Vancouver is in Soccer’s Spotlight. For the Wrong Reasons.

In partnership with

Hooligan Soccer

·7 febbraio 2026

Vancouver is in Soccer’s Spotlight. For the Wrong Reasons.

Firstly, this is not a piece about the Round One Champions Cup fixture between Vancouver FC and Cruz Azul that was played Wednesday night. The host side fell 3-0, but sharp-tongued commentators on social media were quick to point out that scoreline was far better than the 5 – 0 shellacking the OTHER Vancouver franchise suffered to the same last May in the final.

This is the type of spotlight that a city craves and deserves. A true underdog battle between a young upstart and a global juggernaut. Vancouver FC proved just as gritty and pugnacious as the better paid, better equipped and globally famous Mexico City squad. If they hadn’t squandered some good chances, and perhaps gotten a little grace from a VAR review, the scoreline would have been much tighter. There was even a little healthy fracas between Vancouver players and the Cruz Azul bench. The Eagles might only be three years out of the nest, but they’re ready to scrap it up.

OneFootball Video

Secondly, I’m not here to pick sides in the “which team truly represents” Vancouver fight. The hallmark of a world-class soccer city is a heated rivalry. Manchester has City vs. United. Madrid has Real vs. Atlético. Despite playing in different leagues, a FC vs. Whitecaps rivalry is good for the sport and the city of Vancouver (plus, they already faced each other in the 2025 Canadian Championship).

But I am concerned about the Whitecaps. All is not well.

Whitecaps ‘For Sale’ Sign is Up

My uncertainty stems from the 2024 decision by the current ownership group to put the club up for sale. By itself, that decision is not the issue. The current consortium of Greg Kerfoot, Steve Luczo, Jeff Mallett, and Steve Nash felt that deeper pockets could better serve the club’s needs. The most pressing issue facing the Whitecaps is their stadium. Vancouver doesn’t own or control their home field, BC Place. They simply lease it, and given that stadium’s size and desirability, schedule conflicts are a problem. This year is particularly congested, since BC Place is hosting seven matches for the FIFA World Cup. The club is also locked into lease terms that were established way back in the early 2010s, which severely hampers their game day revenue (some estimates place the club’s profit at less than 15% of the game’s take, a woeful number).

Only eight MLS franchises lease/rent their stadium, but none do so with the constraints and onerous terms of Vancouver. This has impacted the club’s bottom line; they have the lowest revenue of any MLS team. But it’s also impacting their ability to generate investment.

CEO and Director of Football Operations Alex Schuster reported in a press conference last week that although “about 40” potential investors signed NDAs and examined the club’s financials, none has moved forward. Schuster commented: “As of now, at this moment, no one, not one single one, is interested in buying even 1% of this club.” Yikes. He then added: “All of them think that our setup here and the market and the situation we are in is not something where you can invest in as long as [things don’t change completely].”

Stadium at the Center

The league echoes Schuster’s thoughts. Late last year, MLS Commissioner Don Garber made a call to improve the Whitecaps’ situation, stating: ““The club isn’t sustainable in a situation where they’re … in a building which they have no control over, they have minimal participation with revenue.”

This unified messaging is intended to put pressure on PavCO, the provincial corporation responsible for managing BC Place. PavCO said in a statement that they make “40-plus days available per year to the Whitecaps to host matches.” But that statement was mum on other problem areas such as concession sale rev-share.

In April 2025, the Whitecaps opened discussions with the City of Vancouver to build a soccer-specific stadium on PNE fairground land in the eastern fringe of the city, but no further actions have been publicly announced.

What All This Means

The inability of a club with the pedigree and popularity of the Whitecaps to attract investment is worrying.

Their 2025 season was the best ever. They earned a club high 63 points and missed out winning the Western Conference on total wins (San Diego bettered them by one). They reached three different competition finals: the Canadian Championship (won), the Concacaf Champions Cup (lost), and their first-ever MLS Cup (lost). In August they signed Bayern Munich legend Thomas Müller to the team, upping their international profile considerably.

For supporters, the biggest fear is that the current owners, with Garber’s blessing, opt to relocate. The MLS is not adverse to moving clubs. The San Jose Earthquakes moved to Houston in 2005 before “relaunching” back in the Bay Area in 2008. Columbus Crew narrowing avoided relocation to Austin in 2017 due to supporter backlash. With the MLS suspending any new franchises for the foreseeable future a club like the Whitecaps is an attractive proposition for markets eager to get into the top tier of US soccer before the USL’s proposed expansion (looking at you Detroit, Indianapolis or Las Vegas).

The most extreme action would be shutting the Caps down completely. Two Florida franchises, Tampa Bay Mutiny and Miami Fusion, both closed up operations in January 2002, less than seven years after joining the League. Chivas USA folded in 2014 (their rights were sold to LAFC later).

Of course, ideally the Whitecaps would stay where they are. If only there were some very rich folks who would consider investment not just through profit-tinted glasses.