From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Financial troubles

I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper but I think something should be said about the impending contraction in the Planned expansion section.-- BelBivDov ( talk) 21:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply

If there are reliable sources, then it should be added. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Does Sports Illustrated count?-- BelBivDov ( talk) 16:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Do they have accountants?
I am making as ignorant of a response as yours. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I was just messing with you Walter, all in good in fun.-- BelBivDov ( talk) 15:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply
A humour. We don't get that around here at all. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Section titles

"Expansion" seems like a marketing term when used in reference to a league that started as eight teams and is currently eight teams, and when used in a title for sections that include contraction. I propose we consider alternative titles for these sections:

  • 5 Expansion
  • 5.1 Founding members and expansion
  • 5.1.1 Founding members
  • 5.1.2 Expansion
  • 5.1.3 Planned expansion

I boldly reduced the above four uses of the word "expansion" to only two:

  • 4.1 Team timeline
  • 4.2 Founding members
  • 4.3 Expansion teams
  • 4.4 Planned expansion

This is more similar to the structure of the United Soccer League article, although the title "expansion teams" still doesn't seem quite right. Tell me what you think. - Jacknstock ( talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC) reply

: Looks good. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I finally got it down from four "expansion" sections to one. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

American Geography

As of June 2017, this article states that the NASL has six teams in the United States, one in Canada, and one in Puerto Rico.

There are several current and historical precedents for a country within a country and in fact I was born in one, but Puerto Rico within the USA isn't one such pair. Puerto Rico is a territory. With precise reference to the Jones Act of 1917, Puerto Rico is a US territory, its natives are natural-born US citizens, the island's military is the US military, the island's judicial system is one of the US District Courts, their Congressional delegate in the US House of Representatives is Jenniffer González, and their President is Donald Trump.

I will be changing the text in the article to something like:

"... comprising one Canadian and seven US teams"

although I would be equally happy with:

"... comprising one Canadian and seven US teams (one of which is in Puerto Rico)"

Any comments?
ChrisJBenson ( talk) 02:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes. For these purposes, the sporting nationality is used. And Puerto Rico has a distinct sporting identity, with separate national teams and all. Please make no changes, as the sentence is accurate. oknazevad ( talk) 02:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I am taking note, and on one point, I completely agree with oknazevad ( talk). In this context (soccer), Puerto Rico has its own FIFA-sanctioned national team and identity. But I disagree on another point. In my opinion, the sentence cannot be described as accurate because it is ambiguous and one of its interpretations is false. It gives the impression that Puerto Rico is not within the United States (the sovereign nation), even though it is.
Isn't this analogous to the role of Wales within the United Kingdom? Wales has a separate national identity and national teams in most sports, including soccer, and Wales is not part of England. But Wales is part of Great Britain and the United Kingdom ...
The English Premier League consists of 20 teams: 19 from the United Kingdom and 1 from Wales. (WRONG)
That is wrong because all 20 teams are from the UK.
I guess we need a simple way to distinguish between:
  1. The United States as a national soccer team (which doesn't include Puerto Rico)
  2. The United States as a sovereign nation (which does includes Puerto Rico).
In my Welsh analogy, that distinction is served by the terms England (for meaning (1)) and the United Kingdom (for meaning (2)). If we substitute England for the United Kingdom in the Premier League example above, we get:
The English Premier League consists of 20 teams: 19 from England and 1 from Wales. (CORRECT)
In FIFA, in this article, and in the comment by oknazevad ( talk), meaning 1 of the United States is intended, but in the article at least, it reads like meaning 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJBenson ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I wikilinked the soccer federations as "countries" to indicate that the soccer/sports identity was intended rather than sovereignty. I hope this is an acceptable solution. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Maybe not acceptable for another reason, that it might imply the Puerto Rican Football Federation sanctions the NASL. However, I checked the Puerto Rican Football Federation article, and it states: "It governs over all football on the island, including the Puerto Rico national football team, the amateur Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Puerto Rico, the scheduled Liga Profesional de Fútbol de Puerto Rico, as well as the Puerto Rico FC who play in the North American Soccer League" (my emphasis). I think my suggested solution is acceptable on the basis that, although Puerto Rican Football Federation is not the sanctioning body for the NASL, it is the governing body for Puerto Rico FC. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It may govern the team, but not its play in the league. if any discipline is handed down to players in the league, it's from USSF. That was also the case with the three (then later two) Canadian teams. Soccer Canada determined which games in the Canadian Championship they played, but had no say in the affairs in NASL play. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The article explicitly states that NASL is sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation. If that is not enough to avoid confusion, do you have another suggestion to avoid the error regarding sovereignty and territorial status? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
What do other league articles show? Do they link the sanctioning federation in the infobox? The PR federation do not sanction the league and should not be linked. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to think about it again until the legal action is concluded. That might change everything. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

