On the one hand, you have Morocco, a North African country of around 34 million inhabitants.
On the other, you have the U.S. of A., home to over 300 million.
Which do you think will present the best case to be chosen as the venue of FIFA World Cup 2026?
Fortunately, for Morocco, FIFA has historically shown the sort of moral fortitude to resist the lure of filthy lucre.
We are back. We broke down into fits of hysterical laughter after reading what we wrote in that last sentence.
Both countries can lay claim to sufficient degrees of political instability, but it seems more likely that the U.S. will still be in business in 2026, provided it is not annexed by Canada.
As for Morocco, well, a lot can happen in the next eight years, as anyone with a map of Africa dating back to the 198os can easily tell you.
Just ahead of FIFA World Cup Finals in Russia, the 207 nations comprising FIFA will hold a vote and Morocco is on the ballot, despite a FIFA evaluation report that used the term “high risk” to describe the stadiums, visitor accommodations and transportation infrastructure.
The U.S. bid is actually a conglomeration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Hopefully, they can show more consensus regarding football than they do concerning trade and immigration.
Mexico is still on the hook for some $US20 billion to fund a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, but that quote is complelty fungible and mostly whimsical with regard to accuracy.
The bid from North America is seen in some circles as a referendum of sorts on the popularity of the current U.S. President.
Another pause for our ribs to recover from that bout of laughter.
Trump is the world’s most beloved figure. Just ask him, so long as you are content with a response limited to whatever Twitter’s maximum message length is currently.