to watch once the winter calendar goes in effect. The biggest worry for fans is Saputo's recent interview where he said he felt "less passionate and more detached" from the club. The fact that CF Montreal has a revenue problem and no avenues to address that makes things worst Limited Market Size: To his own admission, the club has struggle to capture the full potential of their market. Exposure remains a challenge and the Apple deal sets them back. I'd be surprised if half the Island is engage with the club, let alone the rest of the metro area. Low Ticket Prices: Among the lowest in the league and in Canadian dollars, raising the prices would hit attendances Sponsorship Challenges: There's been some improvements but they are still a small fish next to the Montreal Canadiens - even the CFL Alouettes are more popular and a bigger draw than CF Montreal Currency Fluctuations: Most of their expenses are in USD Not owning the land: While the stadium would need an upgrade to meet the newest MLS standards to generate new revenues, any major renovations or expansions require approval from the Olympic Park authority who owns the land. Unlike Bologna where he can do whatever he wants, he's handcuffed in Montreal on the east side - too far from downtown to get more corporate sales and I doubt he's willing to build a brand new stadium closer to the core and lose all his infrastructure investment (over $100M - he's trapped) Vancouver seems to have reached their tolerance for losses, BC Place is not viable - they need a new stadium to survive but that would mean losing downtown and convenient access to transit. tough... As for TFC - that's up to Rogers Communications overall interest in soccer and how they view MLS. MLSE does not own the Blue Jays so it will be interest to see how they prioritize the clubs in their portfolio
Sure there is, and anyone reading this thread who just wants to understand the situation better could name 5 reasons in 10 seconds. This message board works better when posters with a shared interest in the sport try to entertain and inform one another. It doesn’t work as well when people are trying to win arguments with high school debate tactics. I very much appreciate your perspective. You are generally informed and I learn a lot from you. I’m not trying to attack you. I’m just pointing out for those reading the thread that on this topic, you’re more interested in winning your argument than in enlightening us.
If I was just trying to "win an argument" I wouldn't expand on the "why/how" nor provide context. You think the man is lying because MLS is profitable therefore a club recurrently losing money doesn't make sense - despite plenty of example of similar situations in other major league. Ok. Agree to disagree
No one is arguing and no one is trying to win an argument. If CPL in 5 years is already seeing profits while MLS in 30 years all we hear are owners losing money then the choice is simple. All the reasons that were given plus add that it's better to have slow but steady increments in CPL than be losing money in MLS. Rich don't stay rich by losing money. The longer they stay the more they lose. You can call it high school logic or whatever but if I'm losing money and have a chance to make $500M+ by selling the franchise now the choice is clear.
Two things can be true at once. The LEAGUE can be making a profit, while the individual clubs are running at a loss. As has been pointed out, owning a sports team is a long term investment proposition. The goal is to buy in at a low price, and then grow the value of the team over time to eventually sell it for a profit. The CPL is following some of MLS' playbook. They created CSB in order to market and sell their product and Canada's National Soccer Teams to media companies. They're keeping the operating costs low while the league builds itself out. They're being VERY judicious in terms of expansion. Much of that is due to the fact that it's more difficult to build a stadium and training ground in Canada than it is in Italy. IMO, I don't see MLS moving to a Fall-Spring season schedule. Why? Because it doesn't actually change anything other than the primary transfer window. MLS would still be playing games in roughly the same time period that they do now. Only instead of playoffs in November and early december there'll be regular season games, and then the playoffs would be interrupted for the June Fifa window and the Euros, and World Cups etc.... I believe there's a far greater chance that we see MLS go to a split season. This allows them to shift the transfer windows to "align" with UEFA (nevermind the fact that South America doesn't have an issue with transfer windows not aligning). They'd have to tweak the playoffs again to fit two sets in. But hey, it gets more playoff games which will make the broadcasters happy, and make the regular season games have more stakes and urgency. They could also have a Grand Final/Super Final on July 4th (or the day after the MLB all star game) between the winners of each season. As far as the three Canadian teams go. TFC isn't going anywhere. Vancouver is likely to get a new stadium and new owners or majority owners. That leaves Montreal. I don't have an answer for Montreal. Saputo has lost interest. Not sure why in all honesty. When they're good they pack Stade Saputo. Seriously, I'm not sure why they haven't looked to France in Ligue 1 & 2 for players. They could easily replicate Philly's model there and be very successful and compete. Given Saputo's lack of interest and effort in MLS, why would CPL want him amongst their ownership ranks? If you're trying to build a league and have sustained growth and success, why would you want someone who does the bare minimum? As for MLS adding teams. The league will continue to add teams as long as those teams add value to the league overall (sponsorship money, revenue, future media dollars, etc.). When that added value is minimal, flat or negative MLS will stop adding teams. Net wise MLS has lost 1 team in 30+ years. MLS returned to Miami, San Jose, and Los Angeles. Tampa is the one place they have not returned to.
The league can only grow so much. More than 32 teams? That would be dumb So what will they do? Either they'll have to make room for more US teams, and help CPL grow. Or else they'll let USL-P become a competitor. Even 32 teams is too much. 20 is perfect. USA is big. Much room for growth. But need to make room
You do realize that you completely contradicted yourself here.... How is 20 teams perfect if the USA is big and has much room for growth, yet 32 teams is too many? MLS could easily support 36 teams in two 18 team conferences with no cross conference play. 34 game schedule within your conference. Also, the USL Championship had 36 teams in 2019.
The more teams you have the less chance every team has of winning the championship. And that's too depressing. Why not have 40 teams, 50, 60? 20 works well in the PL. Play each team twice. 38 game season. But 30-32 is the norm in America. So 36 would not feel right. America is big. What if we grow to 500 million people? You can't just keep expanding the league. You have to create another league. Horizontal. Or vertical (ie under and have pro/rel)