I do. I came to the US when that was in its heyday and while I enjoyed the NASL, boy are things better now for the soccer lover in the US, aren't they?
The old NASL wasn't really set up in way to be sustainable for the long term in my opinion, so it isn't that surprising to me that it eventually failed. I think I recall that every team had to have just one home-grown, US-eligible player on it? That didn't do much for the development of American talent or for the sport at the grass-roots level. Huge sums of money (for that time) were spent on attracting some of the biggest names in the sport, like Beckenbauer, George Best, Cruyff, Pele, but those players only came at the end of their careers for a big final paycheck, the way they might now have gone to Dubai, Saudi Arabia or Chechnya. I think only a few teams were actually financially viable in those days. Certainly the Cosmos and the Chicago and LA teams probably, but outside that? Was the league even sanctioned by FIFA? There were certainly quite a few differences from the international rules at that time. Shoot-out tiebreakers, artificial pitches, oddly sized.
The name Kyle Rote Jr is the only American player from that time who comes to mind at the moment, though I did once meet someone who claimed to have played with George Best at the time. Can't recall his name, though.
I'm not convinced the NASL really had a long-term impact on the sport, but maybe it created the first real wave of fans. I think it was only after the '94 WC that the derision for the sport began to abate and a viable US league was created and the sport really began to grow. Surely the MLS is a far superior setup for building long term success? Some big names, yes, but essentially a league for American talent to develop away from the stunting effects of the NCAA. The single-ownership model seems artificial, but it's kept the league viable and growing slowly and steadily.
= new reply since forum marked as read