NASL folded due to extreme over expansion (I mean for godsakes Hawaii had a team for a year...Hawaii). This combined with teams moving so often there was no fan base in most cities made it a disaster. Finally a few teams spent everyone out of business, and teams that had no business trying to keep up with say the NY Cosmos tried to. Except these teams didnt get there returns on investment because the fan base didnt follow for a lot of these teams. I think its pretty different then MLS at the current stage.
Can someone explain to me how this "opinion" has gone unchecked for two pages of this thread? Brian McBride played eight freaking years at Columbus and was 31 when he made the permanent move to England. Even Friedel was 26 when he left MLS, though work-permit issues slowed him down. What was the average number of American players -- of ANY kind, not just guys who were born and raised here -- in an NASL game? Good grief. I like the numbers here, but save the panic for the disco.
NASL had better TV ratings than MLS does today, and still NASL could not get a new contract with ABC. Pele, like Beckham, was a huge hit but when he retired nobody could replace him. Watch Once In A Lifetime all the warning signs of MLS folding are there.
Well, if you wanted to give Ferguson the benefit of the doubt, you'd point out that McBride played in Wolfsburg 94-95 and that Friedel played at Brondby and Galatasaray before MLS. Of course, in McBride's case, it's really tough to argue that he wasn't developed in MLS... The point of the NASL reference is not to say that we're headed for similar ruin-- it's to point out that simply getting the best players we can isn't necessarily the best path. There ARE other considerations. If we were to get the best possible players for the money, I suspect we'd have starting 11s entirely comprised of standouts from the Argentine 2nd division.
I have the Once in a Lifetime DVD -- highly recommended -- but I don't see it. The media landscape is so different today. Nothing in the 200-channel TV universe today draws the ratings of the three-network past. No one knew how to make money on soccer broadcasts in those days. Today, MLS has ample signage and jersey sponsors, plus strong interest from the shoemakers. I don't recall the NASL controlling any of its venues. As far as I know, they were renters. In 1979, the NASL had nine teams averaging less than 10,000 fans. The Philadelphia Fury were under 6,000. So I think it'll take more than a couple of players out partying with Beckham to bring down the league. (A labor stoppage, on the other hand -- that could do it.)
You mean the Players Union's demands outweighing what MLS wants to pay them? Or do you mean American players just giving up on MLS and going straight to Europe?
It says in the Once In a Lifetime DVD that no American professional sports league has survived without a tv deal. NASL had stronger ratings than MLS, and still they could not cut out a deal. With no TV deal there was no exposure and people lost interest except for the Cosmos, and owners were reluctant to own teams because they were worried they would all lose money trying to keep up with the big names the Cosmos were keeping up.
MLS != NASL; See above. MLS will be around after Beckham leaves. Just like before he arrived. If you are going to compare television contracts you need to do some research about how the industry has changed. Or maybe it is just me. You guys are right. We should coddle our players and expel all foreigners from our league. How could I not agree with something so American?
No it shouldn't. Paying 22 year old americans 19K to be on the reserve squad that never plays isn't going to make a better USMNT or a more entertaining product. The spots that matter are the starting spots and I for one tune out if there aren't mostly americans starting.
I agree. If anything, because rosters are small, there are some Americans starting now who probably shouldn't be (the Galaxy being exhibit A). Continue to improve the product, pay the players more as the league finances improve, and for those Americans who do start on MLS teams you will provide them with a far better professional experience.
No, I mean a labor stoppage. A strike or a lockout. MLS will have a TV deal with someone. If it's a substantial deal with ESPN, great. If it's a low-key deal with TeleFutura, FSC and HDNet, fine. If it's on MLS TV, fine. The NASL had, what, four or five options? The big networks and the nascent ESPN? Again, the landscape has changed. I think we've established that we have mostly Americans starting. The union seemed a little surprised that young internationals would show up for developmental money and a bench spot, but it happened. Quite true.
NASL had better ratings than MLS because back then on most TVs in the country there were only three channels, four if you counted your local PBS affiliate. A 2.0 rating with only three channel choices compared to a .2 with hundreds of channel choices for most TV viewers today. ABC thought a 2.0 sucked in 1979; ESPN would go crazy with glee to have half of that in today's cable/satellite market. ABC's NASL coverage was from 1979-1981, after Pele left the league. If I remember correctly, the league wanted to gradually introduce the game to the masses with highlight packages, but it was overruled for coverage of full games. If MLS hasn't folded by now, I don't see how it will unless the owners just give up. We're not even done with the first year of an eight-year ESPN contract, and Beckham hasn't even had a fair chance to do what he was signed to do here yet in a five-year contract.
