Dude, the Caps have said they don't want a subsidy. They will pay for the new stadium if/when it gets approved. In the meantime, they'd like to get better lease terms in order to help make the team viable and competitive going forward. Not sure how many people realize this, but the economics of MLS have changed significantly since 2011 when the Caps joined.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...-soccer-b-c-place-lease-mls-revenue-9.7076555 They have a one year deal.
I wanted this article to have more information on why the Whitecaps are having such terrible revenue trouble. Too bad they spent so much space interviewing the former elite soccer player who thought suggesting the Packers' ownership model was a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
True, but it did also note that low revenue doesn’t necessarily equal losing money. Though I assume the franchise is in the red. Uh-huh. Feels like a gray area to me. The Caps seem to be stuck in the type of MLS 1.0 situation (leasing someone else’s American/Canadian football-sized stadium) for which there’s a lot of data and lived experience, all pointing to the conclusion that it’s not a viable business model for the league. Much of that having to do with ancillary and matchday revenue streams, scheduling, visual branding (for the club and sponsors). It’s a very real problem. But is it the local taxpayer’s problem? I mean, they didn’t create the situation. So why should they, essentially subsidize a for-profit business by giving it a lease deal that takes tens of millions of dollars away from a public entity and redistributes it to a private one? In any event, the situation feels untenable. Vancouver can’t perpetually jack-up public subsidies for a privately held sports team. That team can’t compete financially under its current revenue generating environment (and I’m quite sure is under pressure from the league to address the issue, or else…). Without ownership willing to spend what is necessary to address the stadium issue, it’s hard to see this ending well.
Why should they take away money? Because if the team moves they'll lose a whole lot more would be my answer. I'm not sure how Vancouver benefits from the team moving out of the city for good. How does the city benefit by changing the stadium to grass for how many games for the World Cup?
How are they subsidizing the Whitecaps? If anything taxpayers are profiting from the Whitecaps by charging rent and taking matchday revenue. They're losing $10 million a year according to Forbes and they don't have a way of offsetting that as they would if they had control of a stadium. Of course that's nothing if you think soccer should be a philanthropic venture, but pro sports tend not to be that in North America.
Stadiums being used for the 2028 Olympics. Etihad Park, New York 25,000 ScottsMiracle-Gro Field, Columbus 20,371 Geodis Park, Nashville 30,109 Energizer Park, St Louis 22,423 PayPal Park, San Jose 18,000 Snapdragon Park, San Diego 35,000 Rose Bowl, Pasadena 89,702+ NYC will get to show off their shiny new ground but maybe Sports Illustrated Stadium is no longer the northeast showpiece soccer stadium. Miami Freedom not being used because of weather??
Potentially, by providing a better than market-rate deal on a stadium lease. Just picking numbers out of thin air, here, but if an event at the stadium generates $1M in revenue from attendees, and the standard split of revenue would be $100K to the entity leasing the facility and $900K to the facility owner, and then that lease is changed to a deal that gives the leasing entity $300K and the facility owner $700K, that's a $200K subsidy to the leasing entity. I know the LA Gals lease at the Rose Bowl back in the early days of the league used to require them to pay higher sums on stadium security costs as their attendance increased. More people = more security, so who pays for it? The Galaxy, back then. If the Rose Bowl (owned by the City of Pasadena) paid for all that extra security itself, it would have amount to a public subsidy of the Galaxy. BC Place is owned by PavCo, a Provincial Crown Corporation, which as per Wikipedia: By my reading, if government agency gives a private entity a preferable financial deal, it's essentially a subsidy.
That's not how taxpayer subsidies work. If the state makes $700k when the Caps play and nothing when the don't then that's $700k-costs they wouldn't otherwise have. The Caps give them 17 guaranteed dates every year, something the BC House and Garden Expo and Taylor Swift don't.
First look at their new seats 💺💗 A special moment for our season ticket members as the anticipation continues to build for our first game in our new stadium 🤩 More info here: https://t.co/4LW1yHc9uP pic.twitter.com/HTpM1FpF6Z— Inter Miami CF (@InterMiamiCF) February 6, 2026 Almost there.
Taxpayer subsidies can work in a lot of ways. I don't disagree with your larger point. Still, the Caps are a privately held for profit organization. Why should they be able to use a publicly owned facility at rates that are lower than other private, for profit users of the facility? Also, the state doesn't make $700K because the state incurs substantial costs for holding a large event in the facility. And the facility suffers wear and tear that has to be addressed over time. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Unreimbursed costs incurred by the state or revenue given up by the state that otherwise would be the responsibility of a leasing entity are, to my mind, a form of public subsidy. It's not black and white. I mean, in our stadium deal in Columbus, various government entities didn't pay a penny toward the stadium itself, but paid tens of millions of dollars toward infrastructure improvements that the stadium benefited from and that the team owners required, otherwise they'd not have done the deal. Thing is, the stadium is in an entertainment and mixed use district, which that public investment also supports the further development of. It was a public money subsidy of the overall stadium project and damned smart one, if you ask me. Giving the Caps a deal on a stadium lease may be in the best interests of the city of Vancouver and its residents. To a point, anyway. If the Caps need another $40M in revenue to get to the middle of the pack in MLS (and that number is only going to go up), and they get there via a huge shift in their lease with BC Place, I just don't see how anyone can see that as anything other than a public subsidy. At some point a better deal becomes financially untenable to the stadium owners.
You're making a very good reason for moving the franchise to a more business friendly climate. Sure you'll take a hit but as a privately held for profit organization....
The Whitecaps aren't the only tenant. Whatever the Whitecaps get, the Lions will want, they may even be guaranteed contractually to get it automatically.
Because they guarantee at least 17 events. It's the same reason a season ticket holder plays less per game than a single ticket buyer.
And that's a very real possibility in this case. When the league was smaller, I could keep in my head all of these "stadium situation" deals. Those days are long gone. But I do know that what the Caps have in BC Place is very much (as I said before) MLS 1.0-ish - being a renter of a football-sized stadium. That was a very tough row to hoe for the league back in the 90's and aughts. Too tough, which led MLS ownership going the "soccer specific stadium" route or having an NFL owner buy into the league and playing in an NFL stadium under much more advantageous conditions. Of course the other possibility is the caps build their own stadium. But that requires an owner willing to do so.
I think the owner is willing to build a stadium but they want to use the land they'll be leasing for more than just a soccer stadium.
Weirdly, l.a. was very careful not to announce any venues that aren't yet open to promote this as the "build nothing" Olympics. They didn't even have Intuit dome in the plans until it actually opened. But they have no issue adding a non existent nycfc stadium?
Nice they are promoting it. Besides no grass yet, have seats started to be installed? Not sure when this video was filmed, but there are no seats installed that I saw.