Actually they're not influential at all within the neo-NASL. They have no ties to the neo-NASL. And they far more than likely never will.
Taken on its face: the original Timbers trademark was cancelled in 1985. Original Earthquakes trademark cancelled in 1986. Sounders was cancelled in 1995 without being assigned. Not going to learn Canadian trademark law for this. And intellectual property does not make a team a team. And under your definition, I could buy Manchester United, create a new team in the lowest level of English football, transfer all of the intellectual property from Manchester United to the new team, and that team suddenly becomes Manchester United, because all of the name, trademarks, business rights, intellectual properties are with the new lower league team, transferred from the previous owner in direct lineage. All of the recent new MLS clubs made a decision to use a previously existing brand name, including Orlando City (did you know the Orlando Lions previously existed in the USISL, too?). I'm loyal to the Timbers brand. It would have been difficult to root for a team named something other than Timbers, to be honest. That brand has an identity and a history, and the clubs are using the brand's identity to their advantage. The new NASL is just a brand. No team will go from MLS to NASL. The MLS Portland Timbers have actually never played in the NASL anyways. I do agree the more the two leagues can work together, the greater soccer becomes in North America.
Hi . Great that you are contributing some really deep input. You might have missed much of what was spoken about the leagues influencing each other. If by the above you mean that the original NASL and the renewed NASL don't share business ties, based on a statement from the 2011 media guide, then perhaps in terms of certain assets. However, the NASL currently owns a back catalog of different intellectual property that links them to the original iteration. Furthermore, there are things that bind the two together which are tradition, legacy, and the everlasting representation of the concept and memories of the NASL and what it means to many around the world which far outweighs anything else. The only person that could bestow authenticity to the current formation of the NASL was Phil Woosnam, and he did so with his complete blessings: "It is a great honor to welcome all of you, owners and club executives of the new NASL, to this meeting. What an exciting time for soccer in this country. To think that you are here to renew and continue the legacy of the NASL, and to connect past with present, is indeed a wish fulfilled for me. It was a long road, but a short time, from our office in the basement of the Atlanta Braves Stadium in 1969 with five teams, to our New York accommodations where the NASL ultimately became twenty-four teams in 1978. My hope for all of you is to repeat and, in the near future, surpass that success." http://www.nasl.com/index.php?id=9 Since then other important figures relating to the league from executives to players to fans have also voiced their full support. These teams are influential in the history of the NASL. Hi. I think you may be making some assumptions. I am not going to get into trademark law here - as that is not the topic of the conversation. But you looked up a trademark and either saw abandoned or cancelled. You then possibly concluded that a business or a property is not in effect. Properties can still be in use prior to registering and after canceling a trademark. All that is required is proof of use in some form. This was upheld by the owners in chain. Again, these are separate topics that are not relevant to the original questions. In fair honesty, I would prefer that you not create statements and then say that I have said them. This analogy on top is misleading and off topic. But, based on what you said, if you already bought Manchester United can you really transfer between yourself..? (This is basically what you are implying). You can transfer between assets that you own, but at the end, you still own them and represent them; and you can unite them as a single asset (depending on what they are) if so choose. But let's get back to topic. By recent I assume expansion. If so, all of these clubs (SEA, POR, VAN, MON, OC) existed prior to MLS. The clubs bought into MLS and continued their legacy there. The clubs are using their names because they represent their history. Moreover, the main point is that these clubs recognize their own legacies, which is what counts, and they are currently celebrating them. This a great step forward. Yes, absolutely. Working together makes a greater difference. Let's stick to this.
Fixed your post. They have NO TIES to NASL right now. They had ties to the old NASL. The neo-NASL has NO RELATION to the previous league of the same name other than owning that name today. That in and of itself it not a direct link. The NASL that the Earthquakes, Timbers, Sounders, etc... belonged to died 30 years ago and it is STILL DEAD. Your attempts to make tenuous connections not withstanding.
