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

[Vanrouge]

Isn't that more or less the same thing?

What? Can't let this go unchallenged. You might find that 165 million Canadians and Mexicans will disagree pretty strongly that the United States = North America.

 

[diplomat]

I'm sick and tired of the World Cup being used for some political point scoring/commercial gain.

If the US is seriously being considered to host it, having hosted it just over 20 years ago, and we're not in the frame, having not hosted it for over 60, then FIFA can feck off.

This. Politics are seriously taking over all sports these days, just like during the Cold War. It's scary and pathetic that people support this way of thinking because it brings huge danger to the healthy peaceful lives we live in our safe-spaces.

The USA is just as suspect as Russia in any sort of political way in the international relations, yet people seem to have no problem with them, whilst constantly criticising Russia for the same stuff. It's funny to see people choose sides without any real knowledge and just based on feelings. Very immature, in my opinion.

 

[OldTrevil]

Feck them. Keep all World Cups for Europe and Africa so that we get convenient timings.

 

[legolegs]

I didn't even know this was a north american joint bid upto now. So we'll get not just one but even two teams that can't get past Panama and Costa Rica and that right after Qatar? Awesome.

 

[Peyroteo]

 

[NotBrendanRodgers honest]

See but the big difference there is that the government itself isn't promoting those. The kingdom of Morocco is the one who has the law about jailing people for being homosexual. If FIFA wants to have it in morocco that is fine, i just dont want to see fifa fining or suspended people or fans for chanting homophobic things. That is just completely hypocritical to do that after awarding a world cup to a place that will jail you for being a homosexual. This doesn't even get to the facts about Russia and Qatar's stances.

And my main point was that people who complain about Trump and his travel ban being the cause, or things that Trump has said are just stupid reasons that people will prob use as an excuse to punish USA and specifically our DOJ for past events. If people want to debate Morocco and USA as it pertains to their stadia qualifications, enjoyment factor, or their ability to host a large tournament field effectively cool. I just think it is dumb to try and blame Trump for anything, especially considering the next two world cups can have leaders/governments making Trump look like a saint in comparison.

You do realise that the USA only formally legalised homosexual marriage as of 2015 where all states now have to support it under law? The first ever state to legalise same sex marriage in USA was only in 2004, 10 years after their first worlc cup in 94. This homosexuality issue is a relatively modern phenomenon so it's not really fair to bash countries with that, who are slowly catching up.

I'm not saying USA is a shithole but how can the worlds richest country not have a universal healthcare system, put their students under $50k+ debt for education, and bankrupts people with medical bills. Their healthcare system backhandedly kills millions, not to mention other issues like Trump, black people treatment by police, the CIA meddling in other country affairs, Iraq war killing 1million people etc...
No country is perfect but I'd sure say Morocco is a better destination for the WC on football alone

 

[juggernaut1986]

I may get some flak for this, but screw it...

While I understand that there have been only 2 official bids to host the 2026 World Cup, I cannot accept the possibility that Morocco will actually host the tournament instead of the United States/Mexico/Canada (I will just say US for the rest of this, as they would host the majority of the games).

For one, Morocco has a population of about 31 million. US Youth soccer programs + high school soccer participation yields roughly 5 million players per year. Not to mention, approximately 16 million Americans have admitted to playing soccer in the past 12 months. In terms of participation and enthusiasm, the United States leads the way.

Now, let's look at the growth of football in the US during the past decade and how much of that growth has contributed to the increased profitability of the game, more specifically, within FIFA. NBC Sports in the USA now pays just under $170 million per year for EPL matches. Fox Sports 1 (FS1) paid more than $400 million for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. When I was a child there was rarely any football on TV, instead there was the optional and pricey Fox Soccer Channel that had weekly EPL fixtures and the FA Cup. The incredible growth of passionate football fans in the US over the past decade has bolstered the reputation of the game globally, not to mention, indirectly fueled the expansion of domestic leagues in countries such as China and Australia. Being awarded the 2026 World Cup would be global acknowledgement that the US is massively important to the balance sheet of football and FIFA.

The MLS has also been expanding and will soon hit 28 teams. They also have a nice contract with ESPN for broadcasting rights. The US also has plenty of ready, state-of-the-art stadiums in every geographic region.

