Template talk:North American Soccer League (2011–2017)

NASL recognizing USSF D2 Pro League
Hi everyone. This is to give reason as to why the 2010 year is included in the navbox and why it should remain, along with the specified teams.


 * Timeline:
 * a) The new North American Soccer League was established in 2009
 * b) They were set to begin their first season in 2010
 * c) In the latter part of 2009, they signed a total of nine teams:


 * seven that were originally in the USL First Division
 * Carolina RailHawks
 * Miami FC
 * Montreal Impact
 * Vancouver Whitecaps
 * FC Tampa
 * NSC Minnesota Stars
 * Rochester Rhinos


 * and two new teams
 * Crystal Palace Baltimore
 * AC St. Louis


 * Meanwhile, the USL First Division was left with three teams from ten:
 * Austin Aztex
 * Portland Timbers
 * Puerto Rico Islanders

The USL sued all the teams that were leaving, claiming that they were still under contract with their league for at least one more year. In order for a league to have Division 2 "Sanction" under the USSF, they must have a minimum of 8 teams. The USSF intervened in the dispute between the two leagues and the seven teams in question. The USSF determined that of the seven, three teams (FC Tampa, NSC Minnesota Stars, and the Rochester Rhinos) were truly the only teams that still had a contractual obligation to the USL for one last year. Meaning, both leagues were left with 6 teams. Again, both leagues were still operational and existing. However, the USL was stripped of its division 2 status while the NASL was not granted that right. Again, division status and league existence are two separate issues, and both leagues were still recognized as established and in effect. After a couple of months of negotiations between both leagues, with the USSF serving as mediator, in early 2010, the two leagues came to an agreement for the sake of the 2010 year to work together under the USSF. The USSF created a temporary entity for the 2010 year known as the USSF Division 2 Professional League. It would automatically gain division 2 status by receiving all twelve teams (the six from each side), but they will be representing their respective contractual league. Hence the USL Conference and the NASL conference. Effectively, each conference was the initial instance of the NASL and the final year of the USL First Division (as the following year the USL would merge two tiers to create the USL-Pro). This special league allowed for interplay, or as the head of the USSF, Sunil Gulati, stated - intraplay, where the teams from both sides played against each other under one medium.

Therefore, all teams that played for the NASL conference were part of the new NASL's legcacy (as they were not only under contract but also represented them), and the same for the teams in the USL. Since Rochester never officially represented the NASL in play, they are not mentioned.

