United States-led 2026 World Cup bid in jeopardy to Morocco's

I've went following Ireland to the us world cup in 94. Best ran tournament I've been too by far. To think back then the the popularity of the game was nowhere near how popular it is now. They have the stadiums, the infrastructure already. I'd be happy to travel to that world cup if they got it and Ireland qualified for it, feck it I'd probably go anyway.
 
Don't mind US getting regardless of Trump's policies, but what is wrong if Morocco wins it with large support from rest of the members.
 
What is this? Are they on a "worst places to host the World Cup" roll?

Russia, Qatar, and now Morocco? FIFA are a joke.

Would love it if the WC was here in the states for obvious reasons, but would also like the UK to finally host one.
 
Giggs86 said:
What is this? Are they on a "worst places to host the World Cup" roll?

Russia, Qatar, and now Morocco? FIFA are a joke.

Would love it if the WC was here in the states for obvious reasons, but would also like the UK to finally host one.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with Morocco? Is there a war going on there?
 
I went to matches in 94. Very well organized and run. It would be the best run WC ever if the US get it in 26
 
With the kind of costs for work that are present in US, I doubt if US can make any profits by hosting a WC.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
What is wrong with Morocco? Is there a war going on there?
Click to expand...

I'd like Morocco to get it but there are problems. I'm certainly no expert on the country but we can't complain about the issue of gay rights in Russia and then ignore the problem in Morocco, or its problems with press freedom e.g. in relation to the ongoing Western Sahara problem and Sahrawi refugees.

Edit: I think a difference might be that we (well, people like me) see Putin and Trump as retreating from modernity, but in our terms this could be a step into a more tolerant world for Morocco.
 
Last edited:
RedDevil@84 said:
What is wrong with Morocco? Is there a war going on there?
Click to expand...

No. I'm talking about infrastructure and the overall atractivity of the country from the tourists point of view.

Millions more people would enjoy a World Cup in the US over Morocco. That includes residents, tourists from other countries, people who watch the games on the telly and even the players themselves.
 
Both would be excellent hosts, miles better than the upcoming two hosts.

Lot of ignorance about Morrocco in this thread, which doesn't surprise me, but probably do a bit of reading before making it out to be the African version of Iraq.
 
Giggs86 said:
No. I'm talking about infrastructure and the overall atractivity of the country from the tourists point of view.

Millions more people would enjoy a World Cup in the US over Morocco. That includes residents, tourists from other countries, people who watch the games on the telly and even the players themselves.
Click to expand...

Morocco's a pretty big tourist destination and in a better time zone than the USA for Africa, Europe and much of Asia. Not that I don't want the USA to get it.
 
Giggs86 said:
No. I'm talking about infrastructure and the overall atractivity of the country from the tourists point of view.

Millions more people would enjoy a World Cup in the US over Morocco, . That includes residents, tourists from other countries, people who watch the games on the telly and even the players themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree that the US is in a better position than Morocco to host a WC, only because they already have a lot of infrastructure in place, but isn't that the whole purpose of FIFA. To take football to more places. If we start taking in only the best footballing countries, WCs would always be played in Europe or US or some select countries in South America.
And again, FIFA WCs are decided much early so that nations can ramp up their facilities and stadiums, and build new ones. I am pretty sure when the WC was played in Asia or even Brazil, a lot of stadiums were either constructed or ramped up to meet WC standards.
 
I don't see better African option than Morrocco. Egypt is dangerous these days. Tunisia is very small. Algeria isn't very open... Countries like Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Nigeria would have deserved consideration but it seems they didn't apply.

Morocco would have deserved to host the World Cup instead of countries like Russia, Qatar and the USA.

1. This country is really fond of Football, much more than most of Europe clearly
2. Secure country and clearly one of the most developed African countries. Stable political regime. Mass tourism.
3. Country close to Europe for obvious reasons: colonialism, time zone, 14 km from Spain
 
squiggle said:
I'd like Morocco to get it but there are problems. I'm certainly no expert on the country but we can't complain about the issue of gay rights in Russia and then ignore the problem in Morocco, or its problems with press freedom e.g. in relation to the ongoing Western Sahara problem and Sahrawi refugees.

Edit: I think a difference might be that we (well, people like me) see Putin and Trump as retreating from modernity, but in our terms this could be a step into a more tolerant world for Morocco.
Click to expand...
Why will press going to a WC need to talk about political problems in the region? Why will the fans bother? I dont think there are nay restrictions on reporting about the game.
 
Is nobody else throwing their name in the hat for 2026?
 