California United not yet officially a "Former Club"

It does appear as though Cal United has left the league, since they are no longer featured on the league's website, but that doesn't seem to be enough to move them to "former clubs". And this tweet [1] doesn't actually confirm a departure: "@calutdfc would like to confirm that we are very much still alive and will play in the UPSL Spring and Fall Seasons in 2018! We will continue to explore all professional league options for 2019 and beyond." The Cosmos and Miami are both playing in the UPSL while the NASL decides what to do about 2019, and exploring all professional league options doesn't necessarily mean excluding the NASL.

Besides, there is an actual process for withdrawing from the NASL, and until we can establish via a reliable source that Cal Utd has actuallly gone through that process (as San Diego has), then we shouldn't list them as a former club. I'm putting them back in until that time. SixFourThree ( talk) 17:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply

They're all former NASL clubs. We're just waiting for a reliable source. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If they are not listed here, then they are not a current member. A removal from a member list seems like pretty clear indication as non-members, they probably quietly withdrew months ago when San Diego did and did not announce while the court proceedings were on-going. They removed the NASL logos from their website the same day as the posted the tweet you linked, which they also posted on Facebook. There seems to be ample evidence they are not members of the NASL at this time, call them anti-sources, as members. I counter you to find a reliable source that says they are current NASL members. It does not mean that if the NASL returns next season that they will on won't be members, but only as of today that they are not. Yosemiter ( talk) 03:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not true. That's easily explained by stating that the teams signed contracts with the league but the league never updated their teams page. The reverse is also true. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
They, and San Diego, were listed there and the top banner until last week. Here is the list from November 2017, they have definitely been removed from the list and top banner. I originally was reverting the removals here until the logos and links on the NASL website removed the teams. Cal Utd removing the NASL logo from their own website on Feb 28 (I was checking for updates nearly once a day, so yes I noticed the change over and is shown here on Feb 3) further indicates non-membership. Yosemiter ( talk) 06:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Indicates non-membership, yes. But an indication itself is not a reliable source. We need something from the club or league, or a representative thereof, actually stating that they've submitted a formal request to leave. Otherwise they could just be on hiatus waiting for clarity on the league's future. SixFourThree ( talk) 19:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
So your argument is that being removed as a league member (which it was listed there in February), without a direct statement from a currently non-active league, is not enough to say they are not a member. Non-statements are unfortunately the most common type of foldings in minor leagues. The fact that the NASL did actively remove their logo and listing from their list of teams does say they are not members. It would now be WP:NOTCRYSTAL to say they ARE members. If the league itself does not have them listed as members anymore, I cannot possibly see why we should either. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply
"Non-statements are unfortunately the most common type of foldings in minor leagues" except that Cal United has not folded. They continue to exist. And since the NASL isn't playing until 2019 at the earliest, Cal United has lots of time to decide if they still want to be involved or go elsewhere. We shouldn't presume the results of that process before they announce it. SixFourThree ( talk) 22:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
I never said they did fold, I am just stating non-statements, especially when it comes to negative press, are very common. (So don't be surprised if the NASL website expires in year or so without a statement.) I am also pointing out that the NASL also made absolutely no statement about 1904FC and removed them at exactly the same time as Cal Utd. They are no longer listed on the NASL website and were scrubbed from the website by the League last week. It is entirely WP:SPECULATION what they will decide for 2019, and therefore should not be listed as a member of any league on any page as that mirrors what their own statement has said. Yosemiter ( talk) 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The difference between CalUtd and 1904 is that we have a reliable source establishing that 1904 did actually leave the league. And the San Diego 1904 FC page doesn't list them as a member of any league. I am suggesting that we treat CalUtd the exact same was as we did 1904; wait for a source. SixFourThree ( talk) 15:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
Neither the San Diego or Cal Utd have the NASL listed on their website. We changed NASL from the San Diego page because the removed the NASL branding, and then stated they are not members (and also stated they were trying to join the USL). Cal Utd removed the NASL branding and stated they are looking for a pro league to play in 2019, but failed to mention any specific names. The two situations are essentially identical (removed NASL branding from team site, both teams removed from NASL top banner and team list in league website update on Mar 2) with the only exception of SD mention a different league (and that league has still made no mention of them). The league website update is good source (and reliable as it is primary) to say they are, as of March 2, NOT current members of the league, while the four remaining on the website are current members. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply
"Cal Utd removed the NASL branding and stated they are looking for a pro league to play in 2019" No, they didn't. They stated "We will continue to explore all professional league options for 2019 and beyond." [2] That is not the same thing, since "all professional league options" might mean staying with the NASL. In any case, what we really need is confirmation that the club exercised its right to leave the league. That is an actual thing, a specific process by which a club leaves the league. We know San Diego did that, because of a press report. On the contrary, we don't know for sure that California United did. Perhaps they're waiting to see if the NASL will even exist, if they even have to bother. Perhaps they're looking around for another league and will then decide to officially jump. The point is that we don't actually know, and until we do we should be reluctant to state guesses as facts. SixFourThree ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
Soccer America says there are four teams. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 23:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, it says "Of the eight teams that played in the NASL in 2017, four were still in the league when it announced on Tuesday that it won't play in 2018." The article doesn't have anything at all to say about the new teams that were supposed to come into the league in 2018. SixFourThree ( talk) 14:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply

