The U.S. is bidding jointly with Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica to host the 2031 women’s edition, while England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are joining forces for 2035. Both bidders appear to have a clear path, with no opposing bidders.
In October, U.S. Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone said there is “tremendous excitement” across the country, claiming that “more than 30 U.S. cities have expressed interest in hosting matches.” The 2031 tournament will be the first women’s edition to include 48 teams, up from 32 previously.
The bids were originally supposed to be approved and confirmed at the FIFA Congress on April 30 in Vancouver. Still, last week, FIFA announced that the FIFA Council had changed its plans, instead deciding to convene an Extraordinary Congress before the end of 2026. FIFA said this was to provide “a stand-alone event dedicated to the presentation of the bids, which will highlight the growing power and influence of women’s football and FIFA’s flagship women’s tournament.”
Yet behind the scenes, FIFA has found itself unable to officially confirm the bid for 2031, due to missing government guarantees and a tough negotiating stance by U.S. cities and venues, who want a larger slice of the financial pie than they were afforded for the 2026 World Cup.
As part of a World Cup bid, FIFA requests seven different government guarantees, the most eye-catching of which include commitments on visas and tax exemptions for FIFA in accordance with its non-profit status, as well as guarantees on safety and security.
These guarantees are usually signed off by the Head of State, which in the case of the U.S. would be President Donald Trump, or the relevant federal government minister.
FIFA also requires a Government Declaration, to be issued by the head of the highest national executive governmental authority, as well as a Government Legal Statement, to be provided by the minister of justice of the federal government.
According to multiple sources familiar with the situation — who, like all of those spoken to for this article unless otherwise noted, remained anonymous to protect relationships — the White House has yet to provide the required guarantees to support the bid for 2031. The bid was formally presented in October by the United States Soccer Federation in partnership with their Mexican, Jamaican and Costa Rican counterparts, and U.S. Soccer is playing a role in co-ordinating the progress of the bid.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment, and the FIFA World Cup 2026 Task Force, directed by Andrew Giuliani, also declined to comment.
Sources at U.S. Soccer, who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, accepted that the guarantees had not arrived but insisted there has been “positive dialogue” with the relevant government departments and claimed they saw “a path forward.”
In a statement to The Athletic, FIFA did not address questions presented about the missing government guarantees or the hesitation of host cities. Instead, it said the FIFA Council had “unanimously decided” to delay the bid confirmations, before adding: “It is an identical process to the appointment by acclamation of the hosts of the (men’s) 2030 and 2034 editions of the FIFA World Cup.”
The United States’ formal bid book was submitted in November, which included 28 potential host cities in the U.S., as well as six in Mexico and one apiece in Costa Rica and Jamaica. Across the four countries, 50 potential stadiums were named, 42 of which are in the U.S. This included many of the venues to feature in the 2026 men’s World Cup — but not the Hard Rock Stadium near Miami — as well as many more, but also revealed a mix of NFL-sized venues and soccer-specific stadiums.
Yet, The Athletic has learned that the host cities and venues have, at this stage, signed only Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with FIFA, and MoUs do not have the force of binding agreements. Sources described the current documents as much more about directions of travel, rather than irrevocable contracts.
They include a pledge to have a forthcoming “dialogue phase” to discuss further details, but the MoUs stretch little further than this. People familiar with the agreements said there is a desire to fully analyze the pros and cons of the men’s World Cup on host cities and venues before making any binding commitments.
In recent months, the full extent of the financial burden placed on host cities for the 2026 World Cup has become clear.
Under their agreements, FIFA takes all income from ticketing, broadcast deals, in-stadium sponsorship, concessions and even parking fees. For 2031, however, there is broad unanimity across the host cities about what they would like by way of concessions for FIFA.
The bid for 2031 estimates “a historic $4billion of potential revenue,” which would be around eight times higher than the 2023 Women’s World Cup in New Zealand and Australia, and it appears this time the cities want a greater slice of the pie, or at least to cover their costs.
This could be achieved, they say, through various means: ideas include a greater sharing of ticketing revenue, increased FIFA funding for security and safety, broader FIFA coverage for fan festivals and higher stadium rental fees. They said the key is to “alleviate the cost burden” on the cities.
The 2026 edition has been particularly expensive for the cities as they took on overall responsibility for costs, including “safety, security and protection.” This extends to public areas, FIFA fan fest locations, airports, other transport hubs and vehicles used in competition. It also includes providing police escorts for teams, referees and even FIFA president Gianni Infantino and his delegation. The host city also provides medical services and fire protection around matches free of charge.
In recent weeks, Boston has served as a case study of the challenges, with the local town of Foxboro, home to Gillette Stadium, standing its ground and forcing the Boston host committee to stump up the $7.8m in security costs for the tournament, with venue owner Robert Kraft eventually stepping up to backstop the funding.
During the Sports Business Journal Business of Soccer Conference in Atlanta this week, U.S. Soccer president Parlow Cone said: “When I think about ’31 and the operating model, we have some time to figure it out. There’s gonna be a ton of learnings from the ’26 men’s World Cup. And while we may not want to copy and paste what happened, we definitely want to learn from this tournament to see what maybe could change, maybe could be adjusted, or maybe be added.
“FIFA has been a great partner, and we’ll continue those conversations.”
This article originally appeared in The Athletic.
US Women’s national team, Sports Business, Women’s Soccer, FIFA Men’s World Cup, FIFA Women’s World Cup
2026 The Athletic Media Company
About the Author