RedDevil@84 said:
I agree that the US is in a better position than Morocco to host a WC, only because they already have a lot of infrastructure in place, but isn't that the whole purpose of FIFA. To take football to more places. If we start taking in only the best footballing countries, WCs would always be played in Europe or US or some select countries in South America.
And again, FIFA WCs are decided much early so that nations can ramp up their facilities and stadiums, and build new ones. I am pretty sure when the WC was played in Asia or even Brazil, a lot of stadiums were either constructed or ramped up to meet WC standards.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but it's not nessecarily a good thing for the hosting country. In less developed countries where there aren't any modern labor laws in place, a lot of new facilities are being built in slavery conditions with some human rights violations in the background. Plus, most of the facilities are being abandoned after the WC is over.

Take the 94 WC for example, led to the creation of the MLS and brought football to the most commercialized country in the world. Huge success.

I would much rather have the WC in Morocco than in Russia or Qatar, mind.
 
squiggle said:
I'd like Morocco to get it but there are problems. I'm certainly no expert on the country but we can't complain about the issue of gay rights in Russia and then ignore the problem in Morocco, or its problems with press freedom e.g. in relation to the ongoing Western Sahara problem and Sahrawi refugees.

Edit: I think a difference might be that we (well, people like me) see Putin and Trump as retreating from modernity, but in our terms this could be a step into a more tolerant world for Morocco.
Click to expand...

1. Western Sahara isn't an issue on the ground: rather a geopolitical matter as Algeria just wants to annoy his neighbour (bad relationships between these countries, a war 55 years ago, Algeria finances some Sahrawi rebels...) so it's pretty irrelevant because you can guess the country doesn't have stadiums and a significant % of its population in the Sahara. In fact, it's a political tool to unite the country: a boring and repetitive saga

2. Morrocco and Tunisia are two different countries. Moroccans really don't care about the so-called press freedom because A) they just aspire to better material conditions of life and B) they know Royalty is the only one political regime that provides stability in a continent known for his unstability. Also, Mohammed 6 is seen there as a "modern King" more open-minded and democrat than his father. In terms of civil rights, the trend is positive.

I guess you know South-Africa did host a WC despite:

1) high crime rates: one of the highest in the World
2) racial matters: millions of people concerned against hundreds or thousands of gays in Morocco, a country of 35 millions people
3) the fact that Football isn't the uncontested sport in the country
4) ...
 
MDFC Manager said:
I read somewhere that there's fewer and fewer countries that are interested in hosting events like the FIFA WC, Olympics etc.
Click to expand...
I think the return on investment is quite average and not worth the effort.
If we take the economics of hosting a WC, I wonder how many WCs had a positive impact on a nation's economy.
 
List of stadiums in Morocco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_Morocco

The biggest seven are all in the main locations with good air, road and (with the exception of Agadir, though it should be connected by 2026) rail access and relatively moderate climate. The biggest city Casablanca has more than one.

Assuming they work at modernizing the available stadiums, improve the airports and roads and finish the high-speed rail service, it looks quite doable. Moroccan culture is a lot more easy-going than most of the other Arab countries (the other exceptions would be Lebanon, Tunisia and maybe the UAE). There are bars and nightclubs in all the major cities, although they're not always visible. It's still quite socially conservative by European standards, but they're long used to hosting Western tourists. And they fecking love their football.

Ecstatic said:
you can guess the country doesn't have stadiums in the Sahara.
Click to expand...

According to that list there is a 30,000 seater in the Western Sahara, be interesting to see if they use it; political implications aside it could be really really hot down there in June, it's further south than the Canaries.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
I think the return on investment is quite average and not worth the effort.
If we take the economics of hosting a WC, I wonder how many WCs had a positive impact on a nation's economy.
Click to expand...


The case of Greece (Euro 2004) is really interesting. A lot of stadiums that have been abandoned and unmaintained
 
Ecstatic said:
1. Western Sahara isn't an issue on the ground: rather a geopolitical matter as Algeria just wants to annoy his neighbour (bad relationships between these countries, a war 55 years ago, Algeria finances some Sahrawi rebels...) so it's pretty irrelevant because you can guess the country doesn't have stadiums and a significant % of its population in the Sahara. In fact, it's a political tool to unite the country: a boring and repetitive saga

2. Morrocco and Tunisia are two different countries. Moroccans really don't care about the so-called press freedom because A) they just aspire to better material conditions of life and B) they know Royalty is the only one political regime that provides stability in a continent known for his unstability. Also, Mohammed 6 is seen there as a "modern King" more open-minded and democrat than his father. In terms of civil rights, the trend is positive.

I guess you know South-Africa did host a WC despite:

1) high crime rates: one of the highest in the World
2) racial matters: millions of people concerned against hundreds or thousands of gays in Morocco, a country of 35 millions people
3) the fact that Football isn't the uncontested sport in the country
4) ...
Click to expand...

I was neither really in favour of or against the 2010 bid (which there were rumours Morocco won). And as I say, I'd like Morocco to get it. But it would be hypocritical to be dubious about Russia's hosting (or the USA's) and not about those of other countries, even if the issues don't have anything to do with the World Cup directly.

