With rising calls to strip the US of 2026 World Cup hosting rights, bookmakers may face volatility: expect futures and match odds to drift for teams affected by travel restrictions. Punters should monitor venue certainty and back proven heavyweights (Brazil, Argentina, England) or hedge on neutral-venue form rather than relying on US home advantage.
2026 World Cup hosting row escalates as tournament approaches
The 2026 World Cup, set to be staged across the United States, Canada and Mexico, is drawing intense scrutiny just months before kick-off. Defending champions Argentina will travel to North America hoping to retain the title, while heavyweights such as England, Spain, France and Brazil loom as favourites. Concerns over the US hosting duties, driven by political developments and proposed travel restrictions, have prompted renewed calls for FIFA to reconsider its decision.
Historical precedent: Colombia stripped of 1986 hosting rights
How the 1986 change unfolded
In 1974 Colombia was originally awarded the 1986 tournament but formally withdrew in 1982 after its government concluded the nation could not meet FIFA’s financial and infrastructure demands. Stadium upgrades, airport improvements and hotel capacity were cited as unaffordable. Mexico was appointed as the replacement host and went on to stage the tournament, which Argentina won.
Lessons for modern hosts
The Colombia episode remains the only time a selected host nation did not stage a World Cup. It illustrates that economic strain, infrastructure shortfalls or political concerns can force governing bodies to intervene — a precedent now being cited by voices questioning the US role in 2026.
Why FIFA’s decision is under fire
Growing unease centers on recent political moves and statements that could affect travel to the US. There are reports that the US administration has considered policies that would restrict entry from certain nations, including some already qualified for the tournament. Football figures and commentators have urged FIFA to examine alternatives if fan access or team participation is jeopardised. Lawmakers in some countries have also warned of diplomatic repercussions that could complicate logistics for teams and supporters.
Potential impact on teams, fans and stadiums
Uncertainty around travel permissions and diplomatic tensions could see certain national teams face reduced fan presence or logistical hurdles. MetLife Stadium — slated to host the final — remains a marquee venue, but any complication that affects supporter travel or team visas could diminish home advantage for host nation fixtures and change the atmosphere in key matches.
Betting implications: what punters should consider
Markets are likely to react to any credible talk of venue changes or travel bans. Key considerations for bettors: - Expect short-term volatility in futures and match odds if FIFA statements or government actions suggest restrictions. - Home advantage valuations for the US and nearby hosts may be scaled back; punters should watch odds on teams that would otherwise benefit from local support. - Consider hedging long-term bets until venue certainty is confirmed; favour established football powers if uncertainty persists. - Monitor market liquidity on neutral-venue lines and proposition bets tied to attendance or venue location.
What to watch next
Key indicators in the coming months will include official FIFA communications about hosting guarantees, any clarifications of national travel policies affecting qualified teams, and confirmations from national associations about supporter access. With five months to go, the situation remains fluid — both for organizers and for bettors calculating where to place their money.
Tickets, travel and Trump: How the 2026 World Cup is shaping up six months from the final
Back in 1986, FIFA felt they had no choice but to step in when Colombia couldn't produce the funds to host the World Cup.
Givemesport
