Ask FIFA who can host the 2038 World Cup and you’ll get a straight answer: any member whose confederation didn’t host the previous two tournaments. Fair, neutral, written down. Now do the arithmetic. The 2030 tournament touches Europe, Africa and South America in a single award. 2034 went to Asia. Which leaves 2038 open to exactly two confederations, one of which cannot physically stage the event alone. The rule is neutral. The outcome was settled years ago.
This is worth studying closely, because it’s one of the finest examples of governance theatre in world sport. The rotation policy exists for a defensible reason: stop the World Cup ping-ponging between Europe and the Americas forever. But watch how it actually got used. The 2030 award, a centenary celebration spread across six countries and three continents, didn’t just make history. It made three confederations ineligible for 2034 in one stroke. FIFA then opened 2034 bidding to the survivors with less than a month to declare interest. Australia looked at the calendar and stood down. Saudi Arabia ran unopposed and was confirmed by acclamation. Nobody broke a rule. The rules did all the work.
And now 2038. The White House already has a task force talking up an American bid. New Zealand is exploring a partnership because Oceania’s stadiums can’t carry a 48-team tournament. A contest with one plausible entrant, and the formal bidding hasn’t even opened.
I’ve spent enough years around procurement and project governance to recognise the species. The tender whose evaluation criteria fit one vendor like a tailored suit. The gate review that has never once stopped a project the sponsor wanted. The independent assurance function that reports to the person it’s assuring. In every case there’s a rule, and the rule is real, and the rule is followed to the letter. The decision just happened somewhere else, earlier, and the process exists to launder it into legitimacy.
Here’s the test I use, and it works on FIFA and on your steering committee equally well. Ask what the process could produce that the powerful people in the room don’t already want. If the answer is nothing, you’re not looking at governance. You’re looking at ceremony. Real governance creates freedom precisely because it can say no to someone who matters. A control that has never produced a surprise isn’t a control.
None of this means the outcomