🇨🇦⚽ The Cost of Canada’s Soccer Model: Millions Missed, Growth Stalled

⏱️ Reading time: ~8 minutes For: sports law professionals, club executives, investors, and anyone serious about the business and governance of football in Canada and beyond.

Jul 16, 2025

🔎 Introduction – Why This Matters

Around the world, football’s top‑tier leagues have converged on a proven model:
closed‑league systems governed by independent commercial entities that centralize revenue, enforce salary caps and competition integrity, and create the conditions for professional football to thrive within a given ecosystem.

This model is not theoretical. It is what underpins the success of leagues like MLS in the U.S., Liga MX in Mexico, the A‑Leagues in Australia, and the Indian Super League. Each has developed structures that protect investor confidence, grow broadcasting and sponsorship markets, and ensure players and clubs share in the upside of sustained economic development.

Canada, on paper, has adopted a similar approach through Canada Soccer Business (CSB).
Despite this, when you look closely, the implementation is fragmented, inconsistent, and out of sync with the standards that drive growth elsewhere. Instead of a unified ecosystem, Canada has created silos—and in doing so, is holding back the very development it seeks to encourage.

The following sections walk through each jurisdiction’s model in detail, highlighting what works, before contrasting those lessons with Canada’s current setup to show exactly where the gaps lie. Part 4: Consequences of Ignoring Global football governance best practices.

🌏 What Works: Independent Commercial Entities Abroad

🇺🇸 United States – MLS & Soccer United Marketing (SUM)

The United States offers perhaps the clearest proof of what a closed‑league model with centralized commercial control can achieve. Not just in soccer, but in sport in general.
For decades, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL have operated under systems that pool broadcast rights, manage league‑wide sponsorships, enforce salary caps, and restrict ownership conflicts. These measures create an environment where every club is incentivized to grow the league as a whole — sort of like a shareholder — rather than competing for fragmented revenue streams.

The payoff is staggering:

The NFL alone generated roughly $19 billion USD in 2024, making it the single highest‑earning sports league in the world. Not far behind was the NBA, MLB, NHL and most recently — MLS.
For context, global professional football in its entirety—with all professional leagues, domestic cups, and FIFA/UEFA competitions combined—generated around $40 billion USD. That means, One North American league is already generating half of what the entire global football ecosystem produces. Let that sink in.

The NBA, MLB, and NHL (hereinafter, Major Leagues Sports) follow the same principles, collectively and undoubtedly cementing the United States as home to the most financially powerful sports leagues on the planet.

MLS, while much younger, is quietly adopting this same framework and steadily climbing:

MLS operates as a single‑entity closed league, where clubs function as investor‑operators rather than independent competitors.
Reference: Under MLS League Regulations, all teams are owned by the league itself, with investor‑operators sharing in league revenues—upheld in Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002) as a lawful single‑entity model.
Centralized commercial rights are managed through Soccer United Marketing (SUM), which controls media, sponsorship, and licensing for both MLS and U.S. national teams.
Salary caps and cost controls are set through the MLS Collective Bargaining Agreement (2020–2027) with the MLS Players Association, enforced via Roster Rules and Regulations (2025).
Strict ownership rules prohibit multi‑club control within MLS.
Reference: MLS Regulations (Ownership Requirements §1.3) and the MLS Constitution §4.3 align with FIFA Statutes Art. 18bis and CONCACAF Club Licensing Regulations Art. 4.3.1, ensuring competition integrity.

Result: MLS applies the same proven structure that powers the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL—an approach driving steady growth and positioning MLS as an emerging force among the world’s top leagues.

🇦🇺 Australia – APL, A‑League, W‑League & Y‑League

Australia’s model—operated under Australian Professional Leagues (APL)—is widely regarded as one of the most coherent and commercially integrated structures in global football, frequently cited by Canadian soccer stakeholders as the benchmark. Yet with Football Australia’s former CEO now appointed to lead both CSB and the CPL, a serious question arises: is Canada executing a deliberate blueprint to build its own football identity, or simply ceding that vision to external influence? By contrast, you do not see the KNVB, RBFA, RFEF, or FFF removing their General Secretary and installing someone from a completely different football culture to redefine their national football’s trajectory.

APL provides a unified governance and commercial framework over all top‑tier leagues—A‑League (men’s), W‑League (women’s), and Y‑League (youth)—under a single, integrated entity.

