The U.S. Is The Clear Favorite To Land 2026 World Cup

FIFA has a new president, Gianni Infantino. One of his first priorities will be rebooting the 2026 World Cup bidding process, suspended amidst the recent corruption turmoil.

The obvious question, from an American perspective, is whether the U.S. will land the 2026 tournament. The U.S. has not yet launched a bid. Though, there’s a strong speculation the federation will. If they do, they should be the obvious favorite.

The voting procedure has changed. Instead of the Executive Committee holding a closed vote, the FIFA Council will winnow out the best options. Those options will go to a full member vote, presumably with the dulcet lounge music and hours of breathless coverage. We’ll see whether that breeds transparency or broader, harder-to-monitor corruption.

There are a few factors working in the U.S. favor for 2026.

The U.S. Makes The Most Sense

We can presume some priorities for FIFA, its sponsors, and its television partners for 2026 after the way the 2018 and 2022 bids play out. FIFA will want to (a) avoid any appearance of corruption, (b) hold the tournament in the summer, and (c) have minimal headaches for economic stability, infrastructure, and human rights. Hitting that sweet spot for the North/South American and Western European TV markets is not a bad bonus.

The U.S. checks every box. The tournament would be a phenomenal financial success. There’s almost no risk involved. The U.S. also remains a crucial, valuable growth market for the sport.

There Aren’t Many Other Plausible Options

Confederations that hosted the previous World Cup cannot bid. Qatar is in the Asian Confederation. That precludes China from making a run at 2026. Unless a dispensation is given for an Australia-New Zealand ANZAC bid, that also precludes the Aussies.

It’s not clear there will be a compelling African option. CAF was blocked from bidding in 2014 and 2018. No country mounted a bid in 2022. Egypt remains unstable. Maybe Morocco, scorned in 1994, 1998, 2006 and 2010, offers another bid.

Looking at South America, Colombia may offer a bid for 2026. The country did host the U-20 World Cup in 2011. Though, hosting the full tournament would require significant infrastructure upgrades. It’s not clear how much support a Colombia bid would have, even within CONMEBOL. That bid would preclude returning the tournament to Argentina/Uruguay for the 100th anniversary in 2030.

Europe can bid for 2026 under the revised rules. But, France, Germany, and Russia will have hosted since 1998. There are a number of countries ill-placed to devote public resources to hosting. Netherlands/Belgium and Portugal/Spain bid for 2018 and 2022. Maybe they get back in. But, the best European option may be England.

That leaves North America. Canada (host of the 2015 Women’s World Cup) and Mexico (host in 1970 and 1986) are likely bidding. The U.S. could present a more compelling option than either. The U.S. could join with either to present an even more compelling option.

Sunil Gulati As a Power Broker

By most accounts, Sunil Gulati played the FIFA presidential election very well. The U.S. supported Prince Ali in the first round. Then, Gulati played an instrumental role swinging that block of votes to Infantino for the second round, which secured the UEFA general secretary the election.

Infantino denied a quid pro quo with the U.S. regarding a potential 2026 bid. Though, Gulati said the 2026 tournament was brought up in discussions leading up to the vote.

Looking rationally, the U.S. should be a clear favorite. Though, this is FIFA and there is a major factor working against the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Justice Campaign

The U.S. DOJ ran roughshod through FIFA’s elaborate corruption and patronage scheme, issuing the organization a “red card.” It was gratifying outside the sport. The fallout ousted Sepp Blatter and others. Within the sport, it was not a popular move and only played into notions of American Imperialism.

Blatter, despite everything, was still quite popular. He won 64 percent of the membership vote in 2015. He brought a World Cup to Africa. He spent much of his time travelling to small far-flung places, and ensuring a large amount of development funding went there (with minimal oversight). Soccer administrators in those countries were making out quite well under Blatter.

Since the vote is now down to the member nations, the U.S. will have to court those voters and overcome what may be substantial lingering bitterness. The FIFA ExCo was easier to corrupt. But, paradoxically, it also would have been far easier for the U.S. to swing the votes of a few power brokers.

The U.S. is the frontrunner to land the 2026 World Cup. It’s hard to see a better, plausible option emerging. That said, a U.S. 2026 bid could bear a strong resemblance to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Bitterness against it will be entrenched. Being the rational option is not a rousing rallying cry. The sensible, seemingly inevitable decision may not be the sure one.