Soccer doesn’t lack for coverage in the American press these days. MLS soccer is another matter. I was struck by the challenge facing new MLS Commissioner Don Garber the other day when I picked up my morning paper, the San Francisco Chronicle. San Jose, our local MLS team, had just beaten New England, 2-1, in Foxboro for a rare three-point win, yet the game only merited a two-paragraph item buried in a notes section. Everyone talks about the lack of coverage in non-MLS markets — the term MLS officials use is creating a national footprint to boost the critical TV ratings — but it remains a problem at home. Local coverage of MLS teams on the road has always been a gauge of how important papers consider their MLS team. Clearly, the Chron cares little about the Clash. Another issue is how national stories are treated. Do papers cover MLS stories not involving the local team? The problem here hit home when I picked up our Sunday paper, the San Francisco Examiner, a few days later. Yes, it included a soccer wrapup, leading with the trade of local hero Jeff Baicher to New England, but no mention of the big Graziani-for-Alvarez deal. If I want soccer coverage, I guess I should move to Los Angeles. Sports Illustrated’s Rick Reilly, in his column on the plight of L.A. sports, notes that things are so slow that the Times recently resorted to running two soccer stories on the front page, and we’re not talking about the Women’s World Cup. Only one involved MLS, and that was the Galaxy’s exhibition with Mexican club Chivas. MLS faces a troubling problem that it still lacks consistent coverage in its current markets, which is essential if it is to ever grow. FANS, LET’S HEAR YOUR VIEW Click here to log onto (Soccer) American Graffiti. Then click on the topic titled “YOUR VIEW: MLS and the media” and respond to Paul Kennedy in 200 words or less. Best responses may be reprinted in Soccer America Magazine. If YOUR View is selected, we’ll send you a cool T-shirt and pin… Because You’re FANATIC.