Revenues from broadcasting and sponsorship are centrally pooled and strategically redistributed, enabling emerging competitions to offset early‑stage debts with the backing of more established properties.
A formal, ongoing relationship with PFA Australia ensures that operational standards, salary caps, and player welfare measures are collectively negotiated and aligned with long‑term sustainability.

Result: a financially resilient ecosystem where new competitions can be launched with markedly reduced risk, underpinned by an integrated commercial entity and a strong, institutionalized labour partnership.

🇮🇳 India – Football Sports Development Ltd. (ISL)

The Indian Super League (ISL) operates through a centralized commercial arm as well—Football Sports Development Ltd. (FSDL)—which holds and manages the league’s media, sponsorship, and licensing rights.

Investor‑operator entry: Clubs participate as franchise-style investor‑operators under strict governance and compliance criteria, vetted through All India Football Federation (AIFF) licensing standards and subject to AFC Club Licensing Regulations, ensuring financial and structural soundness before admission.
Revenue distribution: Broadcasting and sponsorship revenues are pooled and strategically distributed across all participating clubs. This mitigates market volatility and creates a level playing field for growth.
Integrity rules: FSDL enforces limits on multi‑club ownership and related‑party transactions, reducing conflicts of interest.

Result: Despite being a relatively new competition, the ISL has achieved sustainable club operations, attracted high‑profile investors—including international consortiums—and positioned itself as a credible model for emerging football markets.

🇲🇽 Mexico – Liga MX

Liga MX represents a hybrid evolution of the closed‑league model—blending centralized oversight with a greater degree of club autonomy compares with systems like MLS or the A‑Leagues.

Independent commercial entity:
Liga MX operates through, in parts, IMG, an independent commercial arm that negotiates collective agreements on broadcasting, sponsorship, and competition standards.
Closed‑league features:
Promotion and relegation have been suspended since 2020, with participation governed by strict criteria approved by the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) and Liga MX itself.
Club independence within the framework:
Unlike MLS’s single‑entity investor‑operator model (see Fraser v. MLS, 284 F.3d 47), Liga MX clubs retain their own corporate structures and significant control over internal finances, transfer policies, and branding. While the league centralizes broadcast and sponsorship rights, individual clubs can pursue independent commercial opportunities outside those agreements.
Reference: This flexibility is reflected in Liga MX Internal Regulations (2023 ed., Ch. 2), which permit individual marketing deals provided they do not conflict with league‑wide contracts.
Integrity and MCO reform:
Historically, multi‑club ownership (MCO) was common, but Liga MX revised its ownership rules in 2020—requiring owners with interests in multiple clubs to divest or demonstrate operational separation to avoid conflicts of interest.
Reference: These rules align with FIFA Statutes Art. 18bis and CONCACAF Club Licensing Regulations Art. 4.3.1, both of which require leagues to prevent conflicts of interest that undermine competition integrity.

Result:
Liga MX remains one of the most commercially successful leagues in the Americas and the world. Its independent commercial entity delivers league‑wide stability, while its allowance for greater club autonomy creates a unique balance—combining the economic discipline of a closed model with the entrepreneurial freedom of independently run clubs.

🍁 Where Canada Falls Behind – Canada Soccer Business (CSB)

Canada Soccer Business (CSB) was created to emulate proven models from the United States, Australia, Mexico, and India—integrating the Canadian Premier League (CPL), League1 Canada, and national team commercial rights under one commercial and governance umbrella.

But Canada’s approach copies the form, not the function. Instead of building a unified, resilient football economy, Canada has produced a fragmented system that undermines both competitive integrity and long‑term financial growth.

Integration elsewhere vs. fragmentation here

Under Australian Professional Leagues (APL), the A‑League (men’s), W‑League (women’s), and Y‑League (youth) are consolidated under one governance and commercial structure. This satisfies the integration principles in FIFA Club Licensing Regulations (2022 ed., Art. 2.1 & 3.1), which encourage a single licensing framework across all top‑tier competitions.
In Canada, the Northern Super League (NSL)—the newly launched women’s professional league—is entirely outside the CSB framework, despite CSB holding the commercial rights for other properties.

Consequence: Without pooled broadcast and sponsorship revenue, the NSL must independently negotiate commercial deals, creating duplicated costs and market conflicts — which may undermine certain league wide guarantees.

Player association partnerships abroad vs. isolation here

APL maintains a formalized relationship with Professional Footballers Australia (PFA) through a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that governs salary caps, player welfare, dispute resolution and operational standards. This approach aligns with FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Arts. 13–18, which emphasize contractual stability and negotiated standards for player employment.
MLS operates under a CBA with the MLS Players Association, integrating cost controls, agent regulations and roster rules under U.S. labor law (National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§151–169).
In Canada, PFACan remains sidelined — without a recognized CBA framework in place.