The only aspect of the NASL debacle that's relevant here is the question of player development. No part of MLS's business or competitive structure resembles the NASL. However, the NASL does serve as a good object lesson for why simply "getting the best players" is not the only worthy consideration. Player development matters. Free competition will not fix everything. Rational coaches will always sacrifice future development in return for immediate results. If you could import an entire team from Argentina, it might be the best team in MLS and is probably cheaper than the rosters on MLS teams with DPs. Is that really what you want? Of course not. You're a reasonable person-- you realize that such a team wouldn't help develop the club in the long term. So what do you do? Maybe you get a few local kids to learn from the team. Maybe you get a few American players who connect with the local media. In short, maybe you start doing something that looks an awful lot like MLS now. Don't get me wrong: I don't think opportunities for US players are short at all (which is why I said that those opportunities had "never been better" on the first page). But the whole idea that competition fixes everything just isn't true and it's wildly simplistic. Competition matters. Alot. But you need to get a lot further than Econ 101 to really do a decent analysis of the MLS labor market.
I like the idea in Once In A Lifetime one of the Cosmos execs wanted to do with the NASL: a weekly anthology show, kind of like This Week in Baseball. A half-hour show with goals/hi-lights/scores, player interviews and segments introducing soccer to the masses. It would be less intimidating and easier to digest by the general public. The exec felt that showing full matches was doomed to fail because it was a lot to ask of newbie soccer viewers. If the MLS can something like that on ESPN or network TV I think that would be an awesome first step. ESPN already has similar shows (Baseball Tonight for example, but they also have shows for the NBA, College Football, NFL, and even NASCAR). They can even show it in combination with the MLS Game of the Week.
Not a good example since their NT hasn't lived up to standards for an extended period of time in years.
7.4 out of 11 starters last week is not mostly if you ask me. It's a solid majority but i'm not buying that as mostly. For every 3 starters 1 was foreign. I guess Meatloaf would tell you 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement is it. I'll drop the linguistic dispute though since it's not terribly important what word we use as long as we know the right numbers. This is the same problem the EPL has been having for awhile and we certainly aren't seeing the England team benefiting from this increased competition. Instead you get national team players sitting the bench in their own domestic league.
The 'professionalization' of youth development should tilt the balance in favor of the American player in the years to come. It may take 5-10 years before we see the fruits of that labor, but it's coming, and if were going to have an average of 4 foreigners per team, make sure they're all top notch, like Schelotto and JPA. If each team had 3-4 players of that caliber, young American players would grow by leaps and bounds...
I agree with Kpaulson...MLS doesnt resemble the NASL at all...salary caps, planned-gradual growth, soccer specific stadiums and roster limits being the indication of that.... But I do see some simalarities brewing...one of them is getting foreign players to vamp up the League...and not paying attention to American player development, American Coaching development and a proper youth system. Obviously the main goal of MLS is to have an attractive product that sells and not to supply a string of players for the National team... but theyre somewaht related... A good domestic league with Domestic players brews a good National team... hate to compare with EPL...arguably... since the influx of foreign players in the English league has grown...the pool of good English players has dropped... Also... in the early 80's (correct me if Im wrong) Serie A only allowed Italians to play in the League because the national team wasnt doing to well...82 they win the WC... Personally...I've always said that if you want to attract American Soccer fans (ones who watch European soccer and dont watch MLS )to the MLS youre going to have to produce a few American soccer "heroes"....thats probably not going to happen with a roster full of imports. Simon Allen World Soccer Wrap
The NASL had stronger ratings in absolute terms (around a 3.0, IIRC) than every single sporting event on this list: Sports Programs by Total Households, week of 08/27/07-09/02/07 But no one would say that in relative terms, that the NASL was doing better on TV in 1979 and 1980 than college football is doing on TV in 2007, which should demonstrate the folly of this little nugget of info that you've tossed out there a few times out there. So you're either using it out of ignorance or you're being deliberately disingenuous. Neither one really helps whatever argument you're trying to make.