This is something I have not seen clearly defined anywhere. What is the ultimate goal of the NASL? Is it to compete with the MLS and maybe one day overtake/merge? Is it to be a second tier league? What is the NASL trying to be?
They have said a strong alternative that is relevant in their markets and provides a high level of soccer. It's silly to think being a legitimate competitor to MLS (along the lines of the AFL, ABA and WHA) is realistic. MLS has a head start of fifteen years, billions of dollars, almost all the markets you would want and the sponsor and media relationships. The NASL would have to sink an unbelievable amount of money into ramping everything (stadiums, players, coaches, front offices, training grounds, TV) up to be a realistic competitor. Peterson claims they don't take a back seat to MLS, and that's fine. He is a commissioner and his job is to sell the league. And there are some places that, quite frankly, are not going to be in MLS and can still be served by a strong Division II league. Outside of the drama in Virginia and the uncertainty in OKC, the NASL has achieved stability, which was a necessary first step for Division II (which has been a basket case for years). The USSF standards helped. The overall rising profile of the sport has helped. The rise of supporters' culture has helped. An "endgame" presumes an end. This is all an evolution.
I dunno, I think if NASL were smart they'd try and put teams in Boston, Chicago and Dallas proper. Maybe later down the road put a team in LA and Toronto, too. I think those are very doable --especially Boston. They could (should) also target San Francisco, Austin, St. Louis, Detroit, Charlotte, New Orleans, Memphis/Nashville, Louisville, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Birmingham, San Diego... Theres definitely enough room for 2 major leagues here and watching them fight it out would be fun.
I don't think there is enough room for two major leagues. If basketball and football couldn't do it soccer won't be able to. If it did happen I have no doubt that it would eventually lead to a merger just like the AFL/NFL and ABA/NBA. On the other hand, I do think soccer is in a position where it could have a strong second league unlike football and basketball. The MLS hasn't reached NFL or NBA status yet where they are so ubiquitous that people ignore other leagues even if their city doesn't actually have an NFL or NBA team. This leaves the doors open in some good sized markets, such as Indy, SA, Minn, and Sac, to get a foothold and build their brand and a strong following before soccer settles down and be more like a (to borrow a college term) mid-major league.
Basketball and football (and hockey) actually COULD do it and DID do it, in the 60s and 70s, when the market was underserved AND you could establish an AFL team for $25,000. You could make the argument that MLS is underserving the Division I soccer market in America and Canada, but it wouldn't be by nearly the degree that the NFL, NBA and NHL were underserving the market in 1960, 1967 and 1972, respectively. You should have doubts. Because it wouldn't happen. Besides the head start I have outlined above, the resources you would have to devote to make that happen are unrealistic. It would be far easier to just apply for an MLS franchise than to start another league, which would be second best in any decent market and require a massive investment in the others. And it should be worth noting that no challenger league has forced a merger in any sport since 1979, and that (and, to a lesser extent, the NBA-ABA one) was more a capitulation by a league that was just scraping by at the end. The dynamics of the NBA/ABA and AFL/NFL situations (also the NHL/WHA one) are so different in terms of time and place, sports landscape, cost of doing business and upside for the challenger to anything that could potentially happen in soccer in this country that it's ridiculous to compare them, much less to think, "Oh, yeah, same thing, it would totally play out just like that." And, yet....every single one of the markets you just named aspires to be in which league, again? The NASL has stabilized (for the most part - you still cannot be 100% sure every team will be back from one year to the next at any of the lower levels) and can absolutely be a solid second division league. Again, second-tier markets (for the most part), second-class ownership (for the most part), second-class stadiums (for the most part), second-class players, second-class coaches, second-class crowds, second-class writers, editors, broadcasters, staffs, everything. To make the investment necessary to get to the bar that has been set in recent years would be unrealistic. It's just not going to happen.
Maybe the phrase "end game" sets off the wrong train of thought. Let's talk in terms of where the league would be happy to be in 2025. Would they be happy/disappointed/barely satisfied to have 90% of teams with average attendance in the 8-12k per game range 2/3rds of teams in SSS or as prime tenant in their stadium 20+ teams in the league >85% of the players are on 12-month or longer contracts no more than 3 teams folding/dropping to PDL (or equivalent) since 2020 etc. I stress, I'm just guessing (aka picking numbers out of my ass ). Your ideas would be better & better informed.
