The United States still doesn't have its government guarantees in place for the 2031 Women's World Cup bid — and the White House hasn't responded to FIFA's requests. That's not a rumour. Multiple sources familiar with the situation have confirmed it, and U.S. Soccer has quietly accepted it's true while insisting there's "positive dialogue" happening in the background.
Dialogue isn't a signature.
FIFA originally planned to confirm the U.S.-Mexico-Costa Rica-Jamaica bid at the April 30 Congress in Vancouver. That's been pushed to an Extraordinary Congress before the end of 2026. FIFA's official line is that the delay is about giving women's football a "stand-alone" moment. The less flattering version: the bid isn't ready to be rubber-stamped because the paperwork from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue hasn't arrived.
What FIFA Actually Needs
These aren't minor formalities. FIFA requires seven government guarantees for any World Cup host — covering visa commitments, tax exemptions tied to FIFA's non-profit status, and safety and security obligations. They need to be signed by the head of state. In the U.S., that means Donald Trump, or a designated federal minister. The FIFA World Cup 2026 Task Force, run by Andrew Giuliani, declined to comment when approached.
U.S. Soccer submitted its formal bid book in November, listing 28 potential U.S. host cities, six in Mexico, and one each in Costa Rica and Jamaica — 50 stadiums across four countries. But the agreements those cities have signed are only Memorandums of Understanding. Non-binding. Sources describe them as "directions of travel" rather than contracts, and the cities are deliberately keeping it that way.
Cities Aren't Repeating 2026's Mistakes
The full financial picture of hosting the 2026 men's World Cup has started to land hard on those involved. Under FIFA's current model, the organisation takes everything: ticketing, broadcast deals, in-stadium sponsorship, concessions, and parking. The host cities absorb the security costs — police escorts for teams, referees, Infantino's delegation, medical services, fire protection. All of it.
Boston's experience is the clearest example. The town of Foxboro, home to Gillette Stadium, refused to absorb $7.8 million in security costs, eventually forcing venue owner Robert Kraft to cover it himself. That kind of standoff is exactly what cities don't want to repeat at a tournament projecting $4 billion in revenue — roughly eight times what the 2023 Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand generated.
For 2031, cities are pushing for a cut of ticketing revenue, higher stadium rental fees, greater FIFA funding for security, and broader coverage of fan festival costs. The goal, as one source put it, is to "alleviate the cost burden." Translated: they want FIFA to share the upside of a tournament they're describing as historic.
U.S. Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone acknowledged the gap at this week's Sports Business Journal conference in Atlanta: "There's gonna be a ton of learnings from the '26 men's World Cup. We may not want to copy and paste what happened." That's a careful way of saying the operating model is unresolved.
England's rival bid for 2035 — backed by all four home nations — appears equally uncontested. No competing bids, a clear path to confirmation. But the 2031 process shows how quickly a "formality" becomes complicated when a sitting U.S. president hasn't picked up the pen.