Clearly, everyone has a personal belief system or approach that makes them feel better - which is respected. Still, if you can't accept that the original NASL influenced the current iteration and that the clubs that played in it also form part of the influence of the present, then I wish you the best with your deep point of view. __________________________________ Meanwhile, getting back to topic, the more history is celebrated and the more MLS and the NASL work together to embrace the past to build for the future the better soccer will become in the US and Canada. These teams can be a major influence in the NASL; and both the NASL and MLS can grow to 20 teams while working together towards TV deals and other financial benefits. Two strong leagues in collaboration can spread the game even further.
Trademarks can be abandoned, but that's neither here nor there The clubs didn't buy into MLS. The owners did. This is a big distinction. The Portland Timbers were founded in 2011. They are not older than D.C. United. I'll give this to you: 1) The people who set up the name NASL were definitely "influenced" by the original NASL or else they wouldn't have picked the name. 2) By that logic, the clubs in the original NASL "influenced" the current NASL, or even the present-day soccer landscape. However: 3) No teams from the original NASL still exist.
Yes, while intellectual properties can still remain in use without it being registered on a federal level as a mark. But we can discuss this in a separate thread. The clubs are organizations. These organizations are owned by an individual or a group. When I said clubs, I was already referring to the groups in ownership that represent them. Not according to the Timbers, MLS, and the NASL. The Timbers were found in 1975. The present iteration of the club since the 2000s bought into MLS in 2009 and continued play in 2011 in the league. Again, separate topic (let's stick to the original). Well, it's nice to find someone who has an open mind to carry a constructive conversation. This is something that is debatable (sometimes misunderstood because all the information was not clear) and best left in another discussion. However, the clubs already in mention recognize their existence since that period or their founding and that is what we should honor and respect. As ThePonchat infers: it's a good thing for everyone. The present NASL legacy clubs have a lot of historical value to the fans in and outside of their communities. The more the clubs embrace their history, the stronger they become. MLS and NASL working together is building for the future.
There's a HUGE difference between a city's soccer history and the history of a current team. The Aztecs have nothing to do with the Galaxy. But the Aztecs are part of my city's soccer history. George Best played in LA, that's pretty cool. LA won the Soccer Bowl once. Our rivalry with San Jose started with the Aztecs. But none of that is the Galaxy's history, and they don't pretend it is. Some MLS teams try to claim their city's unrelated soccer history as their own, and whatever, that's cool. Whatever floats your boat. But the fact is that the current Sounders, Earthquakes, et al, have zero to do with the old NASL. It's 100% co-opting of a city's history for marketing purposes. Frankly, I'm glad my team is more worried about making their own history than glomming on to other people's.
Yes. But let's see where you are going with this analogy... Yes in terms of name relation. Yes. Yes, it is. LA Aztecs, yes. Yes, your city soccer rivalry existed between the LA Aztecs and the San Jose Earthquakes (during the 70s), but it actually existed way before with the Los Angeles Wolves and the San Francisco Gales (representing the San Francisco Bay area) in 1967; and even further back with competitions between local regional leagues since the turn of the 20th century (1902) with the Southern California Football League and San Francisco Soccer Football League. Therefore it's been around for over 100 years, yes. Yes, none of it is part of the LA Galaxy historical club lineage that is, because there is no ownership connection of the LA Aztecs' intellectual rights within the Galaxy organization. The only relationship they have is representing soccer in the city and being part of LA's soccer history. However, this is different to the LA Aztecs and LA Galaxy comparison. The NASL legacy clubs in MLS are not claiming unrelated history. They are embracing and promoting their full club history. This is where some confusion exists which is probably best left for a different thread. [This can appropriately be discussed elsewhere]. The clubs own a piece of MLS or the right to use the MLS brand. That piece that they own is not the same piece that the club owned in the NASL, as the latter is the right to use the NASL brand. However, this has nothing to do with the clubs owning the right to their respective names or lineages or even existing for 40 years, prior to joining MLS. [We can discuss this in another thread]. The LA Galaxy legacy and name started in 1995 and not prior. This is why they can't claim anything with club history prior to this point. Whereas the NASL legacy clubs began their history a couple of decades before during the 70s and they are standing proud of their enduring heritage. _______________________________________________ At the end of the day, everyone just wants to see fantastic soccer on the pitch and each person wants to see their clubs do their cities proud. And I think everyone wants to see soccer grow to greater heights in North America. With MLS and the NASL working together, a lot of success can happen.
