Women's World Cup
In February, executives from the United States Soccer Federation and their Mexican counterparts welcomed FIFA delegates to Atlanta as official inspections began before the vote this month to decide who will host the 2027 Women’s World Cup.
The U.S. and Mexico submitted their joint bid in December, rivalling a proposal from Brazil and a combined European bid from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The U.S. has hosted the tournament twice before — in 1999 and 2003 — but it would have been a first for Mexico.
Advertisement
“We are a very strong and compelling proposition,” said Juan Carlos Rodriguez, president of the Mexican Football Federation, in late February. “We are gonna make a good run of it.”
Behind the scenes, however, doubts had already surfaced. Was 2027 the right time for the U.S. and Mexico to host a World Cup? Would it suit football’s world governing body FIFA to take the tournament elsewhere?
The bid team had previously discussed pivoting to 2031 and, on Monday evening, a statement landed to formalise the U.S. and Mexico’s decision to do just that — only three weeks before the vote was scheduled to take place in Bangkok, Thailand, at the FIFA Congress.
“The revised bid will allow us to build on the learnings and success of the 2026 World Cup (in the U.S., Mexico and Canada), better support our host cities, expand our partnerships and media deals, and further engage with our fans so we can host a record-breaking tournament in 2031,” a joint statement read.
So why the change of heart?
The U.S./Mexico revised World Cup bid has called for “equal investment” with the men’s tournament, “eliminating investment disparities to fully maximize the commercial potential of the women’s tournament”.
The bid is seeking to bring the organisation, promotion and funding for the Women’s World Cup fully in line with its male counterparts.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino claimed that the 2023 Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand had broken even, generating more than $570million in revenue, even with the prize pool being 10 times higher than the 2015 edition. The 2022 men’s World Cup in Qatar, however, generated $686million in ticket sales and $243million through hospitality rights alone, with global TV rights from 2019-22 — the bulk of which was for the 2022 tournament — bringing in $3.4billion according to FIFA. The $440million prize pot for the men’s 2022 World Cup was also far more than the $152million shared by women last year.
Infantino has already provided his answer to those who question the disparity, saying: “I say to all the women, you have the power to change. Pick the right battles. Pick the right fights.”
The U.S./Mexico bid for 2031, though, would like FIFA to set out a timeline towards equal prize money and its vision is set out in the bid book submitted to FIFA for 2027.
Advertisement
The hope is not that FIFA should simply pluck the money out of is reserves but rather that genuine investment into the development, promotion and organisation of the tournament will bring about the revenue which may enable the governing body to eventually level up the prize money.
Now the bid has been pushed back, FIFA has four more years to bridge the gap.
GO DEEPER
Thanks Gianni, now we know – all we had to do was ‘pick the right fights’
The 2027 bid book was, in many ways, a copied and pasted version of the men’s edition in 2026. The U.S. submitted the same host cities, while Mexico added a few additional options to Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City.
The 2027 bid wanted to use 2026 as an asset; in essence replicating the relationships between cities, local government, security, transportation infrastructure and stadiums to create a back-to-back bonanza of premium international football that would then roll over into an Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 2028, cementing the United States as the global hub for major sporting events over three years. In bid talk, this was described as “leveraging the efficiencies” of 2026, and big promises were made.
The U.S./Mexico bid claimed the commercial possibilities in the two countries “will accelerate the growth of women’s football unlike any tournament before”. They pledged to bring 4.5million fans into the stadium, capture the highest TV audience for any sporting event in history and generate more than $3 billion in total revenue. For FIFA, which has established offices in Miami and is also launching a revamped men’s Club World Cup in the U.S. in 2025, the temptation was obvious.
And yet, as conversations developed, it became clear that this idea did not make much sense for anyone.
From a FIFA perspective, the imagined boom for soccer in the U.S. is better served by a six-year run-up, stretching from the Club World Cup in 2025 (there may also be a women’s edition in 2026) through to the men’s World Cup in 2026, football within the Olympic Games in 2028 and then capped off with a Women’s World Cup in 2031. This provides more space for soccer to gain further popularity and, in turn, drive up demand and revenue for the competition.
And while the idea of back-to-back World Cups is tantalising, there were plenty of sectors that were not overly enamoured with the idea. For some host cities and stadiums, it would have meant three consecutive years satisfying FIFA’s very specific criteria for hosting soccer matches and revenue-sharing. Concerns also developed that the potential to maximise the Women’s World Cup commercially, both among broadcasters and sponsors, would be limited by sandwiching the tournament between a men’s World Cup and the Olympic Games.
Advertisement
FIFA is also seeking to drive sponsorship agreements for its expanded men’s Club World Cup — launching across the east coast of the U.S. in the summer of 2025 — but the tournament is struggling to hit the hugely ambitious targets set out by Infantino when the concept was devised. As such, freeing up commercial space for soccer in a saturated market within the next few years may be useful for everyone involved.
