Firstly I'm not sure a few hundred words in one of The USA leading daily newspaper is likely to bring forward an american investor. However, I'm from the school of all publicity is good publicity. The game in the US is growing and now that the league's have unified in the US I expect huge leaps in the game over the pond in the next 10-20 years.

However your cheap sneering remark about american's having no knowledge of "soccer" is simply misguided. I suggest next time you apply fact to your sneering fiction. And we all know that the past years under Hughes ownership haven't been the best. But until someone takes the Bronco's off his hands we are stuck with his ownership. Support the team or don't, I really don't care but please stop your petty whinging for all our sakes. I really wonder why you bother hoping on here sometimes.

And your picture proves what exactly? Soccer is a minority sport in the USA.......buy a copy of the NYTimes any weekend and it gets a page of a 100 page sports supplement.......expats aside and outside the metro centres it is tiny when compared to the other sports

There are some anomalies in US sports that do not exist elsewhere.

Firstly, that they have a very successful Collegiate system of sports which is dominated by Gridiron followed in it's wake by Basketball, then way down the pecking order is Baseball, Soccer and Athletics (in no particular order). At some of the more established US college's, the paying public (in attendances) for both Gridiron and Basketball can easily surpass that of it's professional cousin's. For some fans it's the collegiate versions of the game that they trust and love the most. Most College teams have been around longer than their professional counterparts.

The monies raised by the fee paying public in these primarily "amateur" gatherings (Gridiron/Basketball) along side TV revenue's is in some case's one of a college's major revenue streams and can be a multi-million dollar income stream.

Whilst the audience both live and for TV in the US is primarily with NCAA administered sports, it's the professional version's (NFL/NBA) where it can be argued the money is really at and that is driven by broadcast right revenue alone. The NFL have some of the most ambitious revenue streams and growth projections, especially in International markets in professional sport that make the eye's of some Wall Street type's water.

Baseball is slightly different where the MLB's collegiate cousin is a poor third behind Gridiron & Basketball in the numbers of students on scholarships, attendances and TV revenue, it's professional cousin is the people's sport with in general match-day prices to match, that can be as cheap as $ 5 per ticket per game. IF you've 81 home games in a season then you need to make it affordable for all. And has TV rights revenue's that some sports governing abroad would kill for but are dwarfed by those of the NFL and NBA.

So the question it needs to be is it a) participation, b) press coverage or a lack of it, c) financial clout/revenue d) bums on seats or e) History that makes a sport a "Major" or "Minor" in the land of the free and the home of the brave or beyond?? Discuss or javelin?

i did ask about financials a few posts back...it was side-stepped because the agenda wasn't catered for......soccer is a growth sport in terms of finance but a minority sport all the same.

It wasn't sidestepped. To claim Soccer in the US has the same financial clout as American Football, Baseball or Basketball would be daft. I take no issue with your point on this and if it came across that way it wasnt intended.

As there is no formal definition of what represents a minority sport I feel comfortable disagreeing with your definition and feel no need to challenge it having already given my reasons for thinking otherwise.