Consequence: Without an integrated bargaining process, cost structures are imposed rather than negotiated, creating uncertainty and exposure to disputes—contrary to global best practices.

Competition integrity elsewhere vs. MCO issues here

MLS League Regulations (Ownership Requirements §1.3) and MLS Constitution §4.3 prohibit multi‑club ownership within the league. These align with FIFA Statutes Art. 18bis, which bars any individual or entity from controlling more than one club in the same competition, and CONCACAF Club Licensing Regulations (2022 ed., Art. 4.3.1), which enforce similar integrity safeguards.
APL follows the same standard, prohibiting cross‑ownership that could undermine competitive fairness.
Liga MX historically allowed MCO but enacted reforms in 2020 requiring divestment or operational separation, documented in the Liga MX Internal Regulations (2021 ed., Ch. 2).

In contrast, the CPL currently permits MCO structures, including the known ownership link between Pacific FC and Vancouver FC.

Consequence: This tolerance breaches the spirit of FIFA and CONCACAF regulations on integrity and dissuades external investors who require assurance that competitions are free from structural conflicts of interest. As FIFA Circular No. 1628 (2018) notes, compliance with ownership regulations is a “core licensing requirement” for participation in international competitions.

The Bottom Line

While leagues like APL, MLS, and Liga MX demonstrate that unified commercial entities, formal labor integration, and strict ownership standards drive sustainable growth, Canada has fragmented its system and ignored those governance standards.

Missed economies of scale: Parallel leagues compete for the same sponsorship pool rather than reinforcing each other.
Weak labour integration: Without a PFACan framework, cost controls and player welfare lack consensus and predictability.
Eroded integrity: Multi‑club ownership tolerated in violation of FIFA Statutes Art. 18bis and CONCACAF Club Licensing Regulations Art. 4.3.1 undermines competitive confidence.

The result: Canada’s football economy is structurally disadvantaged—leaving millions in potential revenue untapped, deterring long‑term investors, and risking non‑compliance with global standards. Until CSB adopts the governance and commercial integration seen in leading jurisdictions, Canada will continue to lag behind in the professional football landscape.

📉 The Result: A Football Economy Out of Sync

Where other markets have unified governance and commercial structures, Canada has fragmented silos.

A women’s league outside the commercial backbone (e.g., NSL-CSB).
A player association without meaningful integration into the governance conversation (PFACan-CPL)
Multi‑club ownership tolerated despite regional standards. (SixFive Sports & Entertainment Group)

This isn’t just inefficient—it’s actively holding back the development of professional football in the region.

💡 The Road Forward

Canada does not need to reinvent the wheel. What it needs is the discipline to implement the principles that have already proven effective in the most stable football economies worldwide. The path forward is clear:

Integrate all professional leagues under the CSB framework.
The Northern Super League (NSL) and any future competitions must be brought under a single commercial and regulatory umbrella. Politics, personal reservations, or legacy silos cannot be allowed to dictate structure. A unified framework is the only way to cultivate an ecosystem capable of achieving scale, attracting tier‑one sponsorships, and meeting the standards of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations (Art. 2.1 & 3.1).
Formalize labour relations through PFACan.
Establish a binding, institutional CBA between CSB, the CPL, and PFACan, modelled on the APL–PFA Australia agreement. This is not simply about player welfare—it is about financial predictability, dispute resolution, enforceable cost‑control mechanisms, agents regulations and contractual stability consistent with FIFA RSTP Articles 13–18. Without such a CBA, the league exposes itself to unnecessary disputes and undermines investor confidence.
Enforce ownership integrity in line with global standards.
Immediate action is required to align with FIFA Statutes Art. 18bis and CONCACAF Club Licensing Regulations (Art. 4.3.1) by prohibiting or divesting multi‑club ownership structures within the CPL. Clear ownership integrity is non‑negotiable if Canada intends to be viewed as a credible participant in regional and international competitions.

Until these measures are adopted and rigorously enforced, Canada’s football economy will remain a costly imitation of systems that elsewhere drive genuine, sustainable growth—and will continue leaving millions in potential value untapped.

#FootballLaw #CanadaSoccer #CSB #ClosedLeagueSystems #CPL #MCO #NorthernSuperLeague #InvestorOperator #PSC #FootballRegulatoryDatabase #GlobalStandards