The fact remains that we are listing the team in this article, yet it is not listed at the league website. That is incongruous with accurate reporting. oknazevad ( talk) 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm inclined to agree. Claiming that Cal United is a NASL team is WP:OR unless someone can cite a reliable source from March 2018 that states explicitly that still belong to the league. – BLAIXX 15:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
That seems like a kind of backwards interpretation of OR. But let's keep looking until we can find a source either way. SixFourThree ( talk) 18:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
It is not OR if one were to consider the league's own up-to-date website a reliable source. Yosemiter ( talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
And the moment the website confirms that the club has left, such as an item in its "news" section, then that makes sense. Until then, we're reading something into it that might not be there. Perhaps Cal Utd is in the process of leaving but hasn't done so yet, or perhaps Cal Utd asked not to be featured while they are deciding what to do. The only thing we know is that there is an affirmative process for withdrawing from the league, and until it has been confirmed that Cal Utd actually did went through that process, any changes are by definition OR. SixFourThree ( talk) 21:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
Just as another thought - the fact that the league is taking a year off makes all this so much more complicated. Teams may decide to play elsewhere in that intervening year with plans to return if/when the NASL's 2019 season happens. That's why I think we should be very reluctant to make any assumptions. We should wait for actual confirmation. SixFourThree ( talk) 21:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
At the top you said "there is an actual process for withdrawing from the NASL". To me, this is the OR. It's not up to Wikipedia to determine which clubs have or have not followed some unknown league procedure. As per WP:No original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". The claim that Cal Utd is not currently part of the NASL is supported by the league's website. It's entirely possible that the team plays in the 2019 NASL season and reveals that they never left, and at that point they can be restored as a league member on Wikipedia. BLAIXX 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Taking a team out and maybe having to add it back in shows the danger with that approach. Find a source stating that they've actually left the NASL, a press release or affirmative statement from either the club or the league, and we'll know for sure. Until then, we don't know, and presuming a status change that we can't support is the actual OR. SixFourThree ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
I don't see any "danger" in removing a club and then re-adding when more sources are available. Find a source that contradicts the NASL website stating that they still belong to the NASL, a press release or affirmative statement from either the club or the league, and we'll know for sure. Until then, we can only base the article's information off of the official sources we have. BLAIXX 22:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This article and this letter say there are three remaining NASL clubs: New York Cosmos, Miami FC and Jacksonville Armada. This article includes a statement from NASL interim commissioner Rishi Sehgal that California United has withdrawn from NASL. Here is the statement on the NASL web site. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
As for the three teams, the Cosmos are referring to the three remaining US-based NASL teams from last season (I believe PR does not play for the US Open Cup) and their exclusion from the tournament. If 1904FC and Cal Utd are not playing this season at all, then they could not have competed anyways.