And let me ask this, what exactly would Morocco be exhibiting as a host nation that the US or Mexico wouldn't? Football's rate of growth in Morocco is easily surpassed by the US, among other nations - based on total participants and revenue via broadcast contracts.

I'm not anti-Morocco by any means, but relative to the US, their bid should not hold water. If China was allowed a bid (not allowed because of Qatar's accepted bid) I would value their attempt more than Morocco's as well - fandom and the financial growth of football is critical. South Africa hosted and did quite well, but I don't think anyone really remembers anything about their contribution to football, nor did the nation undergo a tremendous economic upswing after hosting. I just believe that the US should be rewarded for their massive contributions to the development of the game, especially in the realm where it matters most - spurring the increased value of football with big money contracts.

By this logic, small countries have no right to host the World Cup. I hate to see population and area being brought into this argument. In fact, I prefer small countries to host the World Cup. Easier for the teams and the fans to travel.

Big money will be spent by American TV channels even if Morocco hosts the World Cup. Even the numbers you quoted aren't that impressive. Do you know that a Cricket league in India, which runs for only 2 months a year, fetched more that $500 million per year in TV rights? Money in pumped into sports everywhere in the World. Football will grow no matter who hosts the World Cup. Fans will visit Russia and Qatar too. In fact, I believe that Russia will positively surprise fans this year, based on my experience of visiting the country last year.

In my opinion Morocco is an excellent choice for the World Cup. A country passionate about Football, a tourist friendly nation which is a top pick for vacations. They already have some big stadiums and will definitely build more for the World Cup. I know that US is a great choice too but the general attitude of dismissing the Moroccan bid is downright arrogance. They have as much right to host the World Cup as any other country.

I am sorry, but the bolded part is pure nonsense. Football was the most popular sport in the World years before it gained popularity in the US. Premier League can actually claim to have fueled the expansion of the game in different parts of the World, not the US.

 

[diplomat]

I am sorry, but the bolded part is pure nonsense. Football was the most popular sport in the World years before it gained popularity in the US. Premier League can actually claim to have fueled the expansion of the game in different parts of the World, not the US.

Some people believe the world starts and ends with USA.

 

[Brwned]

Morocco? North Africa isnt exactly the safest place to stage a WC is it...

What do you mean? Morocco ranked 123rd out of 163 countries in the Global Terrorism Index, closer to its neighbours across the sea in Spain (85th) and Portugal (134th) than the places you're thinking of in North Africa. The US is 32nd, Mexico is 61st and Canada is 66th. Or if you were you thinking more in terms of domestic violence, Morocco is 177th out of 219 for the murder rate (the US is 94th with almost 5x as many murders per 100,000, and Mexico is 23rd with 15x as many). You might be justified in worrying more about being pickpocketed in Morocco than major cities in the US...but everything else is just casual xenophobia.

Fair enough, but it's still an unpopular opinion. The US is one of the most visited countries in the world by tourists. Statistically most people would prefer the US as a vacation destination over Morocco.

A large part of that can be put down to perceptions like the above, instinctively equating Morocco with other remarkably different countries. Morocco is a beautiful country with a rich culture and history, and the idea that it would be a bad experience for a tourist isn't something the majority of people who have been there would say.

The world cup in South Africa wasn't a failure.
You can't restrict what is the world's premier door to a handful of developed countries. And who says the infrastructural development from hosting the world cup can't last?

Serious question? There's a whole phrase created for exactly that phenomenon. It's not about preventing "developing" countries from being given a prize. It's about preventing them from investing billions in something which has consistently proven to be financially imprudent. They often come with large social costs with little to no evidence of any social benefits, too. There's lots of talk about Qatar's construction workers deaths, but the idea that this kind of thing is an isolated issue driven by a particular country's laws is just wrong. The exact same kind of incident happened for the Winter Olympics in Russia, and there were significant social costs of their own distinct nature in Sydney, Vancouver, Beijing and Rio. In other words, every continent the Olympics have been to since they were introduced. The World Cup isn't different.

Large sporting events are good for "inspiring the people", which can be translated as allowing politicians to make stupid economic and social decisions with lasting impacts through propaganda perpetuated by the likes of FIFA. It's unfortunate that the xenophobia gets mixed in with the majority of people arguing against Morocco, because it makes it seem like arguing against it is driven by emotions. The reality is the opposite is true, in both senses.

