Trump Says Next World Cup Should Leave Canada and Mexico Out

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Donald Trump turned a celebration of North America’s World Cup into another pointed moment between the United States and its neighbours. Speaking beside FIFA president Gianni Infantino at a reception in New York, the U.S. president suggested America should host the tournament again—but without Canada and Mexico.

The remark drew laughter and was delivered as a joke, yet its timing gave it political weight. Canada and Mexico had spent years helping organize the largest World Cup ever staged, while both countries remained locked in difficult trade and diplomatic disputes with Washington. Trump was not proposing that the already-awarded 2030 tournament be relocated. Still, his comment offered a revealing glimpse of how he viewed the event: as an American success that the United States could potentially reproduce alone.

Trump’s Remark Came During a Victory-Lap Reception

Trump made the comment on July 17 at a FIFA reception held inside Trump Tower in New York City, two days before the World Cup final. Infantino praised the president’s role in delivering the tournament, while Trump celebrated its popularity and declared that the United States had proven itself to be a soccer country. He then floated the possibility of another American World Cup, adding: “This time we’ll leave Mexico and Canada out.”

The room reportedly responded with laughter, and the Associated Press characterized the comment as a joke. That context matters because Trump did not announce a formal bid, policy or agreement with FIFA. However, the president has often used humour to introduce ideas that reinforce his broader political message. In this case, the remark allowed him to claim ownership of the tournament’s success while reducing Canada and Mexico—two official co-hosts—to partners America had generously included rather than countries essential to the original bid.

The Next World Cup Has Already Been Awarded

Despite the wording surrounding Trump’s comment, the United States cannot simply take the next men’s World Cup away from another country. FIFA has already selected the hosts for both of the next two tournaments. Morocco, Portugal and Spain will serve as the principal hosts in 2030, with one centenary match taking place in each of Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Saudi Arabia has been appointed to host the 2034 competition.

That makes 2038 the earliest realistic opportunity for the United States to pursue another men’s World Cup. Reuters reported that Trump has shown interest in another American hosting opportunity that year, although no tournament has been awarded and any bid would require a lengthy FIFA process. The distinction is important: Trump was not asking FIFA to remove Canada and Mexico from the 2030 World Cup. He was suggesting that when America eventually hosts again, it should do so alone. That is a considerably more plausible ambition, but it remains years away from becoming an official proposal.

Canada and Mexico Helped America Win the 2026 Vote

The 2026 World Cup was awarded to a combined North American bid, not to the United States individually. Canada, Mexico and the U.S. presented themselves to FIFA voters as a unified group capable of handling the expanded tournament. At the 2018 FIFA Congress in Moscow, the United bid defeated Morocco by 134 votes to 65, securing approximately 67 per cent of the ballots cast.

America supplied most of the stadiums, projected revenue and commercial power, but Canada and Mexico strengthened the bid in other ways. Their participation gave FIFA three established markets, reduced the appearance of an entirely U.S.-controlled competition and supported the organization’s interest in international cooperation. Mexico also provided deep World Cup history, while Canada offered a growing soccer market and a record of hosting major women’s and youth competitions. Describing the two countries as optional additions overlooks why the original bid was packaged as a continental project—and why FIFA members voted for that specific arrangement rather than an American-only alternative.

America Hosted Most Games, but It Was Still a Shared Tournament

There is no question that the United States carried the largest portion of the event. Of the World Cup’s 104 matches, 78 were allocated to 11 American host cities. Canada and Mexico received 13 matches each, with games played in Toronto and Vancouver in Canada and Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey in Mexico. The final was scheduled for the New York–New Jersey region, giving the U.S. the tournament’s most valuable match.

Yet the unequal distribution did not make Canada and Mexico ceremonial hosts. Mexico staged the opening match, while Toronto became the first Canadian city to host a men’s World Cup game. Teams, supporters, broadcasters and tournament employees moved across three countries throughout the competition. Each government also had to coordinate border procedures, security, transportation and emergency planning. The arrangement was ambitious precisely because it required three national systems to work together. America may have been the biggest partner, but the scale and identity of the tournament were built around its cross-border structure.

Canada Invested Heavily in Its First Men’s World Cup

For Canada, 2026 represented its first opportunity to host matches at the men’s World Cup. Toronto staged six games and Vancouver hosted seven, giving Canadian supporters the rare experience of watching the national team compete at home on soccer’s largest stage. Government estimates suggested the competition could attract as many as one million visitors to Canada and generate up to $2 billion in national economic activity or GDP.

