I don’t have a horse in this race but i’m curious how you determined the degree to which they met the requirements. I understand they included a minimum number of teams, geographical coverage and then a bunch of requirements for each team (minimum financing, stadium size, number of full-time staff, etc.). I know the NASL never met the first two much less having each team comply. I know the USL met the first two (by a wide margin) but perhaps not all were compliant. However, did they have enough so that even if they started to weed off the weaker clubs they’d still more than meet the number and geographical standards? If so, and they required meeting the standards for all new clubs while committing to cut clubs that didn’t comply within a certain time period (have they?), then I’d probably go with that league too. Of course that’s all based on guesswork since I don’t know the status of of the individual clubs.
NASL and USL were different flavors. NASL was focused on championships and competition and the USL was focused on becoming a farm system for MLS.
The NASL was born out of some bigger clubs that were fed up with the USL/A League and wanted to get to a higher level of professionalism and mirror how leagues are run outside of the US. Some of these clubs actually ended up as expansion teams in MLS.
The NASL was offered the deal that MLS has given USL now but they declined because they wanted to go in another direction. Some of it was good, some of it like challenging the MLS and trying to force an AFL/NFL style merger was a bit self destructive in my opinion and that is probably why they don't exist anymore. They made the wrong enemies.
In the meantime they raised the bar and in response the USL stepped up their game and gained traction. Minnesota got picked up as an expansion team. The San Antonio Scorpions got sold to the San Antonio Spurs who only cared about getting into the MLS and cutting costs so they downgraded the team and moved to USL.
In the meantime NASL was getting D2 status on a yearly basis. They wanted to get it 2-3 years at a time in order to attract owners who were looking for more stability. If the NASL hadn't been given D2 sanctioning in '17 then Rocco Commiso probably wouldn't have bought the Cosmos.
The NASL barrier to entry was higher than USL and if they had been given a bit more stability in sanctioning many people think that they could have attracted better owners.
For '18 there were supposed to be at least two expansion teams in California. One in San Diego and one called Cal FC that Eric Wynalda was going to manage.
In the meantime most of the USL's "growth" has been through MLS2 sides. These teams have neither fanbases or identities. It would be like UConn Football sending the Practice Squad to a D3 Conference and calling it a new program. So much of this is smoke and mirrors.
The USL also is rumored to have blackballed any team staffer from working in the USL if they took a job in the NASL. And they have offered cash to NPSL teams to switch to PDL.
So in summary, NASL made some strategic mistakes, but the USSF doing what it could to shut down a league is a pretty bad look. The D2 sanctioning is somewhat worthless. It merely influences seeding in the US Open Cup.
I think think this MLS basically taking control of pro soccer from end to end like MLB, NBA, NFL. They don't want any outliers or organizations that have a different vision/model.