Pageantry and promises of social and economic boosts have long been a selling point for mega sporting events. However, investments made in new infrastructure required to host such events can cause long-term stress on local economies and the environment, not to mention the human cost of relocation and potential death of workers associated with some tournaments. As explained by sport economist Andrew Zimbalist, mega sporting events require short-term, exceptionally large investments in infrastructure, often resulting in costly stadiums that become ‘white elephants’ - structures that not only put a financial strain on cities but may become useless after the event.

One of the few mega sporting events to make a profit was the Olympic Games of 1984 in Los Angeles, but this was mainly due to the decision to use existing sport facilities. Since then cities have built new purpose stadiums or lavishly renovated existing ones only to have them fall into disrepair. While cities try their best to encourage the use of these white elephants for football matches and concerts profits fall short as exemplified by Estadio Nacional in Brazil's capital Brasilia. Renovations cost $900 million but revenue hovers around $500,000 annually. Some stadiums are abandoned altogether.

In Cape Town, authorities wanted to renovate an existing stadium, Athlone Stadium, to host the World Cup matches. This stadium is located in an impoverished district, Cape Flats, that could have benefited economically from the project. Hosting some of the World Cup matches there would have been a symbolically important gesture, since the working-class black population of Cape Flats is similar to the majority of soccer fans in the country. (White middle-class South Africans are more likely to attend rugby or cricket matches.)

Cape Town also offered to renovate a rugby stadium, Newlands, to serve as its World Cup venue. The Athlone or Newlands options would have been far cheaper than building a completely new stadium. But FIFA insisted on a new stadium on Cape Town's spectacular waterfront – largely to make the matches more attractive to its global television audience. "A billion television viewers don't want to see shacks and poverty," one FIFA delegate told the local officials, according to a report in a leading South African newspaper. So the city was forced to tear down an existing waterfront stadium and build a new stadium on the same site – an inaccessible site for many black soccer fans from the townships who cannot afford the cost of travelling there.

Cape Town Stadium soon fell into disuse after the World Cup, except for occasional pop concerts and local soccer matches. One local team, Ajax Cape Town, agreed to hold its matches at the stadium, but it attracted only a few thousand fans – filling less than 10 per cent of the 55,000 seats. In March, the team announced it was moving out of the stadium because it was too costly and the pitch was in poor condition. On a recent afternoon in Cape Town, six men could be seen on the stadium roof, retouching the paint and getting rid of the rust that constantly accumulates from the sea-salt in the breeze. It takes six weeks to clean the whole thing, and then they start again.

City officials say they are constantly bidding for events to hold at the stadium, but they rarely succeed. They have tried to attract rugby teams to the stadium, but those teams still prefer their traditional Newlands home. The website for Cape Town Stadium currently lists only a single scheduled event: a concert by the pop group One Direction in April 2015.

The same massive waste of money was suffered by Durban, where FIFA insisted on the construction of a new $380-million waterfront stadium even though an existing 55,00-seat rugby stadium next door to the site and could have been easily expanded for the World Cup. After the World Cup ended, the rugby team refused to move to the new stadium, saying it could not afford the rent. In both Cape Town and Durban, the irony is that the old stadiums are still much more popular and heavily attended than the new World Cup stadiums.

"It was obvious that there was no need for a new stadium in either Cape Town or Durban," a report by the Danish Institute for Sports Studies concluded. "It is quite clear that the cities and their citizens have not seen any economic benefits from the venues, and therefore the sporting legacy of the event is highly questionable."

The absence of fans has given several municipalities who own the World Cup stadiums around the country a king-sized headache as they battle to ensure the financial sustainability of the venues. A prime example is the 54,000-seat Cape Town Stadium, magnificently set with the world famous Table Mountain and Robben Island as backdrops. Maintenance costs have drained the city council’s coffers by R42m (£2.4m) a year with very little income to offset that expenditure.

Nearly every time the Olympics come to a city, they remind us how little human life and dignity are worth compared to the hardware required to pull them off. In the run-up to the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, some 1.5 million Beijingers lost their homes, by one count. By then, one study estimated, some two million people had been forcibly moved in 20 years in order to make room for Olympic structures around the world. In Vancouver, the build-up to the Olympics led to a housing squeeze, which, in turn, caused homelessness to spike in the years leading up to the 2010 Winter Games there. On top of the construction deaths in the run-up to the Sochi Olympics, thousands were displaced as the city made room for stadiums and rinks that would be used a handful of times.

