Sunil Gulati, Decio de Maria, and Victor Montagliani, presidents of the US, Mexican, and Canadian soccer federations respectively, made history when they formally announced a unified bid to co-host the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
http://gty.im/666922298
If successful, 2026 will be the first time with joint hosts since the 2002 edition in Japan and South Korea. Marking a change in policy, FIFA President Gianni Infantino earlier this year encouraged such bids. This about-turn is a result of FIFA having voted to expand the tournament to 48 teams by 2026.
Why This Bid Makes Sense
FIFA will be eager to ensure a successful staging under the new format. To do so, the hosts must show they will be able to handle the logistics behind the month-long event. This is especially true with the schedule expanding to 80 matches.
These nations are uniquely qualified in terms of transportation, lodging, and facilities. Considering recent track records, there is plenty of evidence to support this bid:
- USA: Multiple professional sports leagues, Gold Cup events, the 2016 Copa America Centenario, and a pending Summer Olympics bid.
- Canada: Recent hosting of a Winter Olympics and Women’s World Cup.
- Mexico: Host of Pan-American Games, Central American and Caribbean Games, Formula 1 events, and other smaller international events within the past decade.
On top of that, and from a soccer-specific standpoint, the growth of the MLS and Liga MX hint at more evidence that the World Cup would be in good hands.
Additionally, as business models continues to drive sports, the commercial prospects of an event in North America are undeniable. Profit margins will likely be huge, and that will be music to the ears of FIFA executives.
Finally, CONCACAF is also long overdue to play hosts. The timing is right, as 2026 will mark 32 years since the 1994 edition in the United States. With Europe and Asia ineligible under the rotation policy, this bid makes the most sense for FIFA.
A Clean Bidding Process
On the heels of the 2018 and 2022 bid scandals, Infantino would be wise to ensure transparency in the procedure. To be fair to other potential hosts, they need time to develop and present bids in the normal window. In 2026’s case, a final decision is not scheduled until May of 2020.
Even so, sources have indicated that CONCACAF will petition FIFA to accelerate the decision process.
Under this proposal, a decision on the 2026 host could come down as soon as this November. In terms of long-range planning, an accelerated timetable would provide the winning bid with a huge advantage.
However, this proposal will definitely rankle members from Africa (CAF), South America (CONMEBOL), and Oceania (OFC) federations. That is because they are the ones who stand to lose out in the bidding process.
Collectively, those 3 confederations will not have enough votes on their own to prevent this bid from succeeding. Presuming Infantino is able to secure UEFA’s support and with CONCACAF’s own votes, the bid would be well on its way to obtaining a simple majority in the FIFA Congress.
Automatic Qualifiers
Another thorny issue that remains is which of the three co-hosts would earn an automatic qualification spot. Allocations for each confederation are up in the air, but the anticipation is that CONCACAF will have 6 spots allocated by FIFA.
Only 3 spots would remain for the rest of the confederation if the US, Mexico, and Canada took automatic spots as co-hosts. This represents an untenable scenario with an expanded tournament in mind.
http://gty.im/656576664
Canada’s case for an automatic berth is especially weak, as they have only qualified for one previous World Cup. Furthermore, they have not even advanced to the CONCACAF final qualifying round (the “Hex”) since 1998. Currently sitting with a world ranking of 105, they have not demonstrated much pedigree on the world stage.
This writer’s humble suggestion is as follows:
- All 3 nations will play a round-robin tournament, with the top two finishers earning automatic qualification.
- The 3rd-placed team would go on to a play-off against the 4th-placed team from the CONCACAF final qualifying round.
- Alternately, the 3rd-placed team could go on to an intercontinental play-off against a team from Asia or Oceania.
This format also provides the benefit of giving all three host teams actual competitive matches leading up to the tournament. Currently, host nations only schedule friendly matches that provide opportunities for managers to tinker with lineups but do not provide any competitive intensity replicating tournament play.
One more alternative would be to grant the US and Mexico two automatic spots as higher-ranked teams and giving Canada a “fast track” to the final CONCACAF qualifying round.
Dividing up the World Cup Pie
Reaction from the Mexican end has been decidedly less enthusiastic than in their northern neighbors. Per ESPNFC.com:
The first story on the front page of Récord’s website read “Mexico could get crumbs,” while TV Azteca pundit Gerardo Velazquez slammed the negotiating skills of the FMF: “What great business! … I think 10 games is an embarrassment. It is something that only demonstrates the power Sunil Gulati has in the region and that the real giant in CONCACAF is the United States and not Mexico. ”
“The World Cup is the United States,” lamented ESPN analyst Jose Ramon Fernandez, who also described the number of games Mexico would host as “crumbs.” MedioTiempo’s headline read: “Mexico diluted.”
One nation claiming 75% of the tournament’s schedule comes with a lot of implications. Beyond the unbalanced schedule, disputes over cost-sharing and profit-sharing will undoubtedly come up as well. Thankfully for all parties, the announcement of this bid represents just a first step of many.
With a minimum capacity of 50,000 in mind, holding most of the matches in the US does make sense. This is especially true considering that both Mexico and Canada only have eight such venues combined. In stark contrast, the US already has six “soccer-specific” stadia used by MLS teams that hold over 50,000.
Besides those, there are the NFL stadiums, and the smallest one (Soldier Field in Chicago) currently seats over 61,000.
And then there is the Rose Bowl (capacity 92,500), which has hosted the 1994 World Cup final, the 1999 Women’s World Cup final, and two Gold Cup finals.
From an optics standpoint, however, movement will be necessary from yesterday’s proposal. The current 60-10-10 split has already drawn criticism, and more compromise is required to keep all parties happy.
Travel Logistics
Unfortunately, sports and politics tend to mix, and this is where the joint bid encounters perhaps its thorniest issue. The Trump Administration has stirred up controversy regarding immigration and border security, and there will be plenty of questions as to how such policies could potentially affect travel for participating teams.
http://gty.im/659603962
Gulati has stated that the bid has full support from the White House. Moving forward, much will depend on global reaction to new US policies. That much is true before even contemplating any worsening of US-Mexico relations should Trump’s border wall vision become reality.
The political variable is impossible to gauge this far out. That said, a sense of urgency will pervade the bid team as the FIFA Congress approaches in May.
Another travel issue requires careful planning. During the Copa America Centenario, several teams ended up playing late matches on the west coast before taking a travel day to the east coast, leaving them with little time for a turnaround. Because of the sheer geographical area, teams should not be subject to cross-continent travel in short time.
Outlook
A fast track of the bid process should work in everyone’s favor, even if it might be subject to criticism. What FIFA needs more than anything else is a smooth and transparent process. Quick approval of a viable candidate would be a good start, and would give prospective hosts a bigger planning window. As previously stated, FIFA’s ambitious expansion necessitates a successful (and profitable) staging more than ever.
What remains unknown is whether the US, Mexico, and Canada bid turns out to be the only viable candidate. On initial review, the CONCACAF bid does appear to have the best chance of success.