I was going back through some pages on ASHA's site and had some questions about what in the world was going on in the 80s. 1. Why was the MISL directly competing with the NASL? It seems like pulling players from the NASL would only hurt both companies in the long run? Not to mention why would the USSF not work to prop both leagues up so the national team wouldn't be hurt by NASL folding? Would a summer run for the NASL and a winter run for indoor not have worked? What solutions were sought out to help the two leagues co-exist, if any? 2. How come the NASL didn't participate in the US Open Cup? (Dates back to the 60s and 70s but have alway wondered this) 3. Why did the 1984 Olympics no save the NASL? We always see a boost in MLS/NWSL attendance after respective World Cups. How come the large attendances at the Olympics didn't roll over to the NASL?
I'm not sure what you mean by the first one. MISL played mostly during the NASL off-season. The NASL put together an indoor mini-league to keep players from taking more money from or supplementing income indoors. Indoor soccer at the time was a pretty marketable product and more appealing to many Americans than outdoor soccer. The USSF was a disaster. It had no money and no clout. It was run by amateurs. The NASL just didn't want to participate. Soccer politics have always been complicated. The 84 Olympic tournament didn't air on TV outside a few minutes of the final. The league was dead in all but pronouncement.
1. At first, MISL wasn't actually competing with NASL. When they started up in 1978 they occupied a section of the calender that NASL only dabbled in during the 70's, and at least initially they only nabbed a select bunch of NASL players and relied on young blood for the remainder. However, after the initial season NASL went with a full indoor season during the winter and thus forced the competition angle. And soon after that the MISL started nabbing more and more American players from the NASL who were either unable to secure much PT in the NASL or those whose franchises were on the downturn. As for the USSF, it was still a complete and total minnow when it came to governing Top Division Professional Soccer regardless of type. That they had any clout to try a Team America experiment in 1983 says volumes about the reach they realistically had. 2. NASL was a league that basically eschewed a lot of traditions, whether in US Soccer or worldwide soccer as a whole. Among the many traditions, I guess, would be dropping out of the US Open Cup. If I had to venture a reason, I would think expenditures(The NASL season started in May. The Open Cup 'final' rounds stretched from January to that point, which meant holding the team together and paying them for longer stretches of time, something only few franchises could manage) 3. 'Too little too late' is the appropriate phrase. The NASL was a decaying entity at this point, with noticeable talent drains and a lack of financing able to replace said talent that was lost. I would compare it to the crisis of 1969 when NASL went down to six franchises and survived by the skin of its teeth... only their executive of this time- Howard Samuels- died in early 1985 of a heart attack, and in doing so took away the lone driving force remaining that could have kept the NASL afloat for longer.
Seems like a lot of players either picked NASL or MISL exclusively. Shep Messing, the most notable player coming to mind, completely dropped out of the NASL to play in the MISL. It just seems very short-sighted by MISL and USSF to have a 3-5 month league (MISL) end up stealing so much attention from the NASL when they could have had year-round soccer. The Olympics averaged 44k per match and over 100k for the final. The big attendance (from what I've read) peaked FIFA's interest in hosting a WC in the US. The NASL averaged 10k on their season that sandwiched the Olympics. How come they couldn't tap into soccer market that attended the Olympics in droves?
Hmm. Do you think there was room for the NASL and MISL to work cohesively or was is it just inevitable that the two clashed? And can you elaborate on "eschewed a lot of traditions"?
I think there were situations where MISL paid more and has more stability. The NASL was also a reasonably short season, you can't view what happened then through what you know of the ussf and soccer today. The NASL had many seasons where it imported whole teams from England during its offseason. The leadership of the USSF was inept too. It was a different time. I don't think the NASL could have had much longer a season sharing so many football stadiums as well. Here is what the olympics in 84 gave us soccer, Alan Rothenberg. He promoted the tournament in California and did well. Soccer was completely invisible in TV during the Olympics. I remember them showing a full rose bowl for the final but that was it. The NASL was cooked by that point. What happens in LA and up at Stamford meant nothing to it. Rothenberg as you know was elected to the USSF presidency off of his work in 84 because FIFA trusted him. Some interesting politics there but FIFA knew he'd deliver a successful World Cup. He did and he helped found MLS as well so it did leave a legacy of sorts.