Rarely are the Olympics a good investment for the host country. There are always cost overruns and they are always massive, often leaving host cities in debt for years afterward, and the objects the money is spent on are so transient and ultimately useless that they qualify for an academic term: white elephants. Pre-Olympic talk always focuses on how Olympic Villages and venues will promote development, tourism, and infrastructure, and will host future athletic events. Yet this hardly ever pans out. The subsequent tournaments and championships are inevitably smaller, or, as in Rio’s case, don’t come at all. And that’s just the hard, physical structures. Take, for example, the gobs of cash it took to stockpile snowfor the Sochi Winter Olympics—simply because Russia, a country where much of the territory is winter-bound for much of the year, decided to have the Winter Olympics in its one subtropical city.

The vast sums of money it takes to pay for the Olympics don’t come from nowhere. They usually come from taxpayer funds that could be paying for something vital. While it was paying for preparations for the Sydney games, for instance, the local government of New South Wales also saw declines in its health and education budgets. In Russia, the cost was footed by state-run banks like VEB at a time when the economy was turning toward full-on recession.

 

[Raoul]

By this logic, small countries have no right to host the World Cup. I hate to see population and area being brought into this argument. In fact, I prefer small countries to host the World Cup. Easier for the teams and the fans to travel.

Big money will be spent by American TV channels even if Morocco hosts the World Cup. Even the numbers you quoted aren't that impressive. Do you know that a Cricket league in India, which runs for only 2 months a year, fetched more that $500 million per year in TV rights? Money in pumped into sports everywhere in the World. Football will grow no matter who hosts the World Cup. Fans will visit Russia and Qatar too. In fact, I believe that Russia will positively surprise fans this year, based on my experience of visiting the country last year.

In my opinion Morocco is an excellent choice for the World Cup. A country passionate about Football, a tourist friendly nation which is a top pick for vacations. They already have some big stadiums and will definitely build more for the World Cup. I know that US is a great choice too but the general attitude of dismissing the Moroccan bid is downright arrogance. They have as much right to host the World Cup as any other country.

I am sorry, but the bolded part is pure nonsense. Football was the most popular sport in the World years before it gained popularity in the US. Premier League can actually claim to have fueled the expansion of the game in different parts of the World, not the US.

The Premier League, probably moreso than the MLS, has actually fueled the growth of football in the US. Once NBC bought the rights, it has exploded over here, now that anyone can watch virtually any match on Live TV. I think the argument for a North American WC that is split among three countries would therefore be quite compelling.

 

[shamans]

As I viewer I would much rather see world cup in a place like Morocco. There would be so much passion and character to the world cup. U.S would be quiet bland.

 

[Giggs86]

You do realise that the USA only formally legalised homosexual marriage as of 2015 where all states now have to support it under law? The first ever state to legalise same sex marriage in USA was only in 2004, 10 years after their first worlc cup in 94. This homosexuality issue is a relatively modern phenomenon so it's not really fair to bash countries with that, who are slowly catching up.

What does legalizing same-sex marriage got to do with anything? The lack of legal status didn't mean that they were mistreated or thrown to jail. They still have enjoyed equal rights in every aspect of their lives, a thing that can't be said about gay people in muslim countries.

 

[kouroux]

Hope Morocco gets it because I don't wanna wake up at awkward hours to watch games..

 

[limerickcitykid]

As I viewer I would much rather see world cup in a place like Morocco. There would be so much passion and character to the world cup. U.S would be quiet bland.

Bland how?

 

[Rafateria]

I may get some flak for this, but screw it...

While I understand that there have been only 2 official bids to host the 2026 World Cup, I cannot accept the possibility that Morocco will actually host the tournament instead of the United States/Mexico/Canada (I will just say US for the rest of this, as they would host the majority of the games).

For one, Morocco has a population of about 31 million. US Youth soccer programs + high school soccer participation yields roughly 5 million players per year. Not to mention, approximately 16 million Americans have admitted to playing soccer in the past 12 months. In terms of participation and enthusiasm, the United States leads the way.

