Potential 2026 WC Hosts (Update: Morocco Sole Challenger to CONCACAF Bid)

Interesting comments from 2 journalists

Equally naive is their assertion that people will vote on the merits of the bids and "what’s in the best interest of football." I tend to think people will vote, largely, based on their self-interests and the interests of their country.

— John Molinaro (@JohnMolinaro) March 19, 2018

What bugs me, and I think is a flaw in the United bid, is how boring and business-like it is. Where is the passion? Where is the "why the world should want to come here?" Morocco bid has lots of culture, sun, "welcome to our country" in its bid.

— Steven Sandor (@stevensandor) March 19, 2018

My latest for @Sportsnet >

It’s beyond naïve to think that politics won’t play a part when voting members select a host for the 2026 World Cup. https://t.co/tlgkRr0ybE

— John Molinaro (@JohnMolinaro) March 19, 2018

• Whereas only FIFA’s 24-member executive board voted for the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 tournaments (which went to Russia and Qatar, respectively), this time around FIFA’s entire membership will get to vote on the host for the 2026 competition. It’s important to note that the bidding nations can’t vote (Guatemala is also suspended from voting), which means the winning bid needs 104 votes out of the 206 FIFA member countries who will cast a ballot.

• The math is pretty simple here. The Confederation of African Football has 55 member nations. It’s difficult to imagine that many of them won’t vote for Morocco, and thus choose to spurn a glorious opportunity to bring the world’s biggest sporting spectacle back to the continent for the first time since South Africa hosted the World Cup in 2010. Assuming the African nations overwhelmingly vote as one, which seems a safe bet, Morocco would be halfway home, and have a clear pathway to victory over the United Bid.

• That the African nations would vote as a unified bloc shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise considering Morocco is one of the options. But the CAF nations voting simply out of African pride has become even more of a problem for the United Bid in light of who is currently occupying the White House.

I also think a lot of people are unaware of the voting process. It's not some 20-member board of FIFA who will decide. Every member nation of FIFA (save a few exceptions) will vote. You need 104 votes to win. 54 nations from Africa will vote. That's a big bloc.

— John Molinaro (@JohnMolinaro) March 19, 2018

Africa. Then how many more votes in the Middle East? Russia and allies? That's piling up pretty quickly.

— Steven Sandor (@stevensandor) March 19, 2018

 

Time for the USA Justice Department to step up with a new round of corruption indictments.

 

Like I wrote before the United bid is only talking about how much money can make. Did they even release a bid video like the moroccan one?

 

because that is the biggest trump in their sleeve, and if they win this bid it will be only becuase of that. the estimation is that extra money FIFA would earn from US/MEX/CAN World Cup compared to Morocco World Cup is much close to one billion than to half a billion!

 

Gotcha! The United bid would be easier to attend for fans residing in the US, Mexico and Canada - while the Maroccan bid would be easier to attend for fans from almost everywhere else...

 

There was a bid video during the USSF president election. It begings at 49:20. We see soccer in this video.
vidéo

 

I'm not taking the CONMEBOL noise about them voting for Morocco very seriously. Why? Because it makes no sense. If they want votes for 2030 then the United bid has a lot more votes to hand over than the Morocco bid. What it is is a very obvious negotiating ploy. At this moment the Mexico and US heads are giving them everything they want for the Copa America in Brazil. LMX and MLS will give their players the blessing to go Copa America and the tv bids will roll in from those two countries.

 

I think the Molinaro comments are incredibly naive. Why is he taking a press conference so literally? The actions of the United bid show much more. They are going to each and every country and negotiating votes all over. Here's the beauty. The votes are public and there will only be one round. It will be very easy to tie a favor to a vote.

Also, Trump is just an excuse. No one is seriously going to change their votes because of Trump. But it is a good negotiating ploy. Or, more nefariously, it is a good excuse to hurt the US because of the FIFA investigations. Nobody is going to say we don't vote for the US because you hurt the bribery.

 

We should all know FIFA by now. What is said is way different to what is really going on.

 

This vote seems to me like it is all about how FIFA will work post investigation. The members are clearly saying to the United bid "We want to see if you will make things worth our while. We don't care for crusaders. We want to know if you are in business with us. If you aren't we'll just give it to Morocco." Anyone that thinks anything else is naive.

From the United bid it would seem that they are responding. The difference is obvious. The United bid can make you money. You can believe our promises and that we will make it worth our while. OTOH, the Morocco bid is broke. The question will be if what the United bid offers will be enough. Because they are in the US they will have to be careful that what they promise and do won't itself be scrutinized by the FBI. And the FBI is watching closely indeed.

Again, this is one of the historic turning points for FIFA. Much like the difficult period in the late 60s and early 70s.

 

It's news to me that you're a member of FIFA. How do you know how things go in there? Molinaro is a very respected sports journalist, I kind of trust his insight and sources a bit more

The anti US-sentiment precede Trump but he's the tip of the iceberg. What negotiation? What does the US has to offer anyone in FIFA except 1 vote for a world cup bid and potential bribes?

FIFA investigations are one thing, but calling a whole continent a "shithole" sunk the African support. Why should they rewards the US with the biggest event on earth when they are publicly humiliated by that country?

Trump could have apologized to Africa at the very least instead of just denying. It sucks because "karma" might sink the whole thing for United 2026

 

I believe I just have a better insight to third world FIFA politics than you or Molinaro. A third world "dirigente" needs a bit of greasing. They don't give a damn who they vote for as long as there is a clear idea that they will get a continuous income. Their big concern with the United bid is that they are too clean. They absolutely want to cut down anyone that is too clean. I know this because I have lived in a third world country for 20 years. My family has politicians, "dirigentes", everything.