Hosting also required substantial public support. The federal government committed up to $220 million for Toronto and Vancouver, including approximately $104.34 million for Toronto and $115.66 million for Vancouver. Additional federal resources were proposed for border services, policing, immigration processing and other operational responsibilities. Those commitments help explain why Trump’s joke could irritate Canadians. Canada did not simply attach its name to an American tournament. Its cities spent years preparing venues, transit plans, fan festivals and security operations for an event whose economic benefits—and costs—were shared by taxpayers and local businesses.

Mexico Brought a World Cup Legacy America Could Not Match

Mexico entered the 2026 tournament with a history neither of its co-hosts could replicate. It became the first country to stage the men’s World Cup three times, having previously hosted in 1970 and 1986. Those tournaments produced some of the competition’s most recognizable images, including Pelé’s final World Cup championship and Diego Maradona lifting the trophy after Argentina’s victory in Mexico City.

The 2026 opening match returned to the historic Mexico City venue commonly known as Estadio Azteca. It became the first stadium to host an opening match at three separate men’s World Cups. Mexico’s involvement therefore offered far more than additional stadium capacity. It connected the expanded modern tournament to more than half a century of soccer history and to a fan culture in which the sport has long occupied a central place. An American-only event could provide enormous venues and commercial revenue, but it would have difficulty reproducing the emotional atmosphere that Mexico’s cities and supporters contributed.

Trade Tensions Made the Joke Feel More Serious

Trump’s words arrived during an unusually tense period in North American relations. His administration had imposed or threatened tariffs affecting both Canada and Mexico, while the three countries faced difficult discussions about the future of their trading relationship. On the same day as the FIFA reception, Trump also threatened to attach costs connected to Canadian wildfire smoke to U.S. tariffs, provoking criticism from Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

Against that background, leaving Canada and Mexico out sounded like more than friendly sports banter. It mirrored a recurring Trump argument that the United States gives its neighbours access to American markets, institutions and opportunities without receiving enough in return. The World Cup became another platform for that message. Even so, the political tension did not prevent Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum from planning to attend the final after receiving invitations from Trump. Their presence illustrated the complicated relationship: sharp disputes continued, but the three governments still appeared together for the tournament’s biggest occasion.

FIFA—not the White House—Chooses the Hosts

A U.S. president can encourage a bid, provide security guarantees and commit federal resources, but cannot award the World Cup. That authority rests with FIFA and its member associations. Prospective hosts must submit detailed plans covering stadiums, transportation, accommodation, human rights, government support, commercial revenue and tournament operations. FIFA evaluates the bids before its governing bodies and member associations approve a host.

The 2026 process demonstrated how extensive that system can be. The North American bid produced technical documents, financial projections and government commitments before defeating Morocco in a formal vote. Any American campaign for 2038 would have to repeat much of that work, even if the country’s existing stadiums gave it a major advantage. FIFA would also need to determine which confederations were eligible under its rotation policies. Trump’s relationship with Infantino could give a future American proposal visibility, but personal support from FIFA’s president would not replace the official bidding and approval process.

A Solo American Bid Would Have Clear Strengths—and Risks

The United States could almost certainly provide enough stadiums for a World Cup without Canadian or Mexican assistance. It already hosted 78 games in 2026 and has dozens of large NFL and college football venues capable of holding international crowds. Its media market, sponsorship base, airports and corporate hospitality sector would make a solo bid financially attractive to FIFA. The country also has experience preparing for other global events, including the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles and the 2034 Winter Olympics in Utah.

However, hosting alone would concentrate every logistical and political risk inside the United States. Visa restrictions, immigration enforcement, public transportation limitations, extreme heat and security costs all generated scrutiny during the 2026 preparations. A shared bid allowed organizers to distribute matches across different climates, cities and national markets. Canada and Mexico also helped present the event as a continental celebration rather than a single country’s commercial spectacle. Removing them might simplify decision-making, but it could also make future criticism of American policies harder for FIFA to avoid.

The Comment Was Really About Who Gets Credit

Trump’s remark was less significant as a realistic hosting proposal than as a claim over the tournament’s legacy. The United States staged most of the games, supplied the largest venues and hosted the final. From Trump’s perspective, those facts supported an argument that America—not North America collectively—had delivered the World Cup’s success. Suggesting that Canada and Mexico be excluded next time reinforced the idea that they benefited from American participation rather than contributing equally to a shared achievement.

The record is more complicated. The United States was the dominant host, but Canada and Mexico helped win the bid, organized 26 matches and gave the tournament experiences that could not be duplicated in American stadiums. Mexico supplied unmatched World Cup history, while Canada celebrated a major milestone in the growth of its men’s game. Trump’s joke may fade after the final, but it captured a larger dispute familiar to all three countries: whether North American partnerships represent mutual cooperation or arrangements in which Washington believes it deserves most of the credit.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.