It's debatable in the same way you can debate whether or not Tuesday comes before Wednesday. http://www.soundersfc.com/news/articles/2014/01-january/sounders-40th-anniversary.aspx
Hi, I already read this and posted it before. Read it once more: “Even though this iteration of the club is only five years young," Emphasis on the club. They have just said that the club is one. They are also referring to the present facet and the five years of owning a piece of MLS and playing in the league. "the supporters insisted on getting this iteration named after the NASL/USL/A-League clubs" Meaning that the organization did not change their name when they entered MLS and no rebranding was done. The name was continuous because the fans wanted their club to remain so. "is testament that our supporters understand that this history is important to recognize and pay homage to,” It seems like the fans understand about cherishing their history. Let's get back to topic: MLS and NASL working together and building on history.
Back on topic, NASL and MLS currently do not work together and have no plans to do so in the short or long term beyond MLS possibly stealing choice NASL teams from the lower league. End thread.
Well, only to a certain extent. They still work together through the USSF and CSA along with the USL-Pro (only in the USSF) via meetings. Regardless, that is what this thread is about - possibilities of building better ties between the leagues based on history in order to spread the game. Not sure that you can affirm this. I think everyone desires progress in soccer and would like to explore different concepts such as this conversation. So far, there have been some good contributors that will continue to provide input. I further welcome their constructive perspectives. When the door is left open people can communicate, and so can the leagues.
What exactly is NASL bringing to the table that would cause these Clubs to even consider leaving MLS? The excitement of playing against Edmonton, Carolina and perhaps OKC and Virginia in the future? What exactly is the NASL giving MLS in this "working together" scenario that you have dreamt up? So far your example has NASL gaining currently established Clubs and CONCACAF Slots just for being NASL and MLS gains the opportunity to go out and do some actual work like putting together new Markets and Ownership to make up for the teams it lost to NASL. Never mind the part about both being equal C0-Div 1's nonsense. That's "working together" just like foreign workers and Qataris Sheiks do!
In a forum that has produced more pointless threads than a teenager has pimples, this one might take the cake for the most pointless.
You do have a good point. At least it has that going for it. Go ahead and carry on with the circle jerk.
Tulsa Roughnecks total average (1978-1984) in 7 years 99,533 = Average 14,205 The new NASL seems obsessed in co-opting a history that really doesn't belong to them. There is simply no comparison between an NASL D-2 Soccer Bowl that takes place in a 5k stadium versus the old days when tens of thousands would flock to see a Soccer Bowl at Giants Stadium or RFK or BC Place. And frankly, IMO, it was truly pathetic last summer to watch a league commissioner attempt to invoke memories of the Cosmos and Pele at an Oklahoma City Public Schools board meeting in a bid to lease a high school football venue (Taft Stadium) that has already failed several times in the past three decades at hosting pro soccer. Especially for an operating group that wanted to place a team in USL Pro as their first choice. Especially when that city has no ties to NASL history or connection to the Cosmos while a city on the other end of the turpike has 99 of the top 100 soccer crowds in the history of professional soccer in the state. It makes the new NASL look desperate and makes about as much sense as bringing back the Memphis Rogues--- to Nashville. I find it interesting that you mention 22,000 seat soccer stadiums. Interesting because it was always 22,500 seating capacities that were part of discussions of an MLS stadium in Tulsa, OK, in 2002-03 and again in late 2005... http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_10db081c-7787-56ef-a6e6-5da7ab47d6d1.html So, who in the new NASL is preparing to build a 22,000 seat soccer specific stadium? Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller? If you truly honor the real and honest history of the NASL, please contact usrufnex@tulsaroughnecks.com and I will send preliminary info and investor materials regarding a documentary about the real Tulsa Roughnecks (god knows Joe-Max's dad Carl Moore probably has enough material for ten "Once in a Lifetime"-style documentaries)... a "pitch deck" will be coming up in the next few weeks, I believe... from the producers of these two docs...