They are not very doable, cut back on your meds. All of those cities you just mentioned are Major League towns, meaning they have major franchises in every sport. A city like Boston sports fans would not pay attention to anything lower then the top division. You and me, and the other knuckleheads on Big Soccer, do not count because we are a little more fanatical about soccer. To the rest of the sports landscape, MLS and soccer is a niche sport. It is a growing sport, but right now it is not one of the big 4. A second division club would live in whispered rumors in such big markets. Oh, and they would also have to compete with the already existing top flight team on top of that. Let's pick that list apart for a moment: San Fran = notoriously hard real-estate market to get anything built, plus the heavy taxes in the area make for putting up a new team very hard. Once again, San Fran suffers from Major-League-itis that would knee-cap a DII team. Austin = many speculate that Austin is a hotbed with all its hipsters. This is yet to be proven, but now DIII is taking the challenge. So NASL might have missed out on Austin. St. Louis = The supposed "capital" of soccer in America. So much a hotbed that there is nobody willing to invest in a team until this year. And they chose DIII. That is commitment to the sport that is suppose to be rabid there. Oh, and DII was in St. Louis but it was an utter disaster. Detroit = This is a possibility for DII, certainly with the good support that Detroit City FC shows for only a D4 team. The problem is that Detroit has been spiraling down the drain for a long time now. Is it a save bet to put resources in a city that might just fall completely apart? Baltimore = Been there done that. Big questions whether to return there. New Orleans = Big questions if there is true soccer support there. NO has similar concerns as Detroit, will it be a viable city in the long term? Milwaukee = probably the one of the best candidates for a DII team on the list. But once again nobody is stepping up to do squat about it. On the flip side, Milwaukee is ranked as the most sports overstated city in the USA, so they have that going for them. Louisville and Charlotte have new USL Pro teams starting there, so DII is out of luck at the moment. The other cities, like Birmingham, are unproven markets for soccer. You seemed to have just looked at map and found the bigger cities by some geographic pattern. You ignore places that have teams, at further lower levels, that over perform. Places like Des Moines. What, Des Moines not sexy enough for you? Too bad because outside of having the funds to elevate they draw fans and have been doing it for a long time now. I'd take Des Moines over half of the cities you listed as a more safe bet because they have shown consistent and proven fan base. Could D3 teams, like Louisville and Austin, jump to the DII level? Sure, but right now there is zero, and I mean zero, reasons to do so. NASL has not made the progress, currently, to create any advantage of being in the DII level.
Well the idea that the AFL and ABA were ever truly able to challenge the NFL and NBA is more folklore than fact. For one the AFL was basically created with the sole purpose of eventually forcing a merger with the NFL, not to actually compete with and possibly over take it. The rest of that I'm not sure what your point is other than to agree with me by going more in depth as to why it won't happen in an argumentative tone. While they may aspire for it it does not mean they will achieve it. There is a good reason why the major US sports leagues are all right around 30 teams. There just isn't enough talent and marketshare to support more top tier teams. Also I wouldn't call the NASL stable. The league is too young and vulnerable to be able to show any pattern of stability. Yeah, teams might not be dieing every year, but its ability to survive long term is still in question. The good thing is, if the NASL plays its cards right they are coming into the game at a time where there isn't a ubiquitous soccer league in this nation. This means there is still a chance for them to entrench themselves within the nation's psyche as a quality league that offers more than a typical minor league even if it isn't an actual major league. No one said it would be cheap or easy, only that it is possible.
Because of New Orleans' location they won't be going down the same path as Detroit. It is located at a very strategic location, and not by mistake. As long as the Mississippi enters the Gulf of Mexico at that general location and our main means of shipping cargo around the world is boats New Orleans' will always have a future, even if it has good times and bad times.
Do you think it's impossible that some NASL teams don't jump ship to MLS in the future? I mean it is early to tell but, you can't help but wonder about the situations in Sacramento and San Antonio.
The only way those teams don't jump ship is if they cannot find ownership/stadiums that MLS will approve. MLS is a much more stable investment at this point, even if it has a higher cost of entry. It's also important to note that the main reason those "merger leagues" popped up was that the main leagues were not expanding and there were truly viable markets which were under served. MLS is still expanding, and seems to be doing so into the most viable markets. If you have the ownership and money, MLS will let you in. It's the most stable D2 we've had in at least 5 years (how long I've been paying more than cursory attention to D2), and quite possibly the most stable we've ever had. We aren't talking about whether or not there will be an NASL season next year, we know there will be one. Quite frankly, that's a pretty rare thing.