 

That's so not how the world works. Molinaro is right with his "naive" comment. That might be a very "western" way to look at it, but not the whole planet share American values. In some parts of the world, when you take corruption off the table, it's doesn't always comes down to "business above all", mutual respect matters too. Treating others like shit ensures that they will make you pay for it down the road and unfortunately, United 2026 might be it.

There was article breaking down how the profits are broke down once the World Cup is over. Individual associations cut won't vary that much from United 2026 or Morocco 2026. FIFA keeps the lion-share of it. FIFA seems to already have a fix amount of money it will redistribute hence, keeping whatever profit for itself.

Yes, FIFA will make more money with United 2026, but it's doubtful that individual associations will, which negates your argument that the overall profit FIFA takes to the bank matters to them individually. It's a none-factor in this new voting system.

In the old system, you'd be 100% right, but not here.

 

That's a bold statement to make

They will get continuous income regardless of where the World Cup goes, hence, having the luxury to stick it to the US.

Can't say I follow you here. Too clean? The US played the same backstage political game for 2022. It's just that they got beat at that game by Qatar thanks to the support of then French president Sarkozy, UEFA President Platini and Qatar regime.

 

And therein lies how the United bid can win. Unlike most every other host, the US can make a substantial profit and distribute it as they see fit.

Rob, I've lived in a third world country for years. Actually, all my family is still there. I know how it works.

 

Again, a lot of this has to do with the FIFA investigations. That's what is meant by too clean. Most of these guys are there in a system built on relationships, gifts and little to no government control. The investigations are not welcomed. The message here is that going down this road is not wanted.

 

United 2026 can win, but it won't be a landslide.Making the United bid more United and less US centric would help but the USSF is stubborn at not doing that...so the bid is viewed as a US bid, not a North American bid

The US won't make a substantial profit, FIFA will. It's heavily documented that FIFA takes all the money and whatever is left for the US won't make up for all of FIFA's demand such as security costs, infrastructure costs, logistics, etc...

I don't doubt that you know how third world countries works, but you know as well as I do, if you can't sweeten the pot, then you're out of luck. Can the US bribe all 53 CAF members? Sure. How likely the US gets snitch by one of them hence disqualifying United 2026? Extremely high. Not convinced they will risk that.

 

The US was just as much part of that system, but it lost and got mad because of it. The US were never "too clean". Just look at how the US got Salt Lake City 2002. Same thing.

 

Yes, I agree. This is a difficult road for the United bid. They seem to be handling CONMEBOL well enough but I'm not convinced how CAF will be done.

 

They are trying to negotiate with CONMEBOL but they are adamant at hosting the 100 anniversary of the World Cup in 2030. They have little to gain by backing United 2026. Us winning would hand 2030 to a potential United Kingdom bid

 

While I expect ticket prices to be outrageous if the United bid wins, hotels may be somewhat cheaper. Demand for hotels in Morocco will be so high that they can get away with over-charging (just like we saw in South Africa and some of the smaller host cities in Brasil).

The sheer size of the host cities in the United bid means that supply of hotel rooms won't be an issue just because 30,000 extra people are visiting. Every city will be like Sao Paolo (where I didn't notice any increase in hotel prices).

 

LOL, the dynamics have changed with the new voting format. Otherwise Morocco would be out because it's so close to Qatar. I don't believe that UEFA can just expect to believe they will get a World Cup that easily. CONMEBOL wants another Copa America with Mexico and US television and they want the CONCACAF votes on a platter. CONCACAF is currently firmly in control of the Caribbean and that's a lot of votes.

 

If UEFA supports Morocco 2026 and CONMEBOL 2030, expect CAF & CONMEBOL to return the favor in 2034 to a possible UK bid. That's over half the vote needed to win the hosting rights to beat China or an Asian nation.

If CONMEBOL supports Morocco 2026, expect CAF to heavily back CONMEBOL for 2030. That would secure them half the votes needed to win right from the start.

Yes CONCACAF has 41 members but we aren't an example of solidarity. Remember when the Caribbean nations wanted to separate from CONCACAF? North America (3 votes) does not control CONCACAF. Caribbean nations (27 votes) could still very well support CONMEBOL in 2030 and they know it.

United 2026 is indeed in trouble.

 

Yes, the Caribbean is considering a split from CONCACAF and they are frustrated but at this moment they are under the thumb because virtually all their finances and air travel runs through the US. They are particularly vulnerable to FBI scrutiny. I don't expect it to last forever but that is the case currently. Also, they benefit tremendously from a CONCACAF world cup with three host countries going in automatically.

 

No, through CONCACAF who's mainly funded by the USSF. It's been that way for a very long time and for most of its history, the US was always a small player in the grand scheme of things (except for the wallet)

Still, there has never been an American at the head of the organization and it was mainly ran by corrupt Caribbeans and Central Americans who could care less about the game or the US game. A Canadian is now running it which is a huge change. Hell I even noticed that Canada and the US were getting less CONCACAF'ed since Montagliani took over.

You think that the culture has changed? Montagliani said as much himself. It's a very slow process. Other FBI raids would just cut of the branches, not the root of the problem. Those who think removing Blatter from FIFA changed anything need to wake up. FIFA is the same old FIFA, just look at those ridiculous demands they make which caused Chicago, Minneapolis and Vancouver to say "no thank you".

They are voting in solidarity, but fiscally, they aren't better off. 3 automatic spots means that there's only 3 spots left to compete for instead of 5 (if it was only one host) or 6 (if Morocco wins)

Not trying to be a pest. Just using the opportunity to also teach others how the bizarre world of FIFA works