By most logistical standards, the nation of Morocco, ranked around 60th in the world in GDP, is not prepared to stage a World Cup in 2026 for an expanded field of 48 nations.
The African country’s infrastructure, its stadiums and its financial guarantees are not quite there. But this is FIFA I am writing about here – the same august body that awarded the 2022 tournament to a monarchical nation of under 3 million population, with unbearable summer temperatures. Self-sabotage and corruption are standard operating procedure.
You never know… Still, the 11th-hour, surprise announcement on Friday that Morocco intends to bid for the 2026 World Cup hasn’t rattled soccer officials in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Instead, it has steeled the resolve of the North American “United” group.
The two rival bidding groups are not required to submit its final proposal until Mar. 16, 2018. Reacting to the Morocco move, however, U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati announced that the United bid committee will provide next week “an update on the number of cities that are interested in being part of the World Cup in 2026 across all three countries.”
“We've always been prepared for the fact that other countries could also decide to bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup,” Gulati said. “Competition is good, and overall it shows the value and importance of the World Cup. Over the next eight months we've got a lot of work to do. We will now go into full motion with our team in New York, in collaborations with our partners in Canada and Mexico.”
There are several reasons why the North American bid remains the prohibitive favorite, and only a couple of arguments why Morocco might pull off the greatest upset bid of all time.
Consider the arguments for the United group:
- First and foremost, the 50,000-plus-seat stadiums are already in place to handle 16 first-round groups comprised of three teams apiece.
- There are more than enough big cities in America, Canada and Mexico – at least 30 – that can provide guaranteed large crowds for what will amount to 80 matches (60 of them scheduled to be played on U.S. soil).
- Marketing agreements between the U.S. and Mexico federations, through Soccer United Marketing (SUM), assure smooth cooperation during the planning stages, and likely huge profits for FIFA.
- North America hasn’t staged a men’s World Cup since 1994, while Africa hosted one far more recently (South Africa, 2010).
- The United committee, given a head start, is well organized and likely has the voting support of FIFA’s South American delegates.
- You would think that after the terrible investigative mess created by FIFA’s joint decision to award Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 tournaments – instead of safer England and America – there would be something akin to “controversy fatigue.”
- Ultimately, let's face it, FIFA is all about making money. And the United bid is going to make a bundle.
The arguments for a successful Morocco bid are slimmer:
- The Donald Trump factor. Even though Trump will not be president in 2026, there is some fear that his current unpopularity overseas, and concerns in acquiring visas to enter the U.S., could taint the bid. The inclusion of Mexico, however, figures to negate much of the potential bad will.
- The who-knows-what-FIFA-will-do factor. In the past, voting blocs have proved unpredictable. Morocco will surely have support from African delegates.
All in all, it’s hard to believe Morocco will be taken too seriously this time around. It is likely Morocco football officials know that as well, and are merely making it known they want to be the next designated hosts from Africa– even if that doesn’t happen until 2038, or beyond.
That amounts to dibs, in the continental rotation.
