‘A slap in the face for many Mexicans’: my analysis of the 2026 World Cup bid
Mexico has enough modern stadiums, such as the Estadio Omnilife, to host the planned 10 games.
The US, Mexico and Canada have submitted a joint bid to host the tournament. But is it a fair deal for fans across the three countries?
Would it have been better for Mexico to bid on its own?
It would have been a more popular move but also a riskier, more complicated path to take. Mexico would have been bidding against a formidable adversary in the US and would have been required to invest a lot more in organisation and infrastructure if it had won the bid on its own. A joint bid diminishes the risks of corruption and security problems — two major concerns in Mexico today. Co-hosting would also enable the involvement of millions of Mexicans who live north of the border, without excluding those at home.
Is it fair that the US gets most of the games?
It rankles with Mexicans that their country, which boasts a much richer footballing tradition than the US, is being treated as its junior partner. With tensions already running high between both nations during the Donald Trump era, the plans for Mexico to host just 10 out of 80 games and none from the quarter-finals onwards have come as a shock and another slap in the face to many Mexicans. Their enthusiasm dampened, some fans have even called on Mexico’s Football Federation to withdraw from the bid unless they are guaranteed more games. On the other hand, some have argued that the US could have launched a solo bid and still won, leading Mexico (and Canada) without any games…
The Tequila Files 