SI Vault Article 1984: NASL, USSF and MLS

I think the NASL North Americans or rather USA and Canadian born players were coming into their own in 1984. I can't ever remember too many players over 30 with maybe the exception of maybe Bruce Wilson. Steve Moyers was scoring goals for the Cosmos I believe and Jeff Durgan was coming into his own as a defender. You wonder how far the league and its players could have gone if the USA was awarded the World Cup in 1986?

They should have been given the tournament especially on the strength of the strong showing and sold out crowds of the Olympic games in 1984, I mean the tv networks called the sell outs a fluke which was something I never understood. Those games were basically a sort of mini WC as all of the players who played were first division national team players. The only difference was they couldn't have played for their country in a WC match I believe. I remember seeing Germany -Brazil, which was basically the first time the two teams played in a meaningful game at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto in front of 76k fans. It was crazy. For the NASL to fold only 1 month after that tournament is still such a huge disappointment for the game and its fans. I still can't help but feel cheated about it. I mean it was such a shame for the game and its fans.

 

You are totally right Falvo

Carlos Alberto said it as well in the Once in a lifetime movie, ''giving the WC to Mexico was the wrong decision, with that FIFA killed the best market''

 

Sorry, gotta discredit you on this part. The crowds of the 1984 Olympics had no effect upon the selection process for the 1986 WC because that selection process was already over.

EDIT: I'm just wondering if there'd be any American teams with European-style names if the NASL had survived.

 

Fallacious for authority. Only because a well known person says it, doesn't mean it is correct or the complete true.
I could think that the magic of Maradona, the cheating of the "hand of God" or the slalom-run wouldn't exist... or would it have been ignored in the US if the game was played in here? Was there a magic moment in 94?

 

MLS will continue to suffer from this perception as long as it's willing to sign 30-year-old players to 4-5-year contracts.

 

[Fallacious for authority. Only because a well known person says it, doesn't mean it is correct or the complete true.]

yes, of course but please admit that Carlos Alberto knows a lot about the NASL, soccer in the USA, World Cups etc... as an insider, so I at least take his opinion for pretty correct and true

I understand that the NASL was counting on the WC 86 to give soccer in the USA a new boost

The WC 94 was very succesfull, probably the USA could have done the same in 86 and soccer would not have lost 10 years

 

Losing a decade was horrible for the game and its players. I remember reading back in 1986 that the USSF was looking and pointing to the colleges to restart their national team program. I guess they figured that was the cheapest way to go without having to pay out any salaries to the players so they wouldn't lose their amateur status. When national team players played in NCAA college tournaments and then played in national team contests weeks after, you could see the big gap between the two. Its amazing that Bob Gansler brought what was a college all star team to World Cup 1990. Looking back, I still don't know how they even competed much less qualified for that WC.

 

My dear friend Falvo:

Like many others, I was bitterly disappointed at the time when FIFA seemed to completely ignore the US's bid to hold the '86 WC when Colombia had to drop out.

But, in reflective hindsight, I'm completly satisfied that the US was forced to wait until 1994, for these reasons:

Qualifying, on their own merits for the 1990 WC, after such a long absence, gave the US a bit of history and momentum leading into 1994. Many of the European and South American pundits lambasted FIFA's decision to award such a prestigious event to a country that didn't even have 'first division football.' It would have been worse had the US been awarded the right to host a World Cup in which they hadn't even qualified for in 36 years.

During the period between 1986-1994, the US began to make great playing strides in CONCACAF which had not existed before 1986. Adding to the WC qualification in '90, the US defeated Mexico at the Pan Am games in 1991, won the first Gold Cup in '91 (thus qualifying for, and playing in, what would later become the Conferederations Cup), played in the Gold Cup final in '93, hell, even defeated Mexico in SoCal right before the '94 WC.

Still not a world beater by any stretch of the imagination, the US team was a lot stronger in 1994 than they were in 1986 and thus performed better in a pretty tough group. By '94 guys like Lalas, Wynalda, Harkes, Ramos, Wegerle, Kooiman, Stewart and Caligiuri had all played outside the US and the team had much more overall experience than they would have had in '86.

