Hmmm I'm wondering if the problem is critical thinking or what it could be.
The writer is NOT saying that the US is not a good team, he is NOT saying that thousands do not go to games, he not saying they don't beat T&T regularly and most other teams in CONCACAF, that they do not make the World Cup every 4 years....
It is safe to deduce that he is saying that MOST of the USA do not understand the game, do not appreciate the game, do not have that passion that over a billion across the world experience and frankly couldn't care less.
Unless you live in a big city MOST of the USA couldn't care less about football, soccer, futbol, fusebol, succer, and all the different pronounciations that they say. They have little knowledge of the World Cup, even less knowledge of Euro 2012, even lesser knowledge of club football, and most never heard of CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, UEFA, etc. Those are for the die hards.
Again he NOT saying dey not good, dey can't play, dey crowds suck......so raise the level of comprehension nah.
I could safely say that 90% of people i've met have no clue of the above, but being a country of 300 million if that 90% was to hold true that could mean 30 million follow the game and fill the stands.
But that still leaves it at 90% who couldn't care less which is MOST.
GET IT NOW lol.
Side note: Ah sure there are those that will still come and reveal the amount of density that exists
You have to be one deluded nannyhole to suggest that you and the writer are the only ones who "get" the article. The article is shit.. full stop. The laundry list of things that are misleading, presumptive, speculative... and just plain WRONG in this article, is too long to fully address in any great detail, but let's try to list them:
1. "(Football) is to be found near the bottom of every list of major league sporting events"
- 'every list' chronicling what? Measured by what... TV ratings? Viewership? Attendance? Participation? What exactly?
2. ESPN coverage rights "has more to do with finance than with any real desire to bring the sport to the masses."- Really? The writer sat in on the media strategy sessions to know this? Assuming he's correct, everything is about "finance"... can the writer name one network or media outlet that broadcasts any sporting event out of a disregard of 'finance', and in favor of a greater desire to 'bring the sport to the masses'? As I said, a factoid misleadingly used in pursuit of his particular agenda. In fact it undermines his argument en toto. If there's money to be made from the broadcasts then that suggests a certain popularity of the sport, sufficient to justify ESPN's substantial investment in it. Hardly supportive of his "dying sport" argument.
3. What does having Alexi Lalas in studio have to do with a desire to "bring the sport to the masses" or lack thereof?
4. "[E]ver since the 1994 World Cup was staged in that country, [football] was on its death bed, receiving a little life support."- I won't even touch on the poor grammar... but even focusing on the substance... what planet does this fool live on? The 1994 World Cup gave birth to the MLS, which, think what you will of the League, continues to grow and thrive, adding 4 (5?) teams in the past 3 years. In it's 16 years in existence the League has survived contraction, and now is struggling to contain growth. The League secured its first broadcast contract within the last 5-6 years, and viewership and attendance are at an all-time high.
ESPN now has Saturday and Sunday morning broadcasts of live EPL games, a development which took place in just the past 5 years. ESPN has also added occasional live broadcasts on Mondays and Tuesdays, and on ESPN Desportes as well. Fox Soccer channels numbers have been so incredible in that same period that even the regular FOX channel has begun live broadcasts of occasional games, and for the first time, every single EPL game was simulcasted on the League's final game day. Suffice to say this would not be done with a sport that isn't already popular, or which is suffering declining popularity.
Not sure what the off-target cracks at American football and basketball have to do with anything... or the side bar discussion on race for that matter. I get that the author is shooting for a bit of sarcasm perhaps, but he fails miserably in the process. When the line between sarcasm and reality is blurred beyond recognition then focus becomes lost, as one is forced to devote entirely too much effort trying to distinguish one from the other... or worse, guessing which statements belongs where.