The Front Row article with the statement from Sehgal is pretty clear that Cal Utd withdrew, even if it took three weeks for anyone to speak it directly (although it was clearly implied by both the NASL removing Cal Utd the same day as 1904FC as well as Cal Utd removing its NASL branding). I think SixFourThree was trying to read between the lines and we the rest of were just reading the lines themselves. And yes, if a league removes a team and then re-adds it later, we should do exactly the same thing as that is the most verifiable. Thanks @ Jacknstock: for finding the most recent statement. Yosemiter ( talk) 01:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks @ Jacknstock: for the reference. That's exactly what we needed. SixFourThree ( talk) 15:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply

Clubs on Hiatus/Clubs Playing in NPSL

Just want to clarify - Cosmos B and Miami FC 2 are not the same teams as played in the NASL. They are reserve sides, created before the cancellation of the 2018 season (in the case of Cosmos B, well before the cancellation). As such, I am marking those two teams as being "on hiatus" rather than "playing in NPSL." The Armada does appear to be an example of simply moving over, so unless we hear differently that should probably stay as-is. SixFourThree ( talk) 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply

I think your edits are very reasonable. I made some changes including indication that PRFC is also on hiatus and making the 4 hiatuses last for the full calendar year – the NASL is targeting a Spring 2019 restart, not Fall 2018 which was originally planned. – BLAIXX 16:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Good call, thanks! Although it's very possible that even if they play in 2019 it might not be until the fall. That is, if the league decides to stick with the international calendar they announced back in January. [3] Time will tell. SixFourThree ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree reply
It seems the 2019 season is unlikely. Does anyone subscribe to Law360.com? [4] [5] Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC) reply
NASL reported as "defunct" and "essentially folded." Jack N. Stock ( talk) 09:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC) reply
It's clear now that there will be no 2019 season (cited in article). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

With confirmation that there will be no 2019 season, sources saying the " North American Soccer League ceased operations after the 2017 season" and mentioning the " demise of the North American Soccer League", and two clubs (NY Cosmos and Miami FC) committing to the NPSL's new pro league, is it time to rewrite this article in past tense? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

While the sources suggesting the league is finished are not that strong, there is basically no evidence to counter that saying the league will return in a specific year. I would support a past tense re-write where it is stated that the league is suspended indefinitely. Personally, I would wait until Spring to give a chance for a new announcement but I would not oppose a change now. BLAIXX 00:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Maybe just merge the "Current clubs" and "Former clubs" sub-sections for now, because it's doubtful there are any current clubs. Much easier than changing to past tense, and nobody knows what teams will be involved if NASL re-emerges. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jacknstock: It's been about six months since the last post here and there has been no new news on the NASL or any possibility of a 2020 return. What would you think now about updating this article to past tense? BLAIXX 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
It should already be such. Even if the neo-Cosmos and Miami FC can't admit they're irrelevant, that doesn't change that the league is deader than a doornail. oknazevad ( talk) 13:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
The NASL web site hasn't been significantly updated in over a year. Its most recent news is June 1, 2018. This article seems to indicate there is no future. I think everyone has moved on except Wikipedia. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

2020 season

I think the hopes for returning for a 2020 season are lost. I think that the 2020 season was cancelled folding the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.9.27 ( talk) 05:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was a consensus to MERGE. Thank you to all who contributed. SixFourThree ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I propose merging North American Supporters' Trophy into North American Soccer League (2011–2017). The trophy article has always been brief, it has been tagged as needing work since August 2016, and once the NASL became defunct so did the notability of a proposed trophy based on regular season record. I think the subject can be more than properly covered in the context of the league itself. SixFourThree ( talk) 17:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)SixFourThree reply

Support, the trophy is not notable enough for it's own article. I think a sentence or two on the league article would be appropriate. BLAIXX 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Support. Either that or just delete it. It was a secondary award in a minor league that was organized for one year, awarded retroactively, and didn't last. Has no independent notability. There's a lot about the second NASL for which that could be said, being the whole was more hype than actually significant. All sizzle, no steak. oknazevad ( talk) 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Support For all the reason already mentioned. I would have been bold and just done it without asking. KitHutch ( talk) 20:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:North_American_Soccer_League_(2011–2017)&oldid=1209417726"