2026 World Cup bid takes a village

You might have thought that NAFTA was on the outs under the new presidential administration. But this week we got the NAFTA version of a World Cup bid — three North American countries cooperating to host the 2026 World Cup.

The proposal unveiled Monday calls for the United States, Mexico and Canada to bid together for the World Cup. The overwhelming bulk of the tournament would be played in the United States: 60 games as opposed to 10 games for each of our neighbors.

The U.S. Soccer Federation has been angling to host another World Cup for years, after the success of 1994 and the continued growth of the game. A bid for the 2022 tournament lost out to Qatar.

That decision, along with new rules dictating a rotation among confederations, led to optimism that a new American bid would succeed.

But in recent months, there have been rumblings of concern about what the policies of President Trump will do to the United States’ role in international sports, including a World Cup bid. The Trump travel ban includes potential entrants, like World Cup regular Iran. Mexican fans travel as well as any in the world to the World Cup.

A joint bid alleviates some of the political tension. Though Trump — who is said to support the bid — would not be president in 2026, FIFA will not want an ugly battle in the lead-up to its showcase event.

There are practical reasons for a joint bid: The 2026 World Cup is to be the first to include 48 teams, up from the current 32, requiring more stadiums, facilities and hotels.

Mexico, which has successfully hosted two World Cups (1970 and 1986) would have the honor of being the first country to host three without the expense of being the sole host. Canada doesn’t have enough facilities to go it alone but would get a chance to establish itself further after a successful women’s World Cup in 2015 (no word on whether the controversial artificial turf used for the women’s games would be replaced).

And the United States would get a chance to host the globe’s greatest sporting event despite the world’s concerns about walls and bans.

It all gives new meaning to the phrase “political football.”