Why only three continents will likely host a FIFA World Cup

The announcement this week that Australia would not bid for the 2034 World Cup opened the way for Saudi Arabia to host the tournament, and that angle is getting a lot of attention. But in reality, the media has buried the problem here.

– FIFA confirms that Saudi Arabia is the only candidate for the 2034 World Cup

THE real The story is that FIFA is in a situation where it has hit a dead end and, realistically, no one outside of Asia, Europe or North America is likely to host another World Cup, except as part of a bizarre joint bid. Like, for example, the 2030 bid, which features Morocco as joint host with an appendix called “Centennial Celebration” – honoring the fact that the first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930 – taking place in South America .

For what? The short answer: money, power, and how they are related. And no, this isn’t the old FIFA cliché of yesteryear, when Swiss police were carrying out dawn raids on five-star hotels in Zurich and the US Department of Justice was busy charging people for racketeering, conspiracy and corruption.

Simply put, FIFA needs money to function. Not to line the executives’ pockets – President Gianni Infantino earned $3.82 million in 2022, including bonuses, which is way more than me and probably more than you, but less than a tenth of what he earns, say, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell – but simply to keep his promises and retain power.

FIFA earned approximately $7.6 billion during the 2019 to 2022 cycle, exceeding its revenue forecast of $6.4 billion. A total of $2.6 billion has been spent on football development and education, which includes everything from building training facilities to promoting youth and women’s football and paying bills from some of the world’s poorest member associations, many of them – if not for FIFA money wouldn’t exist so much more than a guy with a Gmail address, a smartphone and a bag of old soccer balls.

For 2023 to 2026, their goal is to increase revenue to $11 billion and distribute nearly $4 billion in development funds. It really is, Really a large number, and it really is one, Really a big commitment to make, the kind that — if people believe you can keep it — will get you re-elected. Especially for people in countries that will only be able to watch the World Cup on TV.

They want this money from FIFA. Some may want it because they think they can steal or embezzle some of it. Judging by the wave of lawsuits during the 2016 FIFA scandal, this was not uncommon, although FIFA today says independent auditors scrutinize the stuffing of every penny. Some may want it because receiving funds and distributing them gives you influence and kudos, and others may want it out of a genuine desire to develop and help football in their country.

Either way, they want the FIFA dollar they were promised. And given that the men’s World Cup is by far FIFA’s biggest revenue generator – it accounts for 83% of revenue – where it is held matters. Place it in a place with big stadiums and deep-pocketed fans, in markets with tons of corporate sponsors eager to get their cut, in countries where you can sell lots of hospitality packages… well, then you could reach your $11 billion in revenue. aim. Put it somewhere less developed, less wealthy, less spending and, well, not so much.

For better or worse, the current reality is that only North America, Europe and Asia check these boxes.

Would the Uruguay-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay 2030 bid have been more romantic, while still honoring the centenary and South America’s immense contribution to the sport? Of course.

Would a hypothetical Nigeria-Cameroon 2034 World Cup reward some of the world’s most passionate and overlooked fans and contribute greatly to the development of West Africa? Of course.

Would either realistically allow FIFA to meet its future revenue targets and, by extension, satisfy the 150+ member associations who would not exist in their current form without funding from FIFA? Probably not.

And that’s why we are where we are. This is part of the reason why FIFA increased the World Cup to 48 teams and 104 matches. Of course, this is about making the tournament more global and partly about rewarding voters. But it’s also about “increased inventory” – as one executive calls World Cup matches – so that there are more matches to broadcast in more markets and that those television and marketing rights become more valuable.

This is also the reason why the Women’s World Cup continues to grow. Yes, it’s important for girls to be inspired and for female athletes to compete at the highest level, but after finally realizing that people will actually watch the film and that it can generate revenue, FIFA can also make it a nice Income source. Infantino understands this; Meanwhile, her predecessor, Sepp Blatter, believed that women’s football would benefit from promoting “a more feminine aesthetic” and wearing “tighter shorts”.

(This is also why, when FIFA announces the hosts of the 2027 Women’s World Cup, it is probably better to bet on the United States-Mexico or Belgium-Netherlands-Germany candidacies rather than on Brazil and South Africa: money talks in women’s football. as much as men’s football.)

Or why, in 2025, the United States will host the new FIFA Club World Cup, bringing together 32 teams. Twelve of them will come from Europe, and they will be the same clubs that attract massive sponsors and a global audience during the Champions League, which is pretty much a guaranteed cash machine.

play

Burley: I hate what FIFA is doing at the World Cup

Craig Burley is exasperated by the way FIFA “diluted” the World Cup after announcing the 2030 tournament would take place in six different countries.

Having inherited Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 from its predecessor with all their toxicity – not just the corruption and bribery that allowed the tournaments to take place, but also the fact that both, for different reasons, were a harder sell to sponsors and corporate football tourists – Infantino looked for slam dunks in 2026 and 2030 and he got them.

However, Saudi Arabia 2034 is a little different and last week Human Rights Watch reminded us that the kingdom, whose candidacy has not yet been formally evaluated, would not meet FIFA’s rights requirements. humans. But damn: 2034 is 11 years away, and unless the FIFA council rewrites the rules, Infantino won’t be president then, because his term limit expires in 2031.

– Stream on ESPN+: LaLiga, Bundesliga and more (US)

Is this a cynical reading? Maybe, but zoom out and another reality is at play here. And it’s a fight for the “football dollar” between clubs – most of which, at least the richest, are privately owned – and international football, which, while not exactly public, is managed by national federations which, at least by their status, there are non-profit organizations whose mission is to develop the game.

We don’t expect the sovereign wealth funds and private equity types who own the vast majority of club football to share with the have-nots, do we? Or, as a FIFA vice-president once told me: “The club game is capitalism, the international game is socialism.” » Socialism of the type that relies heavily on free market capitalism to generate revenue, but still: socialism, for better or worse.

So if you’re reading this in a part of the world that isn’t full of billionaire companies and where GDP per capita is less than what Cristiano Ronaldo makes in an hour, get yourself a comfy couch and some snacks, because you’ll be watching probably the World Cup on television for the foreseeable future.