Now, let's look at the growth of football in the US during the past decade and how much of that growth has contributed to the increased profitability of the game, more specifically, within FIFA. NBC Sports in the USA now pays just under $170 million per year for EPL matches. Fox Sports 1 (FS1) paid more than $400 million for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. When I was a child there was rarely any football on TV, instead there was the optional and pricey Fox Soccer Channel that had weekly EPL fixtures and the FA Cup. The incredible growth of passionate football fans in the US over the past decade has bolstered the reputation of the game globally, not to mention, indirectly fueled the expansion of domestic leagues in countries such as China and Australia. Being awarded the 2026 World Cup would be global acknowledgement that the US is massively important to the balance sheet of football and FIFA.

The MLS has also been expanding and will soon hit 28 teams. They also have a nice contract with ESPN for broadcasting rights. The US also has plenty of ready, state-of-the-art stadiums in every geographic region.

And let me ask this, what exactly would Morocco be exhibiting as a host nation that the US or Mexico wouldn't? Football's rate of growth in Morocco is easily surpassed by the US, among other nations - based on total participants and revenue via broadcast contracts.

I'm not anti-Morocco by any means, but relative to the US, their bid should not hold water. If China was allowed a bid (not allowed because of Qatar's accepted bid) I would value their attempt more than Morocco's as well - fandom and the financial growth of football is critical. South Africa hosted and did quite well, but I don't think anyone really remembers anything about their contribution to football, nor did the nation undergo a tremendous economic upswing after hosting. I just believe that the US should be rewarded for their massive contributions to the development of the game, especially in the realm where it matters most - spurring the increased value of football with big money contracts.

Absolutely horrific viewpoint. So American (whether you are American or not) ... money rules all.

 

[Rafateria]

There's a lot of misinformation about the US in that post.

Tourists are rarely affected by inner city problems like drugs and human trafficking. Don't see how is that at all relevant to traveling football fans or tourists overall.

You missed the point of the post but to take you up on yours, where exactly do you think the matches will be played ? Indiana wheat fields or the Carolinas' golf courses ? Major cities. And you don't think that nefarious types will look to take advantage of that ?

 

[Kostur]

Ever since our players were greeted by that fecking McDonald clown during our USA tour, any WC to USA should be a big no no.

 

[Rafateria]

Then tell me, why does Morocco deserve it more than China? China throws gobs of money at footballers and United even toured there a few years ago. Seem like they deserve it, at least a little, no?

My decision criteria would be this: let the World Cup be a reward for a nation's contribution to the growth of football. Russia and Qatar haven't really done that as much as the US, so it's easy to see why there are allegations of corruption. Brazil was a great host. Additionally, let's throw the whole "let the World Cup be an exhibition of a nation's culture" out the window. Nonsense. People didn't go to Brazil to samba, they went to watch football. Why? Because they love the game and Brazil's 5 World Cup trophies are proof of that.

I was going to answer this and your assertion that China deserves a WC however I see you're getting ripped apart by others on a number of your vews so I'll give you break. You clearly know SFA about China though.

 

[Rafateria]

By this logic, small countries have no right to host the World Cup. I hate to see population and area being brought into this argument. In fact, I prefer small countries to host the World Cup. Easier for the teams and the fans to travel.

Big money will be spent by American TV channels even if Morocco hosts the World Cup. Even the numbers you quoted aren't that impressive. Do you know that a Cricket league in India, which runs for only 2 months a year, fetched more that $500 million per year in TV rights? Money in pumped into sports everywhere in the World. Football will grow no matter who hosts the World Cup. Fans will visit Russia and Qatar too. In fact, I believe that Russia will positively surprise fans this year, based on my experience of visiting the country last year.

In my opinion Morocco is an excellent choice for the World Cup. A country passionate about Football, a tourist friendly nation which is a top pick for vacations. They already have some big stadiums and will definitely build more for the World Cup. I know that US is a great choice too but the general attitude of dismissing the Moroccan bid is downright arrogance. They have as much right to host the World Cup as any other country.

I am sorry, but the bolded part is pure nonsense. Football was the most popular sport in the World years before it gained popularity in the US. Premier League can actually claim to have fueled the expansion of the game in different parts of the World, not the US.

That bolded bit sums it up very nicely. The vast majority of people in this thread are quite clearly pro a Moroccan WC over the US one and with good reason (there are numerous reasons but the fact the USA held it last in 1994 is a very strong one against them IMHO, twice in nine tournaments spits in the face of equality).

