Photo Ryan McElroy

Inter Miami’s 5-3 loss Tuesday night to Chicago Fire FC changed the Philadelphia Union’s chances of winning the 2025 Supporters’ Shield. Philadelphia no longer must win out. Words and a chart follow.

1. Were Philadelphia to earn four more points with a win and a draw, they would win the Supporters Shield on 67 points no matter what anyone else does.
2. Were Philadelphia to earn three more points with a win, they would at the very least tie for the Supporters’ Shield, with Vancouver potentially on 66 points . They would win the first tiebreaker  over Vancouver 20 wins to 19, a good thing from a Philly perspective since Vancouver would probably win on goal difference – the second tiebreaker – over the Union. (Three Vancouver wins would probably produce more goals than one win and  a loss by Philadelphia. a Philly draw having been b covered by the point immediately above.)
3. Were Philadelphia to earn two or fewer more points, they would no longer control their own Supporters’ Shield destiny. Others would have to tie or lose for the Union to win it.

Supporting details

As of Wednesday morning, 10:30 AM ET, we sorted the official MLS website Supporters’ Shield table on games played (GP) to determine the maximum number of points each team still has available. We chart that detail below. We added to it  data covering the first tiebreaker, i. e., wins in regulation, And we also added everyone’s goal differences as they were on Wednesday morning.

We sorted the other competitors by the numbers of games they have left to play, as the chart’s subheads indicate. Within the subheads we sorted on maximum possible points.

Philadelphia already have 63 points, 19 wins, and a current goal difference of 23. (The record-breaking margin of defeat by Vancouver means they do not currently lie first in the goal difference ranking.)

e-arithmetically already eliminated from Supporters Shield contention. Every team not listed is also eliminated.

The speculation

Vancouver’s midseason acquisition designed to enhance its chances at regular season and postseason silverware was German national team superstar Thomas Muller who turned 36 years old 18 days ago. Until the Fall 2025 Major League Soccer Players Association Salary Guide appears, we have no official data suggesting how much Vancouver spent in annualized salary to get him.

Unofficially, on June 5^th Transfermarkt’s algorithm placed Muller’s market value at six million Euros, or slightly north of $7 million dollars US. Vancouver paid up to $400,000 General Allocation Money to Cincinnati to acquire the right to sign him, since his contract with Bayern Munich had expired and he was a free agent.

There was more than one internet rumor suggesting that Muller’s people had inquired about joining Philadelphia. On June 23^rd, 2025 Sports Illustrated quoted Philadelphia Sporting Director Ernst Tanner as saying, “’I’ve already been offered Thomas Müller. I still have a good relationship with his advisors. But from a financial perspective, that’s absolutely unthinkable for us.’”  SI cited the salary demand as between 8 and 10 million dollars US, presumably the number is annualized.

Philadelphia’s  instead acquired Milan Iloski who is ten years younger than Muller at 26.2 years old.

Officially, Iloski coming to Philadelphia was a waiver transaction, in which Philly paid Montreal a minimum of $50,000 in General Allocation Money (GAM) and a maximum of $200,000 GAM plus their former 21^st spot in the waiver claims rotation, to claim Iloski from FC Nordsjaelland of Denmark on a permanent transfer.

Unofficially, unless one believes strongly in random coincidence, the Union’s loan of 19.6-year-old US U20s striker and Union II defensive midfielder David Vazquez to San Diego (with permanent transfer options for both 2026 and 2027) may explain San Diego’s apparent cooperation with the Iloski signing.

The timing is suspiciously coherent, even though timing standing alone can create flawed arguments as we explain below.

Vazquez’s loan was announced on July 28th nine days before publication of Iloski’s permanent transfer to the Union. San Diego’s failure to acquire Iloski permanently was publicized 13 days before that, the announcement coming back on July 15th. Tanner had moved in 22 days, apparently.

Perhaps the known facts could be better explained  if there were a connection between Iloski and Vazquez. If Philly had loaned Vazquez to encourage San Diego’s cooperation with a Union move to get Iloski, the speed and smoothness of the deal would make sense. But we have no factual evidence of such a connection,  none whatsoever. We may well be guilty of using the so-call post hoc fallacy — “After this, therefore because of this” i. e., “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” (Latin).

Why not Mueller

We do not yet know whether Philadelphia paid Iloski what San Diego would not, although it is a safe guess that the two offers might have been roughly comparable, particularly if any information happened to have been shared.

Milan Iloski can be further developed and sold onward after he helps the Union to dream of silverware. Past dream enablers Daniel Gazdag and Jack Elliott recently have been. The ten years older Thomas Mueller almost certainly cannot .

Whatever Thomas Mueller’s salary may turn out to be, unsurprisingly to Philadelphia that cash outlay was  not worth his contribution to Philadelphia perhaps lifting the shield or the cup.