The United States has been the favorite to win the 2022 World Cup bid since it dropped its 2018 bid to clear the way for a European nation.  Going up against a Middle Eastern country, two Asian nations that previously hosted, and an island nation with little soccer culture, the U.S. has the money, media presence, and soccer infrastructure to guarantee a successful World Cup.  But as we approach the December 2 announcement date, the rumors continue to pop up that the U.S. is at best dead even with Qatar and another of its competitors.  So we have to consider what was once the unthinkable – what is the U.S. loses out on the World Cup?

How could America lose out on a bid?  Qatar, while disgustingly hot in the summer, has a lot of money that it can dedicate to the World Cup, and FIFA can justify giving them the World Cup as a way to promote peace in the region.  Australia is an untapped market and they could be viewed as the U.S. in 1994 – a nation where a World Cup will jump start the popularity of their soccer league.  And it would be odd to give Japan or Korea a World Cup so soon after they jointly hosted one, but they could be viewed as safe bets.  Plus we cannot ignore what wheelings and dealings occur behind closed doors.

The first thought that would come to many people’s minds if the U.S. lost out on December 2 is that we can reapply in four years for the 2026 Cup, and would have to be considered almost a lock.  The World Cups have gone Africa (’10), South America (’14), Europe (’18), and Asia (’22), so unless Antarctica were to boom in population, North America would be a logical next step.  This of course FIFA is logical and continues to rotate continents years from now when the 2026 Cup is selected, but let’s just assume.  But to assume the U.S. would definitely be that country could be a mistake.  Between the 2022 and 2026 selection processes, Mexico (who has already hosted World Cups), could stabilize politically and has a large soccer market.  And to the north is another untapped market – Canada could be targeted by FIFA as the new soccer infrastructure building project.  They have the money, government stability, and infrastructure to host a world-wide event.  Plus, as we have seen with Toronto FC and lower division teams, Canadians will support soccer.

What does the loss of a World Cup do to MLS?  Initially nothing, as where the international event will be held does not really impact MLS players.  But what it could impact is MLS governance.  We know FIFA hates some aspects of MLS, especially the schedule, and we assume that it would not deny the U.S. a bid because of simple MLS dislikes.  But what if FIFA wanted the U.S. market to conform with the rest of world enough that they denied the bid?  MLS could do one of two things – it could basically move further from FIFA or, more likely, begin to adopt FIFA guidance completely.  This means fall-to-spring schedules like most of the rest of the world.

And what does this mean for the U.S. national team?  It cannot be understated how important home field advantage is in the World Cup – the U.S. made the round of 16 in 1994, Italy placed third in the 1990 World Cup, Germany made the 2006 semifinals, etc.  The United States would lose a vital goalpost for progress – the USSF can build its entire structure with the goal of playing in front of the home crowd in 2022 and making a run for possibly a title.  But without that goalpost, it’s harder to have an end date for a building project which, frankly, the U.S. could use.  It can be done, but the advantage of a World Cup in your front yard cannot be understated.

So would losing the World Cup be catastrophic for the USSF?  No, but it would hurt.   A lot.

When the United States dropped its bid for the 2018 World Cup, it was seen as a move to placate FIFA’s desire to have the World Cup held that year in soccer’s birthplace (literally, if England wins the bid).  By doing so, it also allowed the U.S. to be seen as the prohibitive favorite to win the 2022 bid when the vote is held December 2, in part due to a weak pool that includes Australia, Japan, Qatar, and South Korea.  However, FIFA’s bribery scandal may alter the playing field just enough that it could potentially endanger the U.S.’s front runner status.

To recap, two members of the FIFA executive committee were caught on tape by British journalists asking for outright bribes to support certain countries’ World Cup bids.  As of right now, these are the only two who have been caught, but reports by the The Guardian have FIFA’s executive committee unsure of what this week’s vote on the selection process will look like.  While the British press loves sensational journalism, I think it is safe to say that FIFA is a bit of a mess right now.  There have been no public reports that FIFA will definitely postpone its December 2 vote to select the 2018 and 2022 sites, but the possibility exists if the bribery scandal reaches further than currently known.  The final site vote could be delayed a few weeks, or just one site vote could be delayed while the other proceeds.

What does this mean for the U.S. bid?  As I said, right now the U.S. bid is allegedly far and away the front runner for the World Cup in 2022.  We have the money, infrastructure, and media attention to make another United States World Cup very lucrative for FIFA.  But what if the vote is delayed due to this scandal?  Would an extra few weeks seed doubts in the minds of the executive committee, especially if there are other guilty committee members?  The 2018 World Cup has a good chance of also being a lucrative and guaranteed financial success, especially if it takes place in England or Spain/Portugal.  Maybe this puts into the committee’s mind that the 2022 World Cup doesn’t need to be a slam-dunk site, and the U.S. can wait four more years.  Or maybe there is some other unforeseen situation that could pop up in December that could make the committee pause about awarding the World Cup to the U.S.

I am not saying it is a likely scenario that the U.S. loses the 2022 bid, even if they delay the vote.  But it’s like a soccer match, when the winning manager is constantly eying the clock even when ahead by a good margin.  All managers know crazy things can happen towards the end and it’s is better to quit while ahead.  So let’s hope FIFA votes on December 2 and this country can begin to gear up for the World Cup in 12 years.

Agree?  Disagree?  Share your thoughts below or on Twitter @roberthayjr.

As everyone is well aware, Chicago’s hopes of landing the 2016 Summer Olympic Games came crashing back to Earth last week with a thud. You can place the blame wherever you please, many people are, but you can’t deny that it comes as a blow to our collective sporting ego. It’s at this time that we must accept the fact that Rio simply put forth a superior bid and redouble our efforts to land the World Cup — the world’s largest sporting event — in either 2018 or 2022.

In 1994 the United States, a nation which was still very much in it’s soccer infancy, hosted the most profitable and most attended World Cup of all-time, a pair of record which still stand in October 2009. In 1994 we lacked many adequate stadia to host the event and FIFA bent it’s rules to allow certain venues to host matches, this is a problem we no longer have to worry about, in fact, we have a plethora of world-class venues capable of hosting World Cup football, and with the boom in construction of soccer-specific stadia, many cities are blessed with superb training venues.

While the loss of a potential Olympics in Chicago comes as a blow, it’s not a complete loss. Hosting the Olympics is often a money-losing endeavor, while the 1994 World Cup proved to be the opposite and injected over $4 billion into the nation’s economy, including roughly $500 million in Greater L.A. — site of the final — alone, along with creating thousands of temporary jobs in the hospitality and service industries. With this in mind it should come as no surprise that twenty-seven cities (thirty-two stadiums) have come forth in declaring their interest to host matches should an American bid be successful. Among those cities are Charlotte, Jacksonville, and Nashville, cities that would’ve never dreamed of hosting matches in 1994 are hungry to be involved in a future bid, and indeed the stadiums in Charlotte and Nashville were built with that exact goal in mind.

So, while some of us may upset at Chicago’s loss, and some may be celebrating it, it’s time that band together as a nation and put together a national show we can be proud of, and that’s exactly what a successful World Cup bid would be.