Still, the NASL's first season as a sole Division 2 status gained league was in 2011. I placed the 2010 season in parenthesis (e.g. (2010)) to make note that this year was a significant part of the seasons of the league's history, but to also differentiate it from the rest. Again, I am not saying that 2010 is the same as 2011 and onward, but it should be placed as it is specific to what the league was a part of during that year. And guys, let's stop nitpicking at everything, and move on to developing the pages which is more productive. CheersNYCWikiKid (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, WP:TLDR. Secondly, you appear to be relyign entirely on original research as opposed to any reliable sources for your edits. GiantSnowman 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The NASL formed as an organization in 2009.  However, league play did not begin until 2011. KitHutch (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They were not granted the right to play as a league by USSF until 2011. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You did mention that the 2010 USSF D2 season isn't the same as the 2011 NASL season and beyond, which enough to prove why it shouldn't be listed on this template in any form because a League and a Conference are two different things. The NASL didn't begin play until 2011. – Michael (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with keeping 2010 in the template. This is an Encyclopedic article. The NASL did formed in 2009. The first season was a combined USL/NASL league, "Combined" league, two leagues combined into one. If you want a source, how about this one? http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/66/united-states/2010/01/07/1731779/us-soccer-federation-to-oversee-combined-naslusl-league --Coquidragon (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, the NASL didn't officially begin play until 2011. 2010 does not count because it was a division to the USSF D2 League.  Therefore it shouldn't be listed. – Michael (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To call it a combined league is a lie. It was not. There was USL that year because they ran leagues below it and there was a USL conference in USSF-D2, but there was no division 2 league known as NASL that year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But there was an organization in 2010 called the NASL, which had certain teams as members. KitHutch (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But it was not a Division 2 league. As we've said numerous times now. – Michael (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was not an organization in 2010 called the NASL. There was the TOA ownership group that requested that a leagued known as the NASL be established. That request was denied by USSF. They also refused to allow USL to have a second division team (USL 1 as it was known in 2009) for that year. Instead, USSF ran a league for that year with two conferences. The ownership group had representatives from three teams that had contracts that bound them to play for the USL: Minnesota, Rochester and Tampa Bay. However, no USL division one league existed that year and no league by the name of North American Soccer League existed that year. There was a USL and NASL Conference in USSF-D2 that year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have an article proving the NASL disbanded when it was granted Division 2 status by the USSF? There was an organization called the NASL in 2010; it formed in 2009.  It's teams just played in the USSF Division 2 league. So I guess the NHL did not exist in the 2004-2005 season because it did not play that season. KitHutch (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. The organization was called the "TOA ownership group", not "the NASL". They requested that they form a league called NASL (for short) and neither USSF not Soccer Canada sanctioned this league and so as a compromise USSF allowed the name to be a conference. So, there was no organization called "the NASL" in 2009 or 2010. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are arguing semantics, but there WAS an organization called the NASL in 2010. It did not operate a league until 2011.  According to the 2011 NASL media guide, "The new North American Soccer League was officially founded in November 2009 when a group of 2nd division men's professional soccer team owners banded together to form North American Soccer League LLC."   There has been a corporation called the NASL since November 2009, but they did operate a league until 2011.  Neither the USSF or the CSA have the power to disband a legal corporation.  Most leagues are founded and operate a few years before league play actually begins.  Major League Soccer was established on December 17, 1993, but its first season wasn't until 1996. KitHutch (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not arguing semantics as there was no organization called the NASL in 2010. You're wrong. Sorry you don't understand why you're wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If that media guide stands, then the Vancouver Whitecaps are the same team as the 1974 instance based on their primary sources.
 * No media sources referred to the owners group as "the NASL" before they were sanctioned in 2011. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What about this? Dated January 2010. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/66/united-states/2010/01/07/1731779/us-soccer-federation-to-oversee-combined-naslusl-league NASL was founded in 2009; in 2010, for legal purposes, it was not sanctioned by USSF, but along with USL, competed in the USSF-D2; it was then sanctioned and started as an official league in 2011. Existing as a legal entity and being sanctioned are two very different matters. --Coquidragon (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That supports the fact that the league didn't exist in 2010 and that they were "entities" at that time. That's all. The fact that the article has no author is also suspicious. The league owners group were trying to create something called the NASL at that time. USSF didn't allow it. The refs are all in the article on the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of conversing here about whether or not the North American Soccer League existed in 2009. I want to thank the last three editors, prior to these words, for being committed to exchange ideas in a constructive way. Now, let's put things into perspective as I am seeing that some may be placing concepts where they don't go. Like I already stated above, the NASL was formed in 2009. The league was formed and it was fully operational. It was without any sanction. It was seeking Division 2, but the league was still alive and recognized. Further, I read somethings above about the USL which are misleading. The USL is an organization first. And within the organization there are several leagues. Hence the name United Soccer Leagues (plural). Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles on the USL are somewhat unorganized and create a lot of confusion on its history. The USL First Division, a league within the USL, lost its second division status. However, it still existed. The NASL was not granted 2 division status yet. Both leagues arrived to a compromise with the USSF. The teams under contract from both leagues represented the leagues respectively within the USSF sanctioned Division 2 Pro League only as a means to maintain play in 2010. Again, each league was represented within the USSF D2 PL, and the teams were still under contract with the two leagues. 2010 is placed in parenthesis in the template as a reference to the history of the NASL in this year. This should not be an issue as the parenthesis indicates a distinction between what occurred in 2010 and 2011.

