FIFA corruption should not stop U.S. from bidding on 2026 World Cup

The United States' bid to host the 2022 World Cup featured 21 modern stadiums of at least 66,000 seats in a wealthy, stable, progressive, media-and-marketing-rich, suddenly soccer-mad country where nearly all conceivable infrastructure was already in place, assuring minimal environmental impact and waste.
It lost, decisively, to a Middle Eastern country where temperatures soar into the 120s, everything needed to be built (with migrant labor where thousands would die) in a nation that, while very rich, has a brutal record of human rights violations.

It was Qatar 14, USA 8 in the fourth and decisive round of voting. America never really stood a chance.

The process was deemed corrupt even before the final vote, with suspicions of bribes and backdoor contracts everywhere. Eventually, even FIFA began to confront the realities of both labor abuse and the fact that extreme heat isn't conducive to high-level play, let alone athlete and fan safety. Eight years out and it is a mess.

Under waves of criticism, FIFA hired an American, Michael Garcia, a former district attorney in New York, to conduct a corruption investigation. He produced a 430-page report only to claim Thursday that FIFA's publicly released 42-page synopsis (the full report isn't being made available) was a rewritten whitewash in an effort to protect high-level executives including FIFA president Sepp Blatter.

"It contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the investigatory chamber's report," said Garcia, who is now appealing, whatever that means.

Look, FIFA is the worst – a clown show that would be funny if it wasn't for all the cheap coffins holding poor third world laborers being shipped from Doha back to Nepal.

The International Olympic Committee is awful, more awful even on certain subjects, but overall FIFA usually finds a way to trump it. Any American equivalent, such as the NCAA, is small potatoes. If you think the U.S. is hopelessly corrupt, just go visit another country – and not Toronto, Central London or the Hilton Cancun. Try the second or third world on for size.

The natural reaction for America is to take one look at FIFA and declare we want no part of it, the way the USOC isn't sure about bidding for future Olympic games right now.

The smart decision, however, is this: The U.S. should absolutely bid for the 2026 World Cup.

*****
The U.S. should conduct itself with the highest of ethical standards, of course. First off, we shouldn't tolerate bribes. Second, screw these FIFA guys. Besides, the U.S. would be the overwhelming favorite without a single hundred-dollar handshake. The bid process is still a few years away (no firm date set) but countries are already jockeying for position.

Sunil Gulati, the president of U.S. Soccer, has long bragged that America could host a World Cup "tomorrow" and he isn't that far off.

This isn't the hosting of an Olympics, where the IOC demands what amounts to billions in facility construction that is often unnecessarily lavish and useless once the torch is doused. The World Cup can be staged in existing stadiums, which we have a surplus. The 1994, U.S.-hosted World Cup is still the best attended of all time and that was before the field was expanded to 32 teams in 1998.

For the 2018 bid, U.S. Soccer identified a whopping 70 suitable facilities before eventually paring the list down to 21 in or around 18 cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa and Washington D.C.

Airports are already modern. Highways built. Subways working. Hotels operating. Security plans are in place and there is lots of experience at hosting massive events. You aren't just up and dropping the World Cup into some small, poor, rural town where nothing has happened in decades. You're going to the Rose Bowl.

This is easy … or as easy as it gets.

Of course, all of this was true last time and the U.S. got wiped out, which is why U.S. Soccer remains cautious and hasn't promised a bid for 2026 yet.

"Would we be interested in bidding for 2026?" Gulati asked rhetorically in a speech last year in London. "The procedures would need to be very different to what they are now. If the critical issue is taking it to new lands, then tell us in advance, because we won't bother.

"The rules need to be clearer and tighter," he continued. "And the process needs to be better. If you are stepping onto a field of play, you know what the rules are."

Gulati, who was elected last year to the FIFA Executive Committee that votes on the World Cup hosts, wants the vote to be public to add transparency (it's currently secret which naturally leads to trouble). He proposes that a grading of the technical report carries some weight to the process, which means things like searing summer heat in the Middle East or lack of facilities in a developing country can't be ignored. He'd like as many criteria written in stone as possible.

The U.S. has a couple of advantages this time, however. FIFA eliminated its continental rotation system in 2007, but it is believed that it will continue at least informally. Also, the only current rule is that the previous two host continents can't bid, so that takes out Europe (Russia) and Asia (Qatar), essentially decimating viable competition. This is the opportunity to pounce before those continents return, thus avoiding England, Netherlands/Belgium or Spain/Portugal in 2030, let alone predicted shoo-in China in 2034.

Seeing an opportunity for North America, both Mexico and Canada have said they will bid. The U.S. could offer more fans, more wealth, stronger corporate backing, bigger markets and better facilities than either of those countries, though. One of the U.S.'s few weak points is its vast size, which makes travel taxing for visiting fans. Canada and Mexico are only slightly better.

Morocco has made noise about putting forth an African bid (the continent's last host was South Africa in 2010), but even local organizers aren't sure the country is capable of handling such a large event. Colombia, representing South America (last host: Brazil, 2014) has said it will bid, but even if it teams up with Peru and Ecuador, that's minimal competition. More significant would be a possible dual bid involving Uruguay and Argentina, however that is still a rather quick return to South America.

Even Sepp Blatter sees the writing on the wall. Or at least the dollar signs in the United States.

"We have been in South America, I think North America has a better chance than South America," Blatter said earlier this year. "Perhaps there's a big commercial opportunity arising now in the United States because of the tremendous television audiences that are booming and that the World Cup has also encouraged in its domestic game as well.

"We did well with football when it first went to the United States but the opportunities are bigger now," he concluded.

*****
There is legitimately one choice here. It's all set up. The U.S. should push for as much reform in the bid process as possible but it shouldn't let the opportunity pass.

America is strong enough that it doesn't have to play FIFA's games. There is little to no financial risk here. No billions needed to construct facilities. This isn't the Olympics. And it's actually a way to find additional use of NFL stadiums already built with public assistance by welcoming foreign tourists and growing the game.

While much distrust remains and FIFA is as ethically bankrupt as ever, the United States shouldn't hesitate to bring the World Cup back in 2026. We might even have a title contender by then.