What-If: The USA gets the 1986 World Cup

When FIFA awarded the 1986 World Cup to Mexico instead of to the United States, the NASL was already in the midst of a financial disaster.

The main financial backer of the NASL was Warner Communications, the company that owned the New York Cosmos. Warner had suffered a huge setback just five months before with the video games crash of December 1982, which caused Warner's stock price to fall by 32 percent in just one day (Dec. 9, 1982).

The FIFA decision concerning the World Cup on May 20, 1983 should be viewed in light of the fact that on that date, Warner was in the midst of a quarter in which it lost $283.4 million, a gigantic loss in 1983 and a reversal of more than a third of a billion dollars from its $68.2 million profit in the same quarter a year before. Compared to losing money at a rate of more than $3 million a day, the FIFA snub was small potatoes.

By the start of the 1983 NASL season, the month before the FIFA decision, the NASL was down to 12 teams from the 24 it had been just five years before and was already circling the drain. A favorable decision by FIFA on the 1986 World Cup would have been too late to save it.

 

It's a cool counter-factual to ponder. But I think the business model of the NASL against the status of soccer in American culture at the time would inevitably have led to that circling of the drain. It was unsustainable. Yes a coming world cup very well might have been enough to sustain and prolong the league through the world cup, limping along and hoping for the cure, but I'm not so sure the Game was yet at a point culturally, like with regards to its inroads in youth participation, nor was the level of globalization at a point it would later achieve through technology that would give the league sustainability . MLS wasn't even sustainable 10 years later when it launched. It would take another 10+ years before it would achieve sustainability (knock on wood) through the natural growth of soccer in American culture (the proliferation of youth soccer had continued, Americans who grew up playing soccer were now reaching adulthood and even having kids who they could establish a bond with over soccer), technology would enable the soccer community to consume it and establish bonds within the soccer community, globalization and even better leadership under Don Garber and his controlled cost/slow growth model.

 

I was going to ask about awarding the US the 1982 World Cup but apparently they named it in 1966? Sheesh.

 

Pele, Beckenbauer, Neeskens, Banks, Best...all here and reasonably close to their prime. Can you imagine that now? Suarez, Aguero, Neymar...

The boost of that WC and renewed financial interest would have been big

 

Where did you get the idea that they were "all here and reasonably close to their prime"? Only two of the five were here, and none of them were anywhere near their prime.

In 1983, Pele and Banks were both well into their 40s and long retired (Pele retired in 1977, Banks in 1978), Beckenbauer was 37 and had been talked out of retirement by the Cosmos to play one final season, Neeskens was 32 and a shell of his former self (two goals in 23 games that year for the Cosmos), Best was 37 and retired at the end of the 1982-83 English Third Division season (he'd last played here in 1981).

All of them had been superstars in their day, but their prime was barely visible in the rear-view mirror in 1983.

 

Take a look at the 1983 All-Star team on Wikipedia. I recognized three names.

 

Think most Americans would say the same about MLS all-star rosters today lol.

 

Another viewpoint: far from saving the NASL or boosting the sport in the US, I think a 1986 WC in the USA might have set the sport back a decade or so.

As others have stated, it might not have been enough to save the NASL, as its financial problems were pretty well known, and there would have been no guarantee it would even last to 1986. But more than that, I think it might have been bad for US soccer for three reasons:

1. Organizing a World Cup at all is a big job, and doing in 3 years might be impossible. This might not have come off very well for the Federation. When they were awarded the 1994 Cup in 1988, they had twice as much time to prepare, and could watch Italia 1990 preparations up close. Perhaps they would have been able to make it work, but a poorly run USA '86 would have given mid-80's soccer bashers a lot of ammo.

2. Mid-80's football was a mixed bag. Yes, there were great players, Mexico '86 featured some great games. But, the sport was well on its way to the tactical dullness of Italia 1990. What's more, since it hadn't bottomed out yet, there was no chance FIFA would have made any of the changes that they did post-Italia- I'm talking about 3 points for a win, "in-line is on-side," and the backpass rule. It was also smack in the middle of some of the biggest hooligan problems - even in '94, a lot of people were relieved England didn't qualify, keeping some yobbos across the sea.

3. The US team was pretty bad at the time, even worse than the 1994 edition, who had the benefit of going to Italy in 1990 and then mostly staying together and training for four years. In 1990, they lost all three matches with a GD of -6, but fortunately, a lot of people never noticed. In the hoopla of a USA 1986, that outcome would have prompted a whole lot of "Well, Americans just can't play this game" columns.

Granted, I could be wrong about all of this. But if we're going with alternative histories, I think we have to accept that the alternative history could have turned out even worse than the real one: the NASL still out of business, the US the first host nation to not advance, in a poorly-run tournament featuring lots of teams playing to not lose in front of fans itching for a punch-up, convincing millions that they should be watching basketball, after all.

 

I think this is the key. While anything is possible over 90 minutes it would have taken a near miracle for the US to get out of it's group in '86.

 

Zlatan, Vela, Guzan, Nani, Schweinsteiger...