Presidents of the respective soccer federations of the U.S., Mexico and Canada yesterday "joined in unity" to declare their "intention to submit an unprecedented three-nation bid" to host the '26 FIFA World Cup, according to Baxter & Haller of the L.A. TIMES. U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said that 60 of the tournament's 80 games would be "played in the U.S. with 10 each scheduled for Mexico and Canada." All quarterfinal games will be "played in the U.S." Among the "likely candidates for the final is the Rams’ proposed new home in Inglewood." A three-country bid also "protected the U.S. from having to fend off a rival proposal from Mexico." The fate of the joint bid "won’t be known" until May '20 (L.A. TIMES, 4/11). In N.Y., Andrew Das reports the U.S. would be the "senior partner in the three-nation bid," and FIFA would "manage the rest of the details." Gulati said of FIFA, “It’s their tournament." Das notes the "paradigm-shifting plan for the World Cup" will involve "more cities, more teams, more players and, perhaps most important, more profits." By "bidding as a unit," the countries "most likely assured that their bid will be accepted." Projections of added income for FIFA "from ticket sales, sponsorships and television revenue" -- $1B or more by some estimates -- "should help the North American cause as well." Gulati said that talks with President Trump, "carried out by an intermediary in the past 30 days," revealed him to be "supportive and ... especially encouraged about Mexico’s taking part" (N.Y. TIMES, 4/11). Gulati: "I couldn't be more pleased with the level of support we've gotten from the president" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/11).
FIRST OF ITS KIND: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Matthew Futterman writes a successful bid would "mark the first time three countries played host to the event" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4/11). Gulati said that no venues for the U.S. quarterfinals "have been chosen yet" (N.Y. POST, 4/11). Canadian Soccer Association President Victor Montagliani said that it is a "'possibility' that no other nations will attempt to host" in '26. He said, "We were trying to figure out how (co-hosting) wasn’t a good idea and nobody could figure that out" (TORONTO SUN, 4/11). CNBC's Seema Mody said the U.S., Canada and Mexico "may not be able to agree on trade, but when it comes to sports, it united everyone" ("Worldwide Exchange," CNBC, 4/11).
MOVING RIGHT ALONG: ESPN FC's Sam Borden cited sources as saying that CONCACAF is "planning to make a proposal at May's FIFA Congress that could accelerate the entire process, which would normally be expected" to last until '20. The CONCACAF bid will "ask the world governing body's 211 members for a unique, noncompetitive window -- for example, six months -- in which it would prepare a report that showcases the technical specifications of its bid, covering everything from stadium capacities and infrastructure to hotels and transportation." If the bid were to "meet the required technical specifications set out by FIFA," then it would "simply be awarded right then." If not, the traditional bidding process "would begin." Borden reported the support for the CONCACAF bid is "strong, both inside and outside the sport." The U.S. was "fully prepared to submit a solo bid and, by all indications, had a very strong chance to win the rights on its own." Sources said that Mexico had to "calculate whether it was worth running an expensive opposing bid, which very likely would fail, instead of joining forces" (ESPNFC.us, 4/10).
LEADER IN THE CLUBHOUSE: USA TODAY's Martin Rogers writes the countries' bid is a "fight that could be won quickly and decisively." Yesterday saw the launch of a "loud and bold three-pronged campaign" with the "clear intention of establishing itself as the primary, and perhaps only, legitimate contender to stage soccer’s grandest spectacle." The bid "became an immediate favorite in a race that isn’t going to have a whole lot of runners." Rogers: "Make no mistake, this is a U.S.-driven bid" (USA TODAY, 4/11). In Toronto, Dave Feschuk writes the bid is "as close to a fait accompli as we’ve seen in the dubious, fraudulent history of the FIFA bidding process" (TORONTO STAR, 4/11). In California, Scott Reid writes the bid is an "overwhelming favorite largely because Lady Liberty signals safe fiscal and political harbor to FIFA in the wake of a series of corruption scandals and two World Cups that were financial and public relations disasters" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 4/11). SI.com's Grant Wahl noted in "return for being part of the bid, Mexico and Canada would almost surely get automatic spots in the World Cup as hosts." The U.S. meanwhile will have to "make assurances to FIFA that every country that qualifies" will be "able to have their teams, fans and media be able to enter the country." While Trump would not be in office in '26, he "may well be in charge still when the vote takes place" in May '20" (SI.com, 4/10).
COULD U.S. HAVE GONE ALONE? In DC, Steven Goff wonders why the U.S. did not submit the bid alone with its already-established "stadiums and infrastructure." Gulati said that a "greater variety of cities and venues ... would strengthen the bid." But Goff wonders if 10 matches is "enough for soccer-hungry Mexico." Mexican Football Federation President Decio de Maria said, "Definitely, no. We know most of the people would like to have more. ... Ten was what was (on) the table.” Goff: "In other words, Mexico needed the United States more than the United States needed Mexico" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/11). The N.Y. Daily News' Frank Isola was not in favor of the joint bid because, "We have plenty of stadiums to host the World Cup all by ourselves" ("PTI," ESPN, 4/10). VICE SPORTS' Aaron Gordon wrote it "doesn't feel so much like a joint bid between equals as much as the U.S. giving Canada and Mexico a few token matches for marketing purposes." This "looks more like a good bit of politicking by the United States bid -- incorporate some rivals to form a strong conglomerate -- which will make them all but locks to host" (SPORTS.VICE.com, 4/10).
