Part of the reason that soccer-related violence is so common in Europe and Latin America is because soccer clubs are woven into the communities they represent. Traditionally, every neighborhood had its own soccer team (like Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur's grounds being only five kilometers apart; Highbury/Holloway was "Arsenal til I die" while Tottenham/Wood Green was "COYS") and the teams reflected the cultural makeup of their respective areas. This also meant rivalries underlined by political, racial, religious or ethnic divisions (Millwall for the working class, Arsenal and Spurs for the middle and upper classes. Also see Lyon-ASSE, Real Madrid-Barca, AS Roma-Lazio, Inter-Juve, Red Star Belgrade-Partizan Belgrade, Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe, Boca Juniors-River Plate), which led to ultras and hooliganism.
Pro sports in the U.S. didn't evolve like that. It evolved as being seen as entertainment. Sports are seen as just a good time in America and not a way of life like in Europe or Latin America. And because sports are entertainment, that also means they're big business, and operate on the franchise model. So sports teams aren't woven into communities for the most part.
In fact, pro sports is something of an equalizer among people of different creeds and social statuses in the U.S. e.g. "I work on the line, you're the foreman, and he's the factory owner, but on the field, we're all Steelers fans", or, "at the ballpark, we're all White Sox fans". Exceptions are few and far between: Raiders-Niners, Philly-NYC or Boston-NYC rivalries, college football (especially in the southeast). To a lesser extent, sports in Canada follows a similar philosophy to the Americans, with exceptions being junior hockey (especially in Quebec). Then you have the war between India and Pakistan cricket fans, over 1 billion fans combined.
Why did sports evolve so differently in America?
In case I get "your question shouldn't be X, but Y instead" responses, I'm not sure if there is the same "sports are a religion" outlook taken for rugby, cricket outside of the subcontinent, or sports in other countries like in Japan, SE Asia, or Anglophone ex-colonies (like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa).
The relationship between Americans and their sports teams take a lot from the decisions made early in professional baseball, which informed the development of other professional sports later on. Initial professional baseball immediately following the Civil War was open the same way that European sports are. However, the combination of low barriers to entry with high travel costs (getting from New York to Iowa was a much bigger deal than getting from London to Newcastle) meant that many teams where not able to stay afloat in a professional environment, particularly during the economic downturn in the mid-1870s.
The teams that had not folded tended to be ones in bigger cities, and they banded together to organize the forerunner of MLB. In order to maximize attendance at games, they instituted the policy of territorial rights. In this system, except for a few very major cities, each team has exclusive rights to play top flight baseball in their chosen city. This distribution of teams worked because, unlike England, where in 1900 London had nearly 10 times as many people as Liverpool, the second largest city, the American population was more evenly distributed, with New York only about twice as big as Chicago. With only one team per city, everyone who is a fan of that sport in the city will most likely support that team, though not as closely as if it was a team from the neighborhood.