North American FIFA bid may be successful
Volume IX Issue 6
Published May 2018
After losing in almost every recent bid to host the FIFA World Cup, the USA leads a joint bid (the United Bid) with Canada and Mexico against Morocco to be the host country (or continent) of the FIFA 2026 World Cup.
​
Despite the combination of the three countries’ resources, the rival bid from Morocco has challenged the United Bid with the support of many African countries and some select countries in Europe and Latin America.
​
In response to some of America’s political allies supporting Morocco, President Donald Trump retaliated on social media.
​
Trump tweeted, “The U.S. has put together a STRONG bid w/ Canada & Mexico for the 2026 World Cup. It would be a shame if countries that we always support were to lobby against the U.S. bid. Why should we be supporting these countries when they don't support us (including at the United Nations)?” (sic).
​
Trump’s threats come in the context of French and Belgian support for Morocco’s world cup bid, and while Trump’s political retaliation is considered by many to be inappropriate, the Moroccan bid faces similar controversy following the effects of hosting the 2014 World Cup had on Brazil’s economy.
​
“Obviously, Trump shouldn't be threatening other countries over something as politically insignificant the World Cup, especially considering much of the world considers it a unifying event. However, in my opinion, Morocco should not host the World Cup,” said Thomas Leme, a junior. “Brazil had one of the world's fastest growing economies in the 2000s, but now, after hosting both the latest World Cup and [Summer] Olympics, the economy has been completely destroyed.”
In Brazil, the compounded losses from hosting both the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics have sent the economy spiraling backward at the expense of social and political stability.
​
“I go to Brazil every year, and I've noticed that everything has been more expensive the couple years because of all the inflation coming in due to [hosting] all this,” Leme said.
​
Brazil’s World Cup plans were ambitious and a lot of controversy surrounded the displacement of poor Brazilians, but the prominence of soccer in Brazil’s culture meant that a number of stadiums already existed for use in the World Cup.
​
“Even though [Brazil] built various stadiums for the World Cup, we [already] had plenty of big ones that only required a little bit of remodeling for the World Cup. Morocco, on the other hand, has a much smaller tradition of soccer and will need to build more stadiums and waste more money,” Leme said.
​
The proposed plan set in the Moroccan bid calls for 14 stadiums and an investment of $16 billion plus. However, according to the New York Times, Morocco only has six stadiums, most of which do not meet the minimum standards set by FIFA for capacity and safety.
​
Chris Alvarez, a junior, said, “Many countries see a loss of money and resources that they initially invested to boost of tourism, and while the exposure in the international community may have some benefits in this respect, Morocco would have to build a lot of new stadiums and find a way to prepare the country to host, which requires a huge amount of time, resources, and manpower.”
​
The problem with such a large investment into hosting the world cup or another mega-event (such as the Olympic Games) becomes apparent in the years following the event’s short economic boost, when the massive stadiums and grand hotels fail to fulfill the expected returns after the event has passed.
​
“The U.S economy can gain from hosting because we already have stadiums and venues that can accommodate the games and influx of tourism,” said Alvarez. “Other countries like Brazil didn't have the facilities or infrastructure to accommodate hosting the world cup, resulting in a diversion of resources away from their citizens into this one-time event.”
​
​
The North American coalition of Canada, Mexico, and the USA already possess all of the accommodations other host countries lacked. In the list of cities promoted in the North American bid, 17 in America and three each in Mexico and Canada, each city has a proposed stadium that already meets FIFA’s requirements such as the MetLife Stadium for New York, the Rose Bowl for Los Angeles, or Levi’s Stadium for San Francisco.
​
In support of the North American bid, the United Bid Committee released the results of a study done by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) that predicts a net economic bolster of $3–$4 billion in North America overall and goes on to report breakdowns on a per city basis.
​
According to the United Bid Committee, “The study further estimates that individual host cities could expect to see approximately $160–$620 million in incremental economic activity. That translates to a net benefit of approximately $90–$480 million per city after accounting for potential public costs.”
​
Despite the BCG’s report, the World Cup has had a history of underestimating costs and overestimating revenue. Even the biggest cities in some smaller host countries have seen either net neutral or negative impacts after hosting the World Cup.
​
Leme said, “The whole state of Rio de Janeiro went bankrupt after the Olympics and is now essentially run by gangs since the government has lost all money and power, so I don't think cities in underdeveloped countries, even big ones like Rio, can safely host the World Cup.”
​
With many countries opposing an American World Cup in favor of a smaller country’s chance in the spotlight, the bid to host the World Cup has come down to a debate between the cultural diversity Morocco can bring as hosts of the World Cup and the potential economic ruin the mega-event can bring upon the country.
​
“Only rich countries with pre-established infrastructure can afford to host the World Cup,” Leme said. “Unfortunately, people consider this racist, and to promote globalism they encourage some foolish, poor country to commit economic suicide by hosting these [mega-events].”
​
​