And lastly, someone way above is manipulating, or taking out of context, what I have previously said. Yes I did say that 2010 and 2011 were not the same, only after explaining in detail what the difference was between them in terms of what the NASL went through - non division status, to division status. So if you are going to quote me, do so properly where the context is solid. So far, there is no consensus met here by the only six people speaking. Let's try to be reasonable and stick to the facts, and not personal beliefs.NYCWikiKid (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I will state this plainly and simply: NASL, as a league, was not formed until 2011. The team owners group was all that existed in November 2009. They proposed to form a league and it got its name in 2010. It was not sanctioned as a league until 2011. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The statement above is not quite accurate.  The North American Soccer League was formed in 2009 and recognized by the United States Soccer Federation in 2009.  Read here.  The USSF officially granted the NASL (provisional) division 2 status on February 12, 2011.  Read here.  Nonetheless, the league was recognized in 2009 by the USSF. NYCWikiKid (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The League Ownership Group/Association proposed the NASL but there was no NASL in 2009 and it was just a conference in 2010, but I'll accept that the LOA were promoting the idea of having a new league, but it did not exist.
 * To suggest that the current NASL was actually started in 2009 is incorrect and the teams that played in the NASL conference should not be included with links in this template as this league did not exist until 2011. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, published on December 7, 2009, the USSF, lead by President Sunil Gulati met with the North American Soccer League and the USL First Division (league) on December 6, 2009. The two leagues, including the NASL, were fully recognized by the highest order in the United States pertaining to soccer: "Both leagues have been requested to provide further details of their respective league plans by Dec. 9 to U.S. Soccer’s Professional League Task Force." Read here.  The NASL was already a league, it just did not have division 2 status. The USSF recognized all the teams that were signed to the NASL, while recognizing the teams that were in the USL-1.  There is no suggestion here that the NASL started its Second Division status in 2010, as it did so in 2011.  But the fact is that the NASL was operational in 2009, and the teams signed to them represented the league in the USSF D2 PL with complete recognition by the USSF. NYCWikiKid (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the fallacy of equivocation amounts to a lie. They were recognized as groups, but NASL was not recognized as a league. There is no suggestion here that NASL was a league at this time. I lived through the events. I followed the Whitecaps extensively. It is a lie to say that the NASL was anything more than idea at this point since it could not official field any teams in 2010. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll relent and agree that NASL was a league if you show me a league score prior to Jan. 1, 2011. There was no operational entity as there was nothing to oversee. There were teams who wanted out from under USL's umbrella and nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is good to know that you are a fan of the Whitecaps, and that is fine. But there is no fallacy here.  To say so would mean that the USSF is fiction and they do not have any say over soccer institutions in the United States, which is absolutely false.  The USSF is the highest order in the USA.  I just shared with you and whoever else is reading that the USSF in 2009 already recognized the NASL as a league, and they specifically called them the North American Soccer League.  Their statements, as quoted above, makes it so.  MLS too was found in 1993 and started in 1996.  There was no league score prior to 1996, but they were still operational.  So should we also say that MLS started in 1996?  I think not. NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is another statement by the USSF regarding their relationship with the NASL and USL-1 with the USSF D2 PL:
 * "In 2010, the United States Soccer Federation formed an agreement between United Soccer Leagues (USL) and the North American Soccer League (NASL), under which the USSF would operate the league in the 2010 season and work alongside the USL and NASL on day-to-day activities." Read here in detail.  This shows the NASL explicit involvement in 2010 and the teams that represented their league.  NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a fallacy and that is equivocation. Look it up. You used recognized to mean that it existed as an entity when it needs to be recognized as a league which isn't the case. There was no NASL in 2010. There were a group of team owners who wanted a league called the NASL but they were not given the satisfaction.
 * And if you patronize me again, I will not engage in conversation. I won't be spoken down to someone who is using out-of-context material to justify something that wasn't the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when people are conversing and they do not want to accept or reason with something they retort with a personal defense? Listen, we were having a very good and respectful conversation. Nowhere in my responses did I patronize you or spoke to you in an improper way.  Let's stick to the topic, and not irrelevant matters.
 * I do not quote out of context. In several articles published by the USSF, the official voice of all soccer in the United States, the USSF acknowledges the North American Soccer League, in 2009 and 2010, and they call them a league (not a group that wants to be a league).  The last quote above even said that the NASL was involved in day to day activities of the USSF D2 PL, showing their direct involvement. I think we need to stick to what the USSF determined, as they are the final voice here in the sport. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There were a group of team owners who tried to form a league but it never was actually permitted to play. To state that the Whietcaps as a team were part of the current NASL is a lie.
 * Why is it that when people are conversing and they do not want to accept or reason with something they retort to finding fringe statements? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence is presented. The NASL was acknowledged in 2009 as a league by the USSF.  The USSF never stated in the articles I have demonstrated as the NASL being TOA or some group wanting to be a league.  The USSF, the highest institution of Soccer in the United States, with respected members from FIFA, specifically names the "North American Soccer League".  And they say that the NASL is a league.  And they say the league was pursuing division status.  And they also say that both the USL-1 (league) and NASL reached an agreement with the USSF to work on the USSF Division 2 Professional League, with both being actively involved in daily activities.  I have presented the consistent facts.  With all due respect, you respond with conjectures and say that the facts published by the USSF is a lie.  Yet, you don't demonstrate any reported evidence to demonstrate specifically the contrary that the NASL was not a league and they were not recognized by the USSF as such and that they were not involved in the USSF D2 PL and that the teams under contract, including the Whitecaps, did not represent them.  I have shown you my facts.  Please, share yours with concrete evidence to negate the USSF. NYCWikiKid (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence is present: there was no league called the NASL until 2011. There was the team owners group who were trying to create a league but were thwarted in their efforts and as a concession to the TOA, a "conference" named the NASL was established in USSF-D2. If you suggest that the Whitecaps or any other team or team owner or ownership group that participated in the TOA was actually part of the NASL prior to 2011 you are conflating the facts at best, most likely using the fallacy of equivocation (equating TOA's proposal of NASL as the actual league that exists today) and lying at worst. My facts are self-evident both in the article and obvious lack of matches played in a league called the NASL by any of the teams you suggest existed in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not presented any factual printed evidence, other than your personal belief of the accounts. Where are those facts?  Where are you getting these quotes from?  The USSF published the articles, and they recognize the North American Soccer League since 2009.  If you are to now say that the USSF are wrong and that their voice, which is sanctioned by FIFA, is not important because of what you think (without demonstrating any published accounts in relation from accredited sources), then I believe I have fully made the case, and anyone reading should side with reason. NYCWikiKid (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do I need to list an article to counter something that you claim is a fact when you have not produced a single score from league play as I requested. But to make you happy:
 * http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2009/08/toa-chills-relations-usl
 * http://www.impactmontreal.com/en/news/2009/08/team-owners-association-chills-relations-usl
 * http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2009/11/usl-facing-determined-challenge-team-owners-ottawa-citizen
 * http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2009/10/impact-and-whitecaps-go-down-wire-usl-canadian-press also at http://www.tsn.ca/story/?id=296522
 * www.examiner.com/article/vancouver-s-lenarduzzi-talks-about-toa-s-application-for-a-new-league-apart-from-usl This one is nice and clear: application for a new league.
 * http://bleacherreport.com/articles/266479-montreal-vancouver-advance-to-usl-1-championship
 * http://www.thestar.com/sports/2009/11/10/vancouver_whitecaps_look_to_join_breakaway_soccer_league.html This is very clear as well

