On July 19, Spain triumphed at the World Cup final held in New Jersey, but what truly captured my attention was not the match itself, but rather the impressive attendance figure of 80,663. This impressive turnout filled the MetLife Stadium, yet it was one of the smaller crowds for a World Cup final in recent years, particularly when compared to the 88,966 fans who attended the Lusail Stadium in Qatar in 2022 or the 84,490 at Soccer City in Johannesburg in 2010. FIFA has established a guideline that mandates a minimum seating capacity of 80,000 for the stadium hosting the final, which made the recent final appear nearly at the threshold of this requirement, raising questions about the significance of capacity in the ongoing discussions surrounding the upcoming World Cup.
The capacity debate has taken a pivotal role in the contention between Casablanca's Stade Hassan II, still under construction, and the historic Santiago Bernabéu as contenders for the final match of the 2030 World Cup. This argument has taken shape around several familiar themes: capacity versus history, the allure of new venues versus established ones, and the representation of Africa as opposed to Europe. However, my focus is not on whether Casablanca deserves the final, but rather on a notable gap in FIFA's documentation regarding the selection process for the final venue. While FIFA has made public its criteria for evaluating tournament stadiums, it has not disclosed how it will ultimately choose the stadium for the final match.
In November 2024, FIFA released its bid evaluation report for the 2030 tournament, detailing a thorough assessment of the Morocco, Portugal, and Spain bid across seven weighted criteria, with stadiums accounting for a significant 35% of the overall score. The report indicated the proposed final venues: the Santiago Bernabéu, Camp Nou, and the Grand Stade Hassan II, all receiving an identical score of 4.3 out of 5 for stadium quality. However, it failed to clarify how FIFA would differentiate between these three venues, leaving a crucial void in the evaluation process. While FIFA meticulously details the scoring for transportation and accommodation, the criteria for the most prestigious match in football remain obscured.
The decision-making process for the 2026 final, announced in February 2024, also lacked transparency, with FIFA officials not providing insight into how they arrived at the choice of MetLife Stadium. Instead, FIFA President Gianni Infantino emphasized New York's cosmopolitan nature and the symbolic significance of such a location, which although compelling, does not constitute a measurable criterion for selection. The leading alternative venue, AT&T Stadium in Arlington, similarly lacked a public evaluation, showcasing a trend where numerical data did not inform the final choice.
FIFA’s guideline for an 80,000-seat capacity is more of a threshold than a strict rule, as evidenced by the 2014 final held at the Maracanã, which accommodated fewer than 80,000 spectators. Nevertheless, the report was candid about the candidates for the 2030 final; while the Bernabéu's quoted capacity was at the limit for a final venue, both Camp Nou and the Casablanca stadium comfortably exceeded the minimum requirement. This positions the Bernabéu at a disadvantage in terms of raw capacity.
Despite this, the arguments in favor of the Bernabéu continue to gain momentum, with proponents highlighting Spain's rich footballing history, its experience in hosting significant events, and Madrid's commercial appeal. Spanish federation sources assert that the World Cup's origins lie in Spain and Portugal, with Morocco joining later in the conversation. However, the reliance on historical precedence raises concerns about fairness in the selection process, as it risks perpetuating a narrative that may favor Europe or South America indefinitely, especially considering Africa has hosted only one World Cup final in its history.
As the debate unfolds, it remains evident that FIFA's decision for the 2030 final will be shaped by a multitude of factors beyond mere statistics. Reports suggest that a select group of senior FIFA executives will make the decision, taking into account logistics, commerce, and political considerations, rather than relying solely on sporting merit. Morocco’s bid may hinge on strategic influences and connections, particularly through figures like Fouzi Lekjaa, who has held a prominent position within the Royal Moroccan Football Federation and is now part of the FIFA Council. Such dynamics could shift the focus away from the pure capacity argument, which appears increasingly inadequate given the evolving landscape.
As of now, FIFA has not disclosed when a decision will be made regarding the final venue, and the full allocation of marquee matches for the tournament is not expected to be confirmed before 2027. Regardless of the outcome, the explanations provided will likely highlight merit, readiness, and legacy after the decision has been made, rather than before. Whether Madrid or Casablanca is ultimately awarded the 2030 final, the conversation surrounding the criteria for selection remains vital, as it sheds light on the complexities of venue choice in the world of football.
As reported by moroccoworldnews.com.
