You realize it's a book review about the Cosmos, don't you? Edit, you also realize you posted this in the USMNT forum, don't you?
It's an excerpt - unless the writer of the book is also reviewing his own book. And while I don't mind if the thread gets moved to another forum, isn't the point made constantly about MLS is that, UNLIKE the NASL - it actually has helped the USMNT through player development? Look how the Nats are qualifying for Germany with flying colors now - with MLS players - and that never happened under the NASL - yet this article, excerpt, whatever pumps up the Cosmos as a huge success. On what basis? They lost money, they didn't help the national team, they didn't last, they didn't create a sustaining market for soccer, they didn't do anything, perhaps, except show MLS what not to do.
Some good points, but the excerpt makes no direct or indirect point or reference to the USMNT. So therefore, the comparisons to MLS are deemed more appropriate.
MLS stands far better than the pre-Pele NASL. In it's 5th year the NASL was in far worse shape than year-5 MLS, if I read the exerpt correctly. Basically, the NASL rode a bell-shaped curve, reaching a peak with Pele's arrival, and heading to extinction with his departure. What success it had was built around a single, overwhleming personality; the NASL was not built to last. Thanks for the memories, but the storm passed long ago. I am grateful for the steady, refeshing breeze of MLS. We can sail our course by it.
I think the author (of course I'm biased against the Guardian anyway) has once again gotten it wrong about the NASL. It wasn't Pele leaving that killed the league, so much as it was the fact that the league allowed too much overspending and too much underfunding. Allowing so-called major league teams to be run with minor league money led to the league's demise. The Cosmos did it right; they had the $$$ to get the best team possible. The others spent themselves into oblivion trying to keep up. St. Louis and Philly (the Atoms, not the Fury) had a good idea using good local talent and creating a grassroots identity. Seattle got their players to hook into the community, and got a following that way early on. But too many people had rose colored glasses and not enough money and tried to replicate the Cosmos' success, getting a couple of famous retreads at the expense of the rest of the team, and going into the tank as a result. Playing in the biggest stadium in town didn't help either, and drained money that could have been better spent. However, it is important to point out that without the NASL, there definitely would not be MLS, and there wouldn't be the millions of kids and adults playing today. The NASL made more than its share of mistakes, but without it, we wouldn't be doing this.
DavidP, the problem I have with your assessment of NASL (which seems to be correct) is that it offers a hopeless situation for any team outside of New York. Were those smaller city teams supposed to not spend and continue to lose to the Cosmos?
Considering that even this article admits the Cosmos didn't make money - how can even they be considered successful? Sure, they had bigger crowds, and more buzz, but they outspent the profits even from that.