U.S. and neighbors bid for World Cup

NEW YORK — The United States, Mexico and Canada joined forces Monday on a bid to host the 2026 World Cup, and while representatives from each soccer federation saluted the cooperation in formulating an unprecedented proposal to stage the sport’s spectacle, one country stood above.

If the regional effort wins out, the U.S. would host 60 matches — including everything from the quarterfinals on — while the other two countries would stage 10 apiece.

With its stadiums and infrastructure, the United States could have gone about it alone and won the bid. Why didn’t it?

A greater variety of cities and venues, U.S. Soccer Federation boss Sunil Gulati said, would strengthen the bid. And while “we don’t believe sports can solve all the issues in the world, especially with what’s going on in the world today, we think it’s a hugely positive signal and symbol of what we can do together.”

But are 10 matches enough for soccer-hungry Mexico?

“Definitely, no,” said Decio de Maria, president of Mexico’s federation. “We know most of the people would like to have more. Ten was what was [on] the table.”

He acknowledged Mexico would not have been able to place a solo bid on a tournament that, in 2026, will expand to 48 teams from 32 and grow by 16 matches.

“Yes, it’s going to be 10 games in Mexico, but it’s also going to be games in Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Phoenix. And for us, it’s home,” de Maria said, a reference to the millions with Mexican ancestry living in the United States.

“The key principles,” Gulati said of coming to agreement, “was we felt we should host a lion’s share of games, and if we went alone, potentially had the strongest bid. Mexico and Canada then had to assess the same thing we did.”

With the weakest case, Canada had the most to gain from the arrangement.

“Listen: You have to be reasonable, and everybody knows the U.S. infrastructure is enormous, second to none maybe in the world,” Canadian federation president Victor Montagliani said. “You can’t look at this event always from a possessive standpoint and say, ‘I’m an

American and I need the most, I’m a Canadian I need the most, I’m a Mexican I need the most.’ I think you have to step back and say, ‘This is a World Cup for us, the region.’ “

The executives signed a memorandum of understanding to submit a bid to FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. FIFA meetings next month in Bahrain could provide greater clarity on the bidding process and timetable. A vote is tentatively set for May 2020.

FIFA will have the final say on venues and match distribution, but the outline provided by the three countries isn’t likely to change much. Specific cities and stadiums won’t be finalized for several years.

Mexico hosted the World Cup in 1970 and 1986. The United States welcomed the tournament in 1994. Canada has hosted youth World Cups and the 2015 Women’s World Cup.

Russia will host the 2018 World Cup and Qatar in 2022.

To go forward with this bid, the U.S. needed to solicit support from President Donald Trump, whose controversial comments about Mexico and his plans to construct a border wall have raised tensions between the countries.

Through back channels, Gulati said the USSF received assurances the White House will back the bid.

“The president of the United States is fully supportive and encouraged

us to have this joint bid,” he said. “He’s especially pleased to have Mexico as part of this bid. We’re not at all concerned about some of the issues that other people may raise.”

In evaluating the bid, FIFA will need assurances from the U.S. government that individuals and groups from all countries will be able to enter the country and cross borders perhaps multiple times. Politics aside, a multi-nation World Cup will present logistical challenges for both organizers and governments.

“I couldn’t be more pleased,” Gulati said, “with the level of support we’ve gotten from the president.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gulati emphasized the plan to use existing stadiums in all three countries instead of constructing new venues. Cities that have hosted recent World Cups and Olympics have been left with abandoned facilities and enormous debt.

“Building sports facilities that don’t have a long-term use is not one that is particularly inviting for anyone,” he said. “We have stadiums that exist. It’s a far better solution than spending hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, on stadiums, especially that don’t have use beyond the tournament.”