 

[Rafateria]

The incredible growth of passionate football fans in the US over the past decade has bolstered the reputation of the game globally, not to mention, indirectly fueled the expansion of domestic leagues in countries such as China and Australia.

Sorry to quote this post again but .......... I've just noticed this and WTF ?!?! I said in an earlier post that you clearly know absolutely nothing about China/Chinese football but that quote borders on pure delusion, and I'm not just referring to the 'China' bit but the reputation of the game globally too. As if.

 

[AlwaysRed66]

What exactly is Morocco's rich football history that the US pales in comparison to?

It has a proper league system for one, where sides are promoted & relegated depending on how they do each year, which all real footballing nations have. Not have one where franchises are bought & sides don't have to worry how poor they are as they will always be part of that league.

 

[limerickcitykid]

It has a proper league system for one, where sides are promoted & relegated depending on how they do each year, which all real footballing nations have. Not have one where franchises are bought & sides don't have to worry how poor they are as they will always be part of that league.

That's not rich football history.

 

[André Dominguez]

That's not rich football history.

OK.Let's compare the best footballers ever from Morocco and USA. And let's check who has more players at decent/big clubs. Do I really need to go further?

Yes, USMNT has a fantastic team spirit, that's their strenght. But they lack the creativity and ambition to do more and more.

 

[André Dominguez]

Good place to make a WC. Morocco is a pretty safe country, where the locals are friendly to you (except if you're french or spanish). In major cities women are pretty safe on their own. In interior villages things might change because pepople are very traditional.

The food is great, and has great beaches. And the passion for football is much much better than the USA.

 

[Schneckerl]

OK.Let's compare the best footballers ever from Morocco and USA. And let's check who has more players at decent/big clubs. Do I really need to go further?

Morocco having a better (or less awful) history than USA, doesn't mean they have a rich football history.

 

[2ndTouch]

What? Can't let this go unchallenged. You might find that 165 million Canadians and Mexicans will disagree pretty strongly that the United States = North America.

I was under the impression of Mexico belonging to Central America, my bad.

 

[André Dominguez]

Morocco having a better (or less awful) history than USA, doesn't mean they have a rich football history.

Richer than US :P
They already had 1994. They shouldn't be gluttons, really

 

[limerickcitykid]

OK.Let's compare the best footballers ever from Morocco and USA. And let's check who has more players at decent/big clubs. Do I really need to go further?

Yes, USMNT has a fantastic team spirit, that's their strenght. But they lack the creativity and ambition to do more and more.

Who are the best players from Morocco?
All I'm seeing in the current side are some players who weren't born or raised in Morocco, so hardly gives them a rich football history. The US has/had its fair share of players at big and decent clubs too.
The US has performed better at World Cups and has qualified to twice as many.

Yes please go further as you haven't actually posted any meaningful info to how they pale in comparison.

 

[RedRom]

It has a proper league system for one, where sides are promoted & relegated depending on how they do each year, which all real footballing nations have. Not have one where franchises are bought & sides don't have to worry how poor they are as they will always be part of that league.

Really?? Chivas are still in the league? So are Miami Fusion?

 

[limerickcitykid]

I was under the impression of Mexico belonging to Central America, my bad.

Central America isn't even a continent.

 

[AlwaysRed66]

Who are the best players from Morocco?
All I'm seeing in the current side are some players who weren't born or raised in Morocco, so hardly gives them a rich football history. The US has/had its fair share of players at big and decent clubs too.
The US has performed better at World Cups and has qualified to twice as many.

Yes please go further as you haven't actually posted any meaningful info to how they pale in comparison.

That is hilarious. The US has a history of having people of all sports representing them, who were never born or raised there. As for their record of performing better at world cups & qualifying. Couldn't this be more to do that Morocco has to qualify in a very competitive African federation, than through CONCACAF which is full of very ordinary nations. Even then the US has failed to get through against this opposition for this world cup, losing out to the mighty Costa Rica & Panama.

 

[limerickcitykid]

That is hilarious. The US has a history of having people of all sports representing them, who were never born or raised there. As for their record of performing better at world cups & qualifying. Couldn't this be more to do that Morocco has to qualify in a very competitive African federation, than through CONCACAF which is full of very ordinary nations. Even then the US has failed to get through against this opposition for this world cup, losing out to the mighty Costa Rica & Panama.