And the racial issues in South Africa... I'm not really sure what you mean. Of course there are serious problems but the main reason South Africa was chosen was to celebrate the fact that apartheid had failed. Whereas in Morocco, as in Russia, the problem remains a question of legal discrimination.
 
squiggle said:
I was neither really in favour of or against the 2010 (which there were rumours Morocco won). And as I say, I'd like Morocco to get it. But it would be hypocritical to be dubious about Russia's hosting and not about those of other countries, even if the issues don't have anything to do with the World Cup directly.

And the racial issues in South Africa... I'm not really sure what you mean. Of course there are serious problems but the main reason South Africa was chosen was to celebrate the fact that apartheid had failed. Whereas in Morocco, as in Russia, the problem remains a question of legal discrimination.
Click to expand...

I just mean there are issues everywhere... including in the most developed countries.

If you want to make countries change, then you need to trade with them. If you want to engage in a war with a country, the best way is to impose an embargo, blockades and put in place some policies of isolation.
 
Last edited:
Rafateria said:
In other words then you only want to give it to the wealthiest countries instead of spreading that wealth around and helping others develop.
Click to expand...

No simply that the World Cup should be a reward for investing in football, not a one off event where football isn't prioritised before and isn't prioritised after. Else it's just an excuse to make money. Countries that show a commitment to the game before and can show how they'll use the event to bolster the sport in their area after should be awarded. Not countries that demonstrably haven't given much of a toss about football but quite like the idea of making a few quid by hosting a one off event.
 
After controversial World Cups (Russia 2018/Qatar 2022), which nearly destroyed FIFA as a governing body, i can't see FIFA giving it to a country where problems might happen, they need a smooth World Cup after Qatar and with that they'll play safe and go with America.
 
If it weren’t already just about impossible to take FIFA and it’s members’ leadership seriously, they uncork this jewel. This is staggering on so many levels.
 
Rafateria said:
In other words then you only want to give it to the wealthiest countries instead of spreading that wealth around and helping others develop.
Click to expand...
Problem ist that word cups with the corrupt FIFA bring no wealth to developing countries. The footballing elites and officials benefit, FIFA benefits, their sponsors benefits, a few tourism branches benefit - and the majority of the country gain nothing or are even disadvantaged, see south Africa.
 
Man of Leisure said:
More recently, however, the North American bid has had to counter an anti-American sentiment that stems largely from actions taken by President Donald Trump's administration, multiple sources said.
Click to expand...


That's a joke. Whoever gets the win is the one who's paid the better/more hidden/more creative bribe.
 
Oscie said:
No simply that the World Cup should be a reward for investing in football, not a one off event where football isn't prioritised before and isn't prioritised after. Else it's just an excuse to make money. Countries that show a commitment to the game before and can show how they'll use the event to bolster the sport in their area after should be awarded. Not countries that demonstrably haven't given much of a toss about football but quite like the idea of making a few quid by hosting a one off event.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that small footballing countries should not get a chance, because their football is not big enough to attract loads of money? Or are you suggesting that developing countries, who do not have the budgets to invest in the building huge stadiums should not be considered.

So indirectly you are suggesting that wealthier countries should always get the WC.
 
Adisa said:
Don't get why it can't be Morocco.
Click to expand...
It's the usual nonsense you get with some when a world cup goes to a new market. Especially those that feel they have a God given right to it.

I'd love a Moroccan world cup.football crazy country...decent infrastructure and would easily be able to host a world cup if given a chance.

The more the world cup goes to new markets, the better. Would love to see it in either China or Australia at some point.
 
Oscie said:
No simply that the World Cup should be a reward for investing in football, not a one off event where football isn't prioritised before and isn't prioritised after. Else it's just an excuse to make money. Countries that show a commitment to the game before and can show how they'll use the event to bolster the sport in their area after should be awarded. Not countries that demonstrably haven't given much of a toss about football but quite like the idea of making a few quid by hosting a one off event.
Click to expand...
How much do you honestly know about Moroccan football?

These kind of threads usually lead to a lot of ignorant, ill informed posts.

Morocco has a strong football culture. Bid for the world cup before and lost out. Very strong domestic scene. One of their clubs is the current African champions and played at the club world cup. Morocco has a bigger football culture than the US at that.
 
K2K said:
It's the usual nonsense you get with some when a world cup goes to a new market. Especially those that feel they have a God given right to it.

I'd love a Moroccan world cup.football crazy country...decent infrastructure and would easily be able to host a world cup if given a chance.

The more the world cup goes to new markets, the better. Would love to see it in either China or Australia at some point.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Can't be the same countries recycling the thing.
Because that's what a lot of the arguments here sound like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.