Alright, it seems like a couple of posters are reading a different article than the one posted. I believe Fergie's point is that the growth and success of a young sport at a professional level is dependent on nurturing regional rivalries. And because of the size of the U.S., these rivalries are not able to develop because fans can't/won't/don't travel well. Can we agree on that? I disagree with Fergie. But I'm not going to restart that argument. I will say this, though: there are several factors that work against soccer's success in the U.S. to a much greater degree than those mentioned in the article. IMHO, the most important one by far: Americans like their sports (and music, and politics, incidentally) in quick, easily digestible instances; i.e. a down in football, a pitch sequence in baseball, a possession in basketball. Sports like hockey, lacrosse, and soccer don't have the predictable stops in action; a fan has to understand the flow of the game, and pay attention continuously, or risk missing an important piece of action. Why is this true? That's a whole different thread/forum/website. Of course we Americans also tend to like games with a reasonable amount of scoring as well (rules changes in the NFL and NBA tend to favor more scoring instead of less). But that argument will certainly not win me any friends on this site, I'm sure. And on a personal note, jfranz, instead of namecalling, how about posting a clear point, and some statements that support it?