Thomas Dooley and Bora would not have been around for the US in '86.

The '94 World Cup led to MLS with its emphasis on fully playing and developing the American player. Having a World Cup in 1986 might have helped NASL to continue, when they had to be forced kicking and screaming to play Americans, besides goalkeepers. In its final years, what was the number of Americans on the field that the NASL was (forced) up to? Was it up to three or four?

A lot of the youth leagues in this country were just getting started in the late '70s and early '80s and would not have contributed in the way of an expanded US fan base in 1986 as much as what did happen eight years later. I also believe the media exposure in 1994 would have swamped efforts made in 1986. (Cobi Jones (or similar like player) on the cover of Newsweek?!?) By 1994, millions of boys and girls, and their parents, had been exposed to soccer, were playing regularly and had begun to become emotionally invested in the sport. A lot of those parents, both men and women, had begun to play soccer, in co-ed leagues, for the first time in their lives.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by 1994, the USSF was led by Alan Rothenberg and not Werner Fricker. Not to belittle Fricker's efforts during `84-'90, but WF was the voice of the volunteer, nonprofessional, days (Fricker/Edwards/Barriskill) of the past 40 years while Rothenberg became the vision and the reality of the future for the Federation.



After the time period of 1990-1994, soccer in this country really looked like it could become successful (in whatever way you want to measure the term "success"), a feeling which was culminated after the 1994 World Cup.


In short, '86 would have been too soon (although I didn't think so at the time), '94 was just right, and damn it, we're ready to host again!

 

[In short, '86 would have been too soon (although I didn't think so at the time), '94 was just right, and damn it, we're ready to host again!]


Probably the WC 94 was better for the USA squad, but probably the WC 86 could have given the well needed boost to the NASL and professional soccer in the USA.

Or maybe the NASL was never meant to succeed, a top professional soccer league in a country without much soccer tradition, what were the chances?

Do we think that MLB in Italy could succeed? Even with A Rod, Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter? Or the NHL in England? Even with Lemieux, Malkin and Kovalchuk?

 

Its really difficult to measure that time period from 1985-1994. The folding of the NASL did nothing for the improvement of our fine young Americans. I remember Steve Moyers , Mark Peterson , Rick Davis as well as Hugo Perez and few others like Jeff Durgan coming into their own in the early 80's. From what I recall the NASL was pointing toward fielding more American/Canadian players in 85 on but then the league folded. I can not imagine how the game of those players would have gone down in quality had there been a league for them to play in. The new ASL/WSA / APSL was not really a viable option and the division between the MISL indoor league and outdoor soccer was horrible for the game. When the NASL folded you had the USMNT call up MISL indoor players who were simply not ready for outdoor soccer. They may have been in shape but not in outdoor soccer playing shape. It wasn't easy to switch all of a sudden from indoor to outdoor. Sure some star players and teams could do it like Zungul and Preki but they also grew up on outdoor soccer and it was their natural game. In 1988 I believe it was both Durgan & Moyers disappear from any part of the game and it was a rotten shame to see those guys go down. Looking back its easy to forget those years but a genearation of fine players missed out during the time frame of 1985-1995. It was really a sad time. In retrospect, the World Cup made many US soccer fans (who had been put off by the folding of the NASL) fall in love with the game again.

 

Funny that you're mentioning that to Brent Goulet. In his day, he was possibly the best scoring threat we had, but was one of those guys whose prime was during the soccer interregnum, and undeservedly, he's now a footnoe (nothing personal, Brent).

 

Yes I think Brent Goulet came after the folding of the NASL. It was a shame he couldn't keep on playing. I think in early 1990 he was given a few chances but failed to find the net so Gansler didn't pick him for Italy 90. I would have loved to see him in the MLS but I think aroundd 1996 he was making a pretty good living in Europe and probably didn't want to come back home for less money. Last I herd he was fired as a coach in Germany in MArch of this year.

 

So how much did the NASL catalyze the big salary increases?

 

Not nearly as much as television contracts and sponsorships that paid money directly to European teams, giving them revenue that could be used to buy and keep players, certainly.

