As Soc Takes revealed on Twitter last week, the NASL and USSF were in discussions to facilitate a continuation of the league at the D2 level. This story was independently confirmed by former Empire of Soccer editor-in-chief Dave Martinez and Jeff Rueter. Since then, reports from Michael Lewis of Front Row Soccer revealed that talks had broken down, while Jeff Rueter’s reporting suggested that NASL/USSF were still having conversations at the time.

Yet, one of the key reasons why these discussions fell apart has not been revealed.

Per sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations, the USSF approached the NASL about a settlement which, on approval, would’ve afforded the NASL with D2 sanctioning. NASL personnel, who happened to be in New York at the time, were interested in the premise of the settlement, and met with USSF personnel to discuss the details.

During Friday’s meeting, NASL representatives — including interim commissioner Rishi Sehgal, chairman Rocco Commisso and others — posited that the league should be given three-year relief from sanctioning in order to allow stabilization of the NASL. To NASL representatives, this was a critical requirement and they believed that the USSF was amenable to their request for three years.

The NASL is also understood to have asked the USSF for a clause to “prevent MLS and USL teams from snatching up NASL teams.”

On Nov. 13, however, the league was presented with a settlement proposal that changed the temporal length of this clause and introduced a clause unacceptable to the NASL hierarchy:

The USSF proposed a one-year stay of D2, after which the league would have to reapply for sanctioning (as reported by Michael Lewis). The USSF proposed that the current lawsuit concludes and wished to prevent the NASL from bringing antitrust litigation indefinitely.

On Nov. 15, the league voted against the settlement, citing issues with the reworked proposal — which begs the question: Why did the league not agree to a one-year D2 sanctioning if it was certain it could meet D2 requirements?

Based on conversations with multiple sources, NASL personnel remain unconvinced that the USSF would give them a fair shake next year. “The same anti-competitive practices, they’re not going to change,” a source said.

Additionally, sources close to the issue were perturbed by what some called a “bait-and-switch” approach by the USSF. Given the trust issues between the NASL and USSF, ongoing litigation, as well as the toxicity of the rhetoric between the two parties, the propensity for a breakdown in conversations was likely.

Sources informed Soc Takes that there are no further conversations planned. At this point, the only chance of the NASL’s survival is a successful appeal of the lawsuit.

The NASL decided to pursue the lawsuit instead of agreeing to one year of survival. Whether it was a good business decision is unclear. But it shows unity and a clarity of vision that is not often associated with the NASL. What is that vision? To see the lawsuit through and to expose any skeletons in the closet of U.S. Soccer.

(An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed Rueter as suggesting talks had broken down. This has now been updated to reflect Rueter’s reporting more accurately.)

Follow Nipun on Twitter: @NipunChopra7.

Support Soc Takes on Patreon for access to patron-only Soc Takes Pod episodes, exclusive written content and tier rewards. Click here to become a patron today.