As far the debate on whether the NASL was a success or failure goes, it was both. In many ways it made soccer viable in this country, and in many ways it was a spectacular failure.

These are among the top cities in North America for soccer. Atlanta has it’s own stadium — as oppose to playing in that hellhole that was around in the NASL days — Baltimore is getting one, and Cary has one. Of course, Cary is just a commuter town, but most assume the team represents Raleigh anyway. Then you have St. Louis, the heart of American soccer, playing out of a soccer stadium if they get up and running. Fort Lauderdale — and they’d be smart to switch to Fort Lauderdale fulltime — has a soccer stadium, if it doesn’t end up getting torn down anyway. Then Tampa is planning on building one.

It’s on solid footing, so it might not end up being a complete disaster. Though they need to get Minnesota sorted out FAST.

But we are trying to promote soccer in some markets with what is familiar and revered. Protecting a legacy is one thing, but it is not worthwhile if these cities lose soccer altogether because of USL’s incompetence.

This will be a cheapened NASL, which takes the league’s legacy and trashes it for marketing gain. I have no doubt the league name helps in the markets you mention. Heck, Tampa Bay seemingly already has more interest in the Rowdies a second division team than they did in the Mutiny, an MLS one. That is all about the name. But seriously, do you want people’s memories of the Tampa Bay Rowdies to be 40,000 at Tampa Stadium watching world class players or 3,500 at USF or Land O’Lakes Park watching MLS castoffs (which is saying alot because MLS itself is borderline unwatchable) and glorified semi professional players?

Think about it……

Most of the TOA cities are NASL cities. In fact it can be strongly argued MLS failed in Florida because neither city saw the product as acceptable after the NASL. The same can be said for struggles in New York and San Jose, both of which were core NASL cities.

Embracing the NASL legacy will probably save these teams and the league from dying quickly, and save soccer in those cities. That’s the bottom line.

Clever marketing.

the toa is a group of second division owners in a dispute with their league. usl nor mls is the nasl. in this day and age with so many foreign players in euro leagues, it is impossible to recreate the nasl magic.

the nasl was special and i do not want to see the brand name and its legacy cheapened particularly to the younger generation who have heard the romanticism and had to weigh that against the rhetoric from mls which deemed the nasl a “failure.”

if the nasl failed, mls would have no players, because before the nasl, we had no youth soccer in the country and nothing but small ethnic leagues in big cities. the nasl took youth soccer from being non existent to the biggest youth sport in the country. the 1970s thanks to the cosmos, rowdies, sounders, whitecaps, kicks, strikers, soccers, etc began the process for soccer to be huge in this country.

mls has benefited from the legacy. usl run by marcos an nasl executive himself has picked up on that legacy. mls has lasted longer because we have an infrastructure and interest that wasn’t there in the nasl days. but the nasl made it possible.

i vote for the legacy will be cheapened and the cherished name must be retired.