World Cup 2026: A new dawn beckons for Fifa – but whether they can shake off its past remains another matter
The decision to award the 2026 World Cup to either Morocco or the joint-bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico will go a long way to revealing what Fifa’s immediate future looks like
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.This evening marks the beginning of a new era for Fifa, though it already feels like an organisation struggling wildly to shake off scandals of the past.
In that sense, there is no better day to bury bad news and in Moscow, on the eve of a World Cup that already boasts enough controversy of its own, more than 200 Fifa delegates will cast their vote for which country they wish to host the first-ever 48-team World Cup in 2026, with an anticipated 201 votes to be cast when four overseas American territories are excluded, as well as Ghana and Kosovo who aren’t expected to attend.
It will be the first decision of its kind since the wolves of the FBI blew down Fifa’s house of gilded straw in 2015. The recriminations and fallout of those early-morning raids in Baur-au-Lac, Switzerland, continue to be felt in every move that world football’s governing body makes and the incredible details of how a mafia-like organisation was taken down by American law enforcement officials are explained in rigorous, barely-believable depth by Ken Bensinger in his new book, Red Card, particularly the almost comic-book villainy of Concacaf chief Chuck Blazer.
Yet America’s involvement in the downfall of Fifa’s established order is just one of a number of factors working against the so-called United bid to host the 2026 World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada.
While notionally it is a continental bid that services Concacaf’s biggest federations, the reality is of a large-scale American tournament with lip service paid to those north and south of Donald Trump’s ideological walls. Trump is another factor playing against the bid’s success, with his somewhat unorthodox presidency alienating much of the world – with it also reported late on Tuesday that Trump had asked North Korea to vote for them during his historic talks with Kim Jong-un in Singapore.
A lingering resentment towards Western nations, who it is felt act with arrogance as if they – and only they – have a divine right to host major sporting events is also contributing to a mood of unfriendliness towards the United bid and advancement of Morocco’s more developmental proposal. Technically, though, the bid remains streets ahead of their African rival and, fairly fittingly for the home of hyper-capitalism, America’s bid guarantees Fifa record revenues should they be awarded the tournament.
Promising money to associations has been a historically successful strategy within Fifa, where the green of the dollar note is far more powerful than that of the football field, but with what could generously be described as significant indifference towards the Americans, Morocco have emerged as genuine contenders to win the vote.
On the surface their bid is rather ambitious. No stadiums exist that would currently be up to scratch, the travel infrastructure and accommodation in place is nowhere near the quality or quantity required to cater for 48 teams and delegations, let alone hundreds of thousands of fans arriving in North Africa.
And yet they have a chance. Taking only a second-ever World Cup to Africa is a popular idea in areas that also harbour dreams of one day hosting the competition. The television timings of a Moroccan tournament would be far better for Fifa, which makes huge amounts of its money through broadcast rights.
You could balance the relative merits of the bids all day but the fact remains that they are largely irrelevant. These votes are won on trade-offs and bargaining, agreements made over polished tables at confederation meetings. Both bids have met in excess of 150 delegations to try and sell their 2026 dream but only one can win.
The new system for voting at the Fifa congress means we will have north of 200 votes, with one per association rather than the previous system of 24 executive committee members which made it easier to influence the result. Morocco, so it was claimed by one Fifa insider, actually won the vote to host the 2010 World Cup only for Sepp Blatter to unilaterally declare a different result. Blatter denies the claims but it is just one example of the madness that Fifa has seen at these votes before. Russia’s selection, and then that of Qatar, left people open-mouthed when they were announced. Stunned. And by the time people made sense of how, all hell had already broken loose.
Neither of the two 2026 bids winning would make anyone’s jaw drop, the race is simply too close for either to be a shock. But it is usually once the result comes in that the tongues start wagging and the accusations – and potential for scandal – rear their ugly head once more.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments