NISA’s Legacy May Look Like That of a Nineteenth Century Political Party
There is a familiar argument in American politics about the need for a viable third party. The United States is structurally designed around two major parties – thanks to the Electoral College and more – which makes it very difficult for challengers to break through. Still, smaller parties and independent movements have appeared throughout American history. They usually do not replace the major parties unless there is a collapse of one as happened first with the Federalists and later the Whigs. Instead, they push a specific idea or set of ideas into the broader conversation until one or both major parties adopt it (see the Free Soil Party, Prohibition Party, Progressive Party, etc).
It is possible that one day we look back on the National Independent Soccer Association as a kind of American pro soccer version of those 1800s single issue parties.
National Independent Soccer Association launched in 2019 as a Division III professional league during a period of real instability in American soccer. Independent professional clubs were still reeling from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s decision to terminate NASL’s Division II sanctioning after the 2017 season. That decision, and the lawsuit that followed, forced long standing questions about access, governance, and closed systems into public view.
The North American Soccer League lawsuit against the United States Soccer Federation ultimately failed in court, but it mattered politically. It kept the issue of independence in the professional pyramid alive at a moment when it might otherwise have faded. At the time, MLS and USL were still aligned in a development partnership. NISA emerged from that environment not as a legal challenge, but as an attempt to build an alternative structure on the field.
Founded by Peter Wilt and Jack Cummins, NISA positioned itself around a clear and ambitious idea. It would be independent. It would pursue an open system. Promotion and relegation would not just be rhetorical. Even as leadership changed and timelines slipped, that vision remained central to the league’s identity.
NISA was not the only idea in play. At the same time, a parallel effort commonly referred to as NPSL Pro was taking shape within the amateur National Premier Soccer League. That movement was never sanctioned and never formally applied for professional status, but it attracted significant interest and a number of established clubs. NISA had sanctioning. NPSL Pro had momentum.
To survive that early phase, NISA needed capital. One owner made a substantial investment that allowed the league to keep operating. That investment came with veto power over certain league decisions, creating a governance structure that prioritized stability but limited flexibility. This structure was already in place before the next wave of clubs arrived.
When the NPSL Pro effort eventually collapsed, several of its core clubs shifted toward NISA. They joined a league that had secured sanctioning, but also one where decision making had already been shaped by that earlier investment. For some of those clubs, that reality would later become a source of frustration.
On the field, NISA’s early seasons reflected both promise and fragility. The league launched with a mix of recognizable lower division names and speculative startups. Former NASL club Miami FC joined. Ambitious amateur sides like Detroit City FC and Chattanooga FC turned professional. Planned NASL expansion teams such as California United Strikers FC and San Diego 1904 FC entered alongside clubs that would become NISA regulars like Los Angeles Force and Michigan Stars FC.
Other clubs disappeared almost as quickly as they arrived. Philadelphia Fury. Atlanta SC. Stumptown Athletic. Their brief existence foreshadowed the instability that would define much of NISA’s life.
The inaugural season was cut short by the COVID 19 pandemic and ended without a champion. That disruption mattered. It slowed momentum and exposed weaknesses that might otherwise have taken longer to surface. Miami FC left for USL after the first season. The Fall 2020 campaign brought in the New York Cosmos for a single half season. New Amsterdam FC and the Maryland Bobcats joined, while other clubs quietly folded. Detroit City FC won the first of its two NISA championships. Oakland Roots would leave for USL shortly thereafter.
From there, turnover became the league’s defining characteristic. Stronger and more stable clubs exited for other platforms. Detroit City FC moved to USL. Chattanooga FC joined MLS Next Pro. Meanwhile, new clubs continued to enter and exit at a pace that made long term planning nearly impossible. By the time NISA lost professional sanctioning for the 2025 season, instability was no longer a temporary condition.
That does not mean NISA accomplished nothing. It created professional opportunities for players, coaches, and staff who otherwise might not have had them. It gave clubs a place to start. Some of those clubs went on to succeed elsewhere. NISA also experimented in ways other leagues avoided. The NISA Independent Cup and NISA Nation were genuine attempts to imagine how a more open ecosystem could function. Those efforts were uneven, but they were sincere.
At the same time, there were serious failures. Reports of unpaid players and vendors were not isolated incidents. For a league that positioned itself as a principled alternative to closed systems, those failures mattered.
So where does that leave NISA now.
The future of the league itself remains uncertain. What seems clearer is that its core argument has already influenced the broader landscape. USL has announced plans to introduce promotion and relegation beginning in 2028. The system will not be open in the way NISA’s founders originally envisioned, but the idea has moved from fringe aspiration to something much more substantial. That shift did not happen by accident.
NISA may ultimately be remembered less as a sustainable league and more as a catalyst. Like an 19th Century single issue political party, it pushed a specific idea into the conversation until larger, more stable institutions had to respond.
That is not the legacy NISA set out to create. It may still be the one it leaves behind.