Yes so they both have, so similar. Where is the paling in comparison? Most of the US' best players have been born there as well.

They've performed better at the actual World Cup's too. The African qualifications isn't of the highest standard either and the US failed to qualify this one time. Morocco failed the previous 4 times.

I'm seeing no rich football history in which the US pales in comparison too.

 

[André Dominguez]

Who are the best players from Morocco?
All I'm seeing in the current side are some players who weren't born or raised in Morocco, so hardly gives them a rich football history. The US has/had its fair share of players at big and decent clubs too.
The US has performed better at World Cups and has qualified to twice as many.

Yes please go further as you haven't actually posted any meaningful info to how they pale in comparison.

Do you really want to compare the difference between getting qualified for the WC in CAF vs CONCACAF?

I've seen more decent players from Morocco in several leagues than the ones from the US over the years. Most of those players were not even top club material, but they were good enough to make a solid career. Same can't be said about US players, who could barely get minutes or good performances.

For you having a richer history is all about results, I guess. Look at Czech Republic team: they never won a title and between 2002 and 2004 they played amazing football, and even today many people remeber their great generation.

I think things might change in the future, but it needs a really mentality tweak from the grassroot level.

 

[limerickcitykid]

Do you really want to compare the difference between getting qualified for the WC in CAF vs CONCACAF?

I've seen more decent players from Morocco in several leagues than the ones from the US over the years. Most of those players were not even top club material, but they were good enough to make a solid career. Same can't be said about US players, who could barely get minutes or good performances.

For you having a richer history is all about results, I guess. Look at Czech Republic team: they never won a title and between 2002 and 2004 they played amazing football, and even today many people remeber their great generation.

I think things might change in the future, but it needs a really mentality tweak from the grassroot level.

You don't even need to compare the qualifying, they haven't done as well when they got there either.

Name these players. You aren't giving any proof of this rich history other than just saying rich history.

There are plenty of Americans who have good careers as well and there are currently plenty of young Americans making their way in Europe as well. So the same can be said of US players.

Where is Morocco's great generation like Czech? The Czech had some decent results at Euros anyway.

 

[André Dominguez]

You don't even need to compare the qualifying, they haven't done as well when they got there either.

Name these players. You aren't giving any proof of this rich history other than just saying rich history.

There are plenty of Americans who have good careers as well and there are currently plenty of young Americans making their way in Europe as well. So the same can be said of US players.

Where is Morocco's great generation like Czech? The Czech had some decent results at Euros anyway.

The qualifying in CAF is much more harder than in the CONCACAF. It's not even debatable.

I was giving an example in how results can be deceiving. I could had picked another team, like Turkey in 2002, it was just an example.

Do you really want me to name former players you can easily find on google? Come on, US best former player is Donovan.

Why are you taking this so personally? In the end is just a matter of opinion. We agree to disagree

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

I know Morocco has a league, but I had no idea they had the infrastructure and stadium sizes to accomodate a WC?

Anyway, it'd be a cool choice, actually.

 

[limerickcitykid]

The qualifying in CAF is much more harder than in the CONCACAF. It's not even debatable.

I was giving an example in how results can be deceiving. I could had picked another team, like Turkey in 2002, it was just an example.

Do you really want me to name former players you can easily find on google? Come on, US best former player is Donovan.

Why are you taking this so personally? In the end is just a matter of opinion. We agree to disagree

Yes, name the players. How many times do I have to ask?

Donovan played for Leverkusen, Bayern, and Everton. Many Americans would say Dempsey was better too. Played for Spurs and twice player of the year for a top half PL side. Decent clubs at the top level.

I don't care about Czech or Turkey's strong sides in the past. I'm asking about Morocco.

It's not personal, I'm neither American or Moroccan. I'm questioning the notion Morocco has a rich football history which the US pales in comparison to. Which a few people have claimed but none actually backed up. Isn't this what a forum is for?

 

[André Dominguez]

Yes, name the players. How many times do I have to ask?

Donovan played for Leverkusen, Bayern, and Everton. Many Americans would say Dempsey was better too. Played for Spurs and twice player of the year for a top half PL side. Decent clubs at the top level.