There's a reason NASL was known as a "retirement league"-- many of the biggest names who came to the NASL were at the tail end of their career, and the high salaries (more than many of these guys could make in Europe) were a premium for moving to the US. And we're really talking about 8-10 teams, tops, who were signing "name" players, and for the most part, only a couple big names each. That's maybe one or two clubs' worth of players, yet there were a LOT more teams in competition to sign name players in Europe at the time.

No numbers. I just don't buy the argument, which is not the simplest explanation for the increase in salaries at that time. Hell, the most any English footballer could be paid seven years prior to the launch of the NASL was £20 a week.

 

Personally I don't think that the NASL had a lot to do with the salary increase.

To me the first reason was the tv contracts and merchandising , the second reason the Bosman verdict in 1995.

When I was a kid in Europe during the seventies and early eighties, it was totally impossible to buy jerseys from our favorite teams, we went to the games in civil clothing. Nowadays, jerseys sales mean a lot of revenues for the teams.

 

I know there are still a lot of NASL fans here, so I don't want to be disrespectful. But when I think of the NASL (not having been around for it myself), the acronym conjures up images of the most cartoonish elements of MLS magnified by a factor of 10. They didn't just play on turf - they played on Astroturf. They didn't get rid of the shootout after 4 years as far as I know, they kept it until the very end. A few MLS teams have the type of Disney-esque names that appeal to little kids (I'll pick Clash, Mutiny and Burn to protect the guilty) - all of the NASL teams had them.

In short, I wonder whether - if the NASL had survived - it wouldn't be so bastardized today that I personally (won't speak for anyone else) would find no appeal at all in it.

 

It's possible, but my guess is much like MLS, the NASL would have slowly evolved to become more like other leagues in the world, at least with respect to some of its more unusual practices.

 

I think the names and logos were synonymous with the times. I the 70's color TV had just come out and there were only 3 networks. Saturday morning cartoons, hanna barbera , the Disney special on Sunday evenings, marvel comics , wacky packs etc.

In the 90's you had Poke Mon, Clash of Titans, computer video games etc.

I myself grew to love the Quakes logo and was used to it.



The Wiz, Clash, Burn , Metrostars are all gone. The Chicago Fire was told initially by Nike to name their team some funky supposedly trendy name but they refused and went w/ Fire & won the MLS & Open Cup in ther 1st year. Then Nike shut up. I think there is more to the story but Goodsport has the real story.

 

Dips is like 30x better than DC United. maybe even 40x.

 

I'm glad that the MLS came back tio San Jose twice. However, to tell the absolute truth, I never really got over the NASL folding.... it was such a sad time. What a joke. When I think of the Canadian national team making the 1986 WC in Mexico, there is no telling what they could have done. The same with the USMNT. They came back and strong but I think had the NASL lasted, the USMNT would have been even stronger than it is today today.
I on the other hand loved those old Quakes red colors...having a George Best in San Jose always helped relive my NASL nostalgia.

 

I'll level with you - I think almost all of those names are terrible. I think about half the MLS names are terrible and cartoonish as well. But eventually you get used to them, so it's not that big of a deal.

Plus I'm just one guy with one opinion, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

Just out of curiosity, which MLS names do you think are cartoonish?

 

Well don't take this personally, but I think Earthquakes is kind of cartoonish! I'm familiar with the arguments for naming sports teams after natural disasters, but it really doesn't resonate with me.

Kansas City Wizards - that to me sounds like a name designed to appeal to little kids (and I'm aware that the alternative - Wiz - is much worse).

Columbus Crew - I thought that was about the silliest name I'd ever heard at first, although I've gotten used to it. I'm still not entirely sure what it means.

I'm not really all that enamored of "Revolution" either, lest anyone think I'm trying to pick a fight here rivalry-style. This one is probably a holdover from the Nike days of naming teams after singular concept nouns (Clash, Mutiny, Fusion, Burn).

For the record I thought MetroStars was a pretty cool name, and I was disappointed to see it go.

I personally will never understand why so many people think alliteration is essential for sports team names either.

Of course, over the years I've learned to tolerate and accept names I thought sounded foolish at first, as the teams develop their own history. And I also support the league fully and wish it every success in the future, regardless of how much I like or dislike some of the team names.