The president of the United States Soccer Federation, which organizes the men’s and women’s national soccer teams that compete in the FIFA World Cups, says the chances the U.S. could host the 2026 World Cup could be in jeopardy if Donald Trump is elected president.
“I think a co-hosted World Cup with Mexico would be trickier if Secretary Clinton isn’t in the White House,” Gulati said Tuesday. “I think the world’s perception of the U.S. is affected by who is in the White House, yes, so it has some bearing, sure. Having somebody in the White House that gives the country an outward-looking view and a personality that is more easier accepted around the world is positive for the United States and then more specifically for hosting events here and for our general image from a sports perspective, but it’s far beyond sports.”
Still, Gulati isn’t saying a Trump election would kill the U.S.’s hosting chances. “There are a lot of considerations that go into bids, for sure,” Gulati said.
Even if the next president is re-elected in 2020, they’d be out of office by the time the 2026 World Cup comes around. But the hosting rights for the 2026 World Cup will be decided in 2020, during the next presidential term. Although the U.S. Soccer Federation organizes the hosting bids, support from the federal government is helpful, even if it’s only symbolic.
Public opposition from the president would certainly hurt. That’s not out of the question from a Trump administration. Hundreds of thousands of fans from any number of countries would come to the U.S. to watch the World Cup. Given Trump’s opposition to immigration and proposal to ban Muslim travel to the country, it wouldn’t be shocking to see him oppose a U.S. World Cup bid.
Furthermore, the U.S. Soccer Federation is considering a co-host bid with Mexico or Canada. Trump isn’t exactly popular in those countries. In September 2015, Mexican channel TV Azteca made a promotion for a U.S.-Mexico soccer match that featured Trump’s controversial comments about Mexican immigrants: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you.” If the U.S. Soccer Federation did find a co-host bid with Mexico desirable, Trump in the White House could complicate that working relationship or cause Mexico to reject the idea.
Hosting a World Cup would be an important competitive boost for the U.S. soccer team. In the book Soccernomics, authors Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski show that home-field advantage in a soccer match is worth the equivalent of 0.6 extra goals per game. In other words, for every two matches played, the U.S. soccer team would score at least one extra goal than they otherwise would, simply because home-field advantage helps them. As host, the U.S. would also automatically qualify for the tournament and be seeded in such a way that it would face easier competition in the World Cup’s group stage.
Hosting the World Cup would also boost the U.S. soccer team in the long run, pumping more interest and money into the game. After the U.S. hosted the World Cup in 1994, there was finally enough interest for a major soccer league like MLS to take off.
In late 2010, the U.S. finished second to Qatar in the vote to host the 2022 World Cup. That same day, Russia was awarded the hosting rights for the 2018 World Cup. At the time, Vladimir Putin was the Russian Prime Minister and still very much the public face of the Russian government, but the vote came before Putin’s international reputation had deteriorated based on his 2014 aggression in Crimea.
The U.S. won’t win or lose World Cup hosting rights based on the president’s reputation alone, but it could make a bigger difference than you think.
Jason Russell is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