To be fair if I were a two bit D2 league that was struggling financially I'd try my best to milk as much out of the name I happen to share with an older league some people remember fondly too. But I'd also be careful, NASL "history" is a double edged sword. Yes there were some flashes of greatness, but the older NASL was ultimately a failure and had some pretty big problem and lame turns. 35 yard offside line anyone?
OK, this is getting stupid. Let's say the LA Blues change their name to the Aztecs. Do they suddenly become a "legacy" team? Does this process involve fairy wings and pixie dust? Can we say that George Best played for the Bl..., sorry, the Nuevo Aztecs? The fact is, I would LOVE to see the new NASL become a solid second division. But they haven't shown much interest in that. The very fact the the Cosmos, just like olden times, are obsessed with becoming an unfunded "superclub" tells me that this is a league that I shouldn't take seriously. On top of all that NASL has not only refused to work with MLS, but has actually hindered MLS on several occasions. Do they talk? I'm sure they do, but I doubt those talks are ever anything beyond the commissioners trying not to tell each other off. Look, on several occasions I've sat in a room with the MLS honchos and listened to them talk about lower divisions with a lot of passion. I'm 1,000% sure that at some point they reached out to NASL about a partnership but were shot down because NASL viewed MLS rules as being too "restrictive". So MLS approached USL and found an willing parter. I can safely say that MLS, and I'm talking about the collective investors (owners), have no desire to work with a league that sees itself as a rival and who would dismantle the MLS business model if it got half a chance. So there's your answer to all the questions posited here. No, never, not gonna happen. Ever.
The LA Blues play in the USL... But overall I agree with all your points. The OP is living in fantasy land and his "hopes" for the future will never happen outside some NASL marketing guru's wet dream.
I happen to disagree with the OP about his ideas of the NASL becoming a rival to MLS or about any level of cooperation beyond player loans between the two leagues. But I'm sick to death of the pseudo intellectual rants about the technicality of a current NASL or MLS club "not really being" connected to its original version. I was introduced to the sport of soccer and found my lifelong passion for the game as a kid sitting in Lockhart next to my dad watching Ray Hudson, Nene Cubillas, and Gerd Muller. They were my team for life, my Strikers, and my heart ached when Mr. Robbie moved them to Minnesota in 1983. When the abominaton that was Miami FC finally got with the program and resurrected the Ft. Lauderdale Strikers in 2011, MY team was back. I don't give a rat's arse what kind of mind-numbing legal definition someone wants to pull out of their rectum, these Strikers are still my Strikers, just like they were back then. You know why? Because I'm who it matters to. Strikers fans are the only relevant ones in this discussion. It makes no difference how anyone else views us or our team. If Earthquakes fans don't feel the same about their team, that's their choice. But make no mistake, the Earthquakes fans' feelings on the matter are all that counts for anything. Anyone who would waste time trying to tell them or me, someone who sat in the stands and rooted for both "incarnations" and lived and died with them, that they aren't really the "same team" ought to think seriously about something better to do with their time. Seeing Flight 19 raise tifos showing the brilliance of the Strikers legacy an tradition through players like Ray Hudson and George Best is a damn good thing no one has ANY business knocking. I am proud to say I support this club. #FTLTID
It COULD happen, with some massive "ifs"... IF an MLS team (or three) decides to go full superclub and break the bank... and IF MLS doesn't play Calvinball with the salary cap/DP rules to keep the peace... and IF MLS has not poached more NASL teams that consider MLS a step up... and IF said NASL teams that remained have raised the league's play, operation and popularity to approach MLS... and IF no Promotion/Relegation exists at this point (not that massive an "if", actually)... and IF the fans of said superclubs don't openly revolt... Then such a team COULD consider switching. again, with a series of rather mountainous "ifs".