FIFA does not comment on commercially-sensitive matters but would point to a recent lucrative partnership with Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company Aramco as evidence of its ability to strike deals.
GO DEEPER
Why are Napoli – and other teams – now so keen to qualify for the men’s Club World Cup?
There is another reality to bidding processes that is usually not said aloud: sometimes, you only say you are bidding to put yourself in pole position before the next tournament — and that, increasingly, appears to be an element of the strategy here.
Brazil is a case in point, having lost out on the 2023 tournament but now primed for a coronation in Thailand in mid-May. The European bid remains on the table but multiple sources, spoken to by The Athletic this week on condition of anonymity to protect their roles, have presented Brazil’s success as a fait accompli.
For FIFA, there are plenty of reasons to run with Brazil in 2027. The planet’s most famous soccer nation has never hosted a Women’s World Cup and FIFA is obliged grow football internationally.
It has become anachronistic to think about World Cup bidding processes as a traditional vote where nations submit their bids and every member weighs up the pros and the cons before casting their votes. This is how it is supposed to work but the pattern more recently is to see a contest, a reasonable amount of lobbying, and then everyone appears to agree that bid X is most-suited and bid Y may get something else as consolation, or be rewarded down the line.
This is what happened for the 2030 men’s World Cup selection. FIFA found a way to just about please everybody by awarding it to six countries in one go.
GO DEEPER
Why 2030 World Cup is split across six countries – and all roads lead to Saudi Arabia 2034
FIFA president Infantino confirmed the opening game would be played at Estadio Centenario in Uruguay, while Argentina and Paraguay would each host a game before the tournament and then move to Morocco, Spain and Portugal. This left Saudi Arabia out in the cold — except, not really, because FIFA has something called the “confederation rotation principle” and by grouping three confederations together in 2030 — Africa, Europe and South America — it left the path clear for Asia and Oceania to host the 2034 tournament.
Advertisement
Once Australia’s executives dropped their interest in the 2030 World Cup, Saudi Arabia was the only bidder. They have already been congratulated by Infantino on Instagram, although FIFA insists the Saudis are undergoing a very intensive bid process — albeit one in which they are the only competitors.
What’s this all got to do with 2027? Well, FIFA would say nothing at all and every bid is considered on its merits, but there is a school of thought that CONMEBOL felt a little short-changed by the 2030 palaver. It had also been particularly kind to FIFA when Argentina stepped in to host the Under-20 World Cup in 2023 at short notice. A first Women’s World Cup for CONMEBOL would be a useful reconciliation.
None of this is to say that everyone was pretending all along for 2027. Nor is it inevitable that the US/Mexico bid will win next year.
Yet by 2031, it will have been 16 years since a Women’s World Cup in a CONCACAF country (when Canada hosted the tournament in 2015) and UEFA nation France hosted the tournament more recently in 2019. England, which had already been looking at 2035 and 2039 as options, as well as a possible joint bid with the other Home Nations, may pivot away from 2031.
Should the U.S. and Mexico be awarded the 2031 tournament, ambitious plans will take shape. The bid wants fan festivals of equivalent size to the men’s World Cup, promising beach football tournaments on the shores of Miami and Cancun, and watchalong parties in New York City’s Times Square. Most boldly, within the U.S., the bid wants to solely use multi-purpose NFL stadiums with at least 65,000 seats, rather than be more cautious with smaller soccer-specific stadiums.
Expect this to become part of the conversation, too: should the Women’s World Cup mirror the men’s by expanding to a 48-team edition? The 2023 World Cup features 32 teams instead of 24 and the competitive balance did not suffer in a way some had worried beforehand. A six-year runway between the announcement of a potential 48-team tournament and the competition itself would allow time for more nations to invest resources into their women’s games and enter the fray in 2031.
As for broadcasters, there is quiet relief at FIFA and in the U.S./Mexico bid because we are now only three years out from the 2027 tournament and FIFA would have been behind in maximising its true broadcasting potential. Some breathing space from the men’s World Cup and Olympics, it is hoped, will further free up the necessary dollars for the 2031 tournament to hit record numbers.
The US-Mexican bid may have said ‘goodbye’ to 2027, but it is ‘see you soon’ for 2031.
(Top photo: Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
Subscribe to The Athletic for in-depth coverage of your favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Try a week on us.
Adam Crafton covers football for The Athletic. He previously wrote for the Daily Mail. In 2018, he was named the Young Sports Writer of the Year by the Sports’ Journalist Association. His debut book,”From Guernica to Guardiola”, charting the influence of Spaniards in English football, was published by Simon & Schuster in 2018. He is based in London.
