Good morning and welcome to The Football Newsletter. It’s the morning of November 6th, the day after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and as readers open this newsletter, the result may still be hanging in the balance. Whether former president Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged victorious, one thing is certain: in 2026, the United States will host the men’s World Cup for the first time in over three decades, with North American neighbours Canada and Mexico by its side.

Given the timing, it’s only natural that we revisit the story of how the U.S. won the 2026 bid—especially given how much American politics influenced that journey. With a new—or returning—president about to take office, we’ll take you through the complex web of diplomacy, negotiation, and influence that led to the “United” bid’s success, despite a backdrop of divisive U.S. politics.

When the United bid launched in April 2017, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico faced an unexpected challenge: they were competing against Morocco to host the 2026 tournament. Morocco offered a singular, unified bid, while the U.S. was in the midst of an administration often criticised for its rhetoric and policies toward Mexico, as well as its stance on immigration and trade. These factors created significant hurdles for a “United” bid that aimed to unify North America’s soccer ambitions.

From the start, the U.S. bid committee had to navigate tricky waters. President Trump had famously promised to build a wall along the Mexican border and had implemented restrictions on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. With FIFA’s new one-member, one-vote system, the U.S. needed support from 211 member nations, each influenced by political and cultural sensitivities. This raised questions about whether the global soccer community would align with a U.S.-led effort at a time when American foreign policy was making waves.

Despite these challenges, the United bid emerged victorious in a vote held in Moscow in June 2018, winning 134 votes to Morocco’s 65. Here’s how they did it.

Behind the scenes, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, became a crucial player for the bid. Known for his role in the White House as an advisor and head of the Office of American Innovation, Kushner acted as the main link between the bid team and the administration. His influence extended beyond the initial win—he continued to advocate for U.S. interests in the World Cup even after Trump left office, helping to secure the World Cup final at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium over competitors like AT&T Stadium in Texas.

Through his diplomatic connections, particularly in the Middle East, Kushner helped build support for the United bid among Gulf states. In the months leading up to the vote, Saudi Arabia emerged as a crucial ally, providing much-needed support in a region where Morocco had expected strong backing. Kushner’s role exemplifies the often-overlooked diplomatic side of World Cup bidding, especially in a climate where politics and sport frequently intersect.

A key obstacle for the bid committee was addressing Trump’s sometimes inflammatory statements. Bid officials frequently downplayed Trump’s rhetoric to reassure FIFA voters, reminding them that even if he won a second term, he would be out of office by 2025, before the 2026 tournament. Of course, no one predicted that Trump would seek re-election in 2024, adding an extra twist to today’s newsletter discussion.

Sources close to the bid recall balancing Trump’s presence by bringing Canada and Mexico on board, promoting a truly North American effort. With the U.S. DOJ’s crackdown on FIFA corruption still fresh, and lingering resentment among FIFA’s electorate, the bid needed to appear as collaborative as possible. Mexican and Canadian involvement softened the U.S. presence, particularly with Trump’s relationship with Mexico a point of global scrutiny.

The United bid focused its pitch on a promise that few could ignore: the potential to make 2026 the most profitable World Cup in history. The bid projected revenues of $14 billion, with an $11 billion profit for FIFA—a tantalizing figure for the 211 FIFA member associations that rely on funding from the organization. By leaning into this financial promise, the U.S.-led bid underscored that hosting the World Cup in North America would benefit FIFA’s global projects.

The U.S. also leveraged its ready-made infrastructure, with state-of-the-art NFL stadiums capable of hosting massive crowds and generating revenue. Unlike Morocco, which faced concerns over infrastructure in FIFA’s evaluation report, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico promised a turn-key operation. This emphasis on financial security and infrastructure set a powerful tone that resonated with FIFA members.

Morocco, aiming to capitalize on its cultural and regional ties, expected widespread support across Africa and the Middle East. However, the United bid deployed targeted diplomacy to undercut Morocco’s advantage. Cordeiro, then-president of U.S. Soccer, made multiple trips across Africa and the Gulf states, building alliances and making the case for the United bid. Kushner’s connections in Saudi Arabia also proved instrumental, with the Saudi Crown Prince’s support helping swing votes in the region toward the U.S.

Through careful diplomatic effort, the United bid won votes from nations like South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana. Even Venezuela, affected by Trump’s travel restrictions, ultimately aligned with South American confederation CONMEBOL to support the United bid. The strategic alliances allowed the bid to secure enough support to outmaneuver Morocco, despite its anticipated advantage in the African bloc.

Trump’s engagement with the bid was a double-edged sword. While his support demonstrated U.S. commitment to hosting, his outspoken nature occasionally raised eyebrows. In April 2018, he tweeted: “It would be a shame if countries that we always support were to lobby against the U.S. bid.” Some saw this as a veiled threat, reminding countries dependent on U.S. aid of their allegiances.

Despite the controversy, some bid officials felt Trump’s involvement was beneficial, showing FIFA that hosting the World Cup mattered at the highest levels of American government. But the bid team was always on guard, wary of Trump’s next statement and its potential impact on delicate international relationships.

As readers ponder today’s election outcome, the journey to the 2026 World Cup reveals just how intertwined sports and politics have become. Whether Trump or Harris leads the country in 2026, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico will host the first-ever tri-nation World Cup—a feat achieved through a blend of strategic alliances, diplomacy, and a promise of unparalleled revenue.

With only 584 days to go until kick-off, the countdown has begun. Whichever president is in office, this tournament will be a historic milestone for North American football and a powerful reminder of the complexities involved in bringing the world’s game to U.S. shores.

Stay tuned to The Football Newsletter for more on the road to 2026, as we continue to cover the politics, personalities, and power plays shaping this unique World Cup.