RealGM

Toronto has been awarded a WNBA franchise beginning in the 2026 season. The franchise will be owned by Kilmer Sports Inc., which is run by Larry Tanenbaum.

Tanenbaum is a minority owner and chairman of sporting giant Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment which owns the Maple Leafs, Raptors, TFC, Argos and Marlies.

Tanenbaum reportedly attempted to purchase the team through MLSE, but other members of the board turned down the opportunity. 

The WNBA recently expanded to 13 teams with San Francisco beginning play in 2025.

Via Shireen Ahmed/CBC

HOW? WHY?

MitchB3 wrote:HOW? WHY?

Ownership is disgustingly rich. Being the only team in Canada it will probably be the most profitable team in the WNBA.

SkynMan wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:HOW? WHY?

Ownership is disgustingly rich. Being the only team in Canada it will probably be the most profitable team in the WNBA.

Don't Canada have hockey?

First I think it is great that the WBNA is expanding. Women’s basketball is gaining more and more recognition and traction in the sports world and making the league bigger and hopefully more profitable will only help with that. Second, I cannot help but wonder if in a few months we will be reading a similar message about Vegas and Seattle for the NBA.

MitchB3 wrote:HOW? WHY?

You sound like a hater. Viewership, and merchandise sells have increased each year. Last year viewership increased by 40% and will increase more this year with the Clark girl. With basketball in Canada it will expand the popularity in a new country like Toronto did with the Raptors, now we have a gang of Canadian players in the NBA due to the Raptors...this was a very smart move by the WNBA.

Also outside the US other countries LOVE women's basketball for some odd reason. That's why they go overseas in the fall and make 5x more.

Didn’t realize there were so few teams.

Canada getting a team before cities like Boston or Philly is nasty work

Phila Tough wrote:Canada getting a team before cities like Boston or Philly is nasty work

You think that is because they are not permitted one? I am pretty sure if those two teams called up about having a team in their respective cities they would be given about 60 seconds with a return call on when they would be in joining the league. I am very curious what it costs to join the league. I remember when MLS was not taken very seriously when it was first initially starting in the USA. I bet it was somewhat affordable to become an ownership of a team after the first five or so years because no one was taking it seriously. Pretty sure it costs $250M now to land a team in MLS now and its probably only climbing every year

cheese318 wrote:

Phila Tough wrote:Canada getting a team before cities like Boston or Philly is nasty work

You think that is because they are not permitted one? I am pretty sure if those two teams called up about having a team in their respective cities they would be given about 60 seconds with a return call on when they would be in joining the league. I am very curious what it costs to join the league. I remember when MLS was not taken very seriously when it was first initially starting in the USA. I bet it was somewhat affordable to become an ownership of a team after the first five or so years because no one was taking it seriously. Pretty sure it costs $250M now to land a team in MLS now and its probably only climbing every year

I kind of don't always understand why there isn't more demand for teams of some of these smaller leagues. Unless there's a revenue problem it seems like the best kind of team to own if you aren't interested in competing with roster payrolls of that of people like Ishbia, the NY Mets or Saudis in European soccer leagues. I haven't followed the MLS in a while but I remembered when players were making $100,000 per year salaries before they were able to get Beckham and Thierry Henry to come over.

cheese318 wrote:

Phila Tough wrote:Canada getting a team before cities like Boston or Philly is nasty work

You think that is because they are not permitted one? I am pretty sure if those two teams called up about having a team in their respective cities they would be given about 60 seconds with a return call on when they would be in joining the league. I am very curious what it costs to join the league. I remember when MLS was not taken very seriously when it was first initially starting in the USA. I bet it was somewhat affordable to become an ownership of a team after the first five or so years because no one was taking it seriously. Pretty sure it costs $250M now to land a team in MLS now and its probably only climbing every year

read somewhere there's a 50 mllion dollar expansion fee

vi3t wrote:

cheese318 wrote:

Phila Tough wrote:Canada getting a team before cities like Boston or Philly is nasty work

You think that is because they are not permitted one? I am pretty sure if those two teams called up about having a team in their respective cities they would be given about 60 seconds with a return call on when they would be in joining the league. I am very curious what it costs to join the league. I remember when MLS was not taken very seriously when it was first initially starting in the USA. I bet it was somewhat affordable to become an ownership of a team after the first five or so years because no one was taking it seriously. Pretty sure it costs $250M now to land a team in MLS now and its probably only climbing every year

read somewhere there's a 50 mllion dollar expansion fee

Very interesting. Are teams even making a profit? Or is it like kick the can and hopefully one day this will be big enough to support owners. I know the NBA took a lot of the debts on their books to keep WNBA afloat. They’ve obviously made a lot of positive changes as well to continue to grow/build the game. MSG gave up on owning/hosting the Liberty because it made more money to have other events scheduled at the arena over the WNBA. I bet it’s changed but having a concert over WNBA definitely makes more money for the venue owners. Barclays took the liberty on so I guess it can’t be a complete loss