Okay. Thanks. Helpful to understand the gripe. I guess the question is who were they writing for? Were they writing for the small group of fans in the know or the larger group of readers who really don’t know much about MLS. It’s fair to say they should almost always write for the former. After all, that’s what journalism generally does, especially in sports. But then you would need knowledgeable writers. That would mean a larger staff. If you want more / better journalism, the answer is to subscribe to the publications most likely to deliver. I do have a NYT subscription in addition to several other media outlets. I don’t even consume much on any of them. But I keep my subscriptions because I fear for our society when real journalism truly goes away.TL;DR: If you're still explaining what MLS is 29 years into its existence, that's your problem. American sports fans may not follow MLS writ large, but sports fans know it exists, and know what it is. American sports fans don't need to be "introduced" to MLS every time the Times thinks to write about it.