I don't care about Czech or Turkey's strong sides in the past. I'm asking about Morocco.

It's not personal, I'm neither American or Moroccan. I'm questioning the notion Morocco has a rich football history which the US pales in comparison to. Which a few people have claimed but none actually backed up. Isn't this what a forum is for?

Since you named two players I will also name two :P

Naybet was for several seasons one of the best center backs in Europe and La Liga and part of the best Deportivo historical phase ever. Bare in mind that Deportivo was one of the most solid clubs at La Liga and Europe at those times.

Mustapha Hadji: he was a fantastic dribler and creative player. Was a bit inconsistent, but whenever the ball was on his feet, you could feel anything could happen. He even has a signature move: no look backheel pass.

 

[Rafateria]

National Sport : Morocco (football). USA (God knows, there are 4 major sports anyway but football is way down the list)

National Leagues formed : Morocco : UNAF - 1911. USA : USAFA - 1913.
Football virtually disappeared from the USA after 1913 except at grass roots levels (though the USFA and USSFA still oversaw the sport), until it's reappearance in 1960 however the ASL (a new league after others became defunct) was formed in 1921. MLS was formed in 1993 it's prerunners rising and failing until it's formation, those namely being the NASL which failed in 1984, and the USL which failed in 1985. The only surviving league in the whole of the USA was then the WSL with just four teams. So effectively USA's current domestic (real?) footballing history only started after it's re-birth & evolution in 1993.

Morocco : 5 appearances in the World Cup and they were the first Arab or African nation to do so (1986), note even though they had a national team they did not enter the competition until 1962, but have since qualified for 5 of the past 10 events where they have a 2-4-7 record, despite the strong competition they face in the African section.
USA : 9 appearances (3 prior to 1964 and they failed to qualify for the 1964 to 1986 events) but given that qualification should almost be a given for them, considering their opposition, a head-to-head is not really a valid metric.

USA's best performance post 1930 (when they were 3rd but only played 3 games, 2-0-1) was in 2002 when they made the 1/4 finals (and finished with 2-1-2 record for the event). That is the only time the USA has made it past the last 16 since 1934 and their overall record is 8-6-19. Morocco's best performance came in 1986 where they reached the last 16 (1-2-1 record).

Passion for Football : no contest the Moroccan's are fanatical both domestically and for their national team. It should also be noted that Moroccan football history goes back pre-Independence (1956) when many Moroccans were playing in the French league as far back as 1912.
It's entirely unsurprising that football has been played in the USA for longer (given that it was the British and German immigrants that played it on arrival), what is very surprising however is it's determinedly snail-like progression over the past nearly 200 years and multiple total collapses !

This for me is what makes Moroccan footballing history and culture so much richer, that US football pales in comparison, in one country it is their passion and national sport, in the other a sport for youngsters not deemed worthy of adult support except by those people with strong latin or hispanic roots and which effectively began in 1984. A country of 326 million people struggles to have even one real professional league survive and that after many failures/collapses due to national indifference.
____________

I will point out that I don't think national team performances per se should be any sort of qualifying criteria to become a WC host. Most of this is just an FYI.

 

[Ecstatic]

Larbi Benbarek was born and raised in Morocco in the period when the country was under the French rule. The first African star and the first to bear the nickname of "Black Pearl", Ben Barek blazed a trail to the European, and particularly French and Spanish, leagues. He arrived in Marseille, France at the age of 20, and became an instant favourite with the fans for his skills and technical abilities. Pele took the name of the "Black Pearl" after he made a famous statement about Larbi: "If I am the King of Football, then Larbi Ben Barek is the God of it".

He is largely remembered as the first successful black footballer in Europe.

His career was interrupted by the onset of World War II but he was soon back to his best with Stade Français FC and then in Spain, with Atlético Madrid, where he truly blossomed and where his international fame spread. His nickname with the fans in Spain was "The Foot of God". With the help of Benbarek, Atlético won La Liga in 1950 and 1951. He returned to Marseille in 1953. In 1955, he joined USM Bel-Abbès, where he ended his playing career.

One of the finest players ever to represent France, he made 19 appearances for the French national team between 1938 and 1954. But his comeback in 1954 against Germany in Hanover was curtailed by an injury after half an hour and proved to be the end of his career.