And stop lying that the NASL was recognized in 2009. That's completely inaccurate. The TOA's choice of league name was recognized, but there was no league.

I believe that the difference is you believe that this template is about the organization called NASL and I believe that this article should be about the league called NASL. The fact that you linked teams, that would usually appear in a template related to a league doesn't help resolve my concerns. The fact that only the team owners, not the players or staff, were ever involved in the organization called NASL would also, in my mind at least, preclude an article on the team from being linked in relation to the organization. The excluded teams never participated in the league so they should not be listed in the league. The correct place to list these teams in an article on the team that discusses the foundation of the league and the ivolvement of the team owners. Anthing else is likely to confuse readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Names
No point in avoiding the names used in the articles in this template. Especially if you're not going to remove them all (you missed several both times you made this edit). In other countries the "FC" is there because it actually signifies "Football Club"; in this case it's just part of the branding. If "FC" needs to be removed from any of these it should be removed from the article titles as well.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about branding. With several MLS teams, they are based on earlier team names that did not contain the FC. It is a convention that they continue to use the FC to distinguish them from those (supposedly different) earlier teams. That is the case with Seattle and Vancouver, and this is the same case as Ottawa as there is a supposedly different, earlier team Ottawa Fury SC. Toronto and Dallas are different exceptions and I'm not sure what that is, but this is what Edmonton follows. Chicago Fire Soccer Club is always presented as Chicago Fire, Chivas USA CD is always presented as Chivas USA. That should be the case with Minnesota, Jacksonville and Virginia.
 * I'll see what the Football Project can contribute to the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. That will be archived within two weeks if no discussion happens there, but it's advised to keep the discussion in one location only. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First, as you may agree, it's silly that we have separate articles for teams every time they switch a league. Second, it's especially silly if the article titles are only distinguished by the presence or absence of an "FC" styling in the trademark. Readers shouldn't have to keep track of esoteric naming conventions to find the articles they're looking for. Articles should be title by their common name in actual sources, using standard disambiguation options as necessary. This template should in turn follow the common name used in the article titles.
 * In the case of Jacksonville, you're definitely putting the cart before the horse. The name was just announced today, and there are few sources that call them anything but "Jacksonville Armada FC". There's no two ways about it, regardless of how editors of other templates think it "should" be titled, this is the subject's common name at present.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dig up the issue about different team names, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be and that reason is immaterial to this league in which each team is independently owned. The convention is maintained by a few editors and so it's not silly.
 * Your second objection is more valid, but FC is not part of a trademark, it's part of a team name, and as part of the team name it is the convention. Feel free to look at all of the non-US examples on Wikipedia.
 * As for Jacksonville, the cart is indeed before the horse and FC should be piped out until we know anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the multiple-articles convention is silly if it's the creation of individual editors rather than a reflection of how the sources discuss the topic. But I suppose this doesn't matter much here.
 * If the "FC" is part of the team names there's even less justification for removing it in this template.
 * For Jacksonville, the "FC" definitely should not be piped out, since it's the part of the established common name in a large majority of available sources. The template needs to use the common name, not an invented one. If at some point the situation changes, the article can be moved to Jacksonville Armada and then the template can reflect the new common name.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got a lot of articles to fix then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These ones appear to be in the right places. The Jacksonville one definitely is.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No they're not and no it's not. Branding is not a concern. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is the concern and they appear to be at their common names. "Jacksonville Armada FC" definitely is, as most sources available since the name was announced (yesterday) call them that. We can't make up an unused name just to conform to some pedantic project standard.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)