Depends on what aspect of it you care about. In the business aspect popularity only matters in so far as it generates revenue, having millions of people like your thing in a way that doesn’t make you money means nothing. That popularity at least has to generate TV ratings, and preferably a lot more than that. It’s one of the reasons why the soccer business wants to be popular in America, nobody spends money on sports like us, 1 US soccer fan will generate as much revenue as 10 to 20 South American fans. Just look at how much ESPN paid for this World Cup (about $212 million) versus what they pay the NFL ($1.9 billion), and they let Fox “take” the World Cup contract for next time for the same amount ESPN paid. That’s the difference in popularly.
My understanding is that MLS (that I do not watch and frankly, cannot stand) is profitable. So what does relative popularity really mean? It’s a business.
ummmm, no. (from Forbes Magazine)
_______________________________________________________
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/06/09/american-world-cup-rights-fees-soar-along-with-viewership/
Things have changed quite a bit since then, and network investments reflect the increased exposure. When TNT secured the rights to the 1990 World Cup, the cable network wound up on the hook for just $7.75 million. Four years later ESPN paid $11 million for the English-language rights, and it doubled its payout to $22 million for the 1998 tournament in France.
Compare that to the $425 million check Fox will write for the rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (plus a handful of other rights, including the Women’s World Cup). That’s not only a massive increase over the tournaments of the 1990s, but also over even more recent years: The same package cost ESPN just $100 million for the previous two World Cups, in 2010 and 2014.
______________________________________________________
And why do you keep comparing to the NFL. NO soccer fan I know thinks the popularity of soccer is close, nor believes it will be anytime soon.