My personal theory as to why chess isn't that popular in the US - and why the US produces relatively few world-class players given its very large talent pool - is that chess at a high level involves a large number of draws. The last championship was entirely bloodless in the main games and had to go to tiebreaks (rapid + blitz games). At IM+ level more than half of games end with draws. And this goes contrary to the US mentality where everyone is either a 'winner' or a 'loser' and competition is seen as a highest ideal. A game where most of the time it is impossible to tell the better player must feel frustrating to amateurs. And indeed, many many many times some laymen will complain that there are 'too many draws' and 'the rules must be changed' so spectators see some blood.

Another common complaint related to draws is the number of 'grandmaster draws', or 'comfort draws', whereby two players, usually at a high level, agree to leave it at that after a low number of moves (Chess is one of the few games featuring 'draw by agreement', meaning both players may agree to a draw at any point in the game without justification). Almost every grandmaster is guilty of that, and players who do that often get derided by their coaches, the media and amateurs: how dare you, you are a disgrace to the sport, I didn't pay to watch this, etc. I daresay the complainers are either hypocritical or have never been involved in high-level long-form tournaments (7+ days of 4+ hour games each plus rapid/blitz side events etc.). Sometimes both players feel tired and don't want to play it out (usually due to having played it out 6+ hours the game before) and objecting to that is just unrealistic. Chess isn't a gladiatoral arena. Then there are the famous accusations of collusion from Fischer against his Soviet counterparts but Fischer has always been slightly mad his whole life so I wouldn't take anything he said seriously.