[triwak]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

The NA of 1871-75 was "organized" mainly in a theoretical sense. Yes, the richer, major-market teams did play fairly regular schedules, but any team that could pay the $5 entry fee could join, and lots of teams dropped out and joined each year, so there was little consistency. (The only three teams to play in each of the NA's five seasons were the Boston Red Stockings, New York Mutuals, and Philadelphia Athletics.) There was no central authority to enforce schedules or other matters, so that if a rich team didn't think it was worth their while to travel to hinterlands to play one of the weak teams, they just didn't go. This was a key difference between the NA and its successor, the National League; the NL was organized to have a strong central authority who would enforce the rules. When the New York Mutuals and the Philadelphia Athletics refused to make their last western road trip of the 1876 season because it wouldn't be profitable for them, the NL expelled them, despite the fact that they were the league's two largest-market teams. That was arguably the moment when the NL established itself as a real major league.

The NA was really just a loose confederation of individual teams that agreed (in principle) to play each other on a semi-regular basis. It was closer to an organized league to what had existed before, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that it wasn't a major "league", with the emphasis on "league". Now, one can can certainly argue this point, and there are other questionable cases as well, especially the Union Association of 1884, which I think was less of a major league than the NA was, despite MLB's decision to the contrary in 1968. Lack of organizational structure is also why MLB is not recognizing pre-1920 black baseball organizations as "major leagues", though I've already seen some argument about that.

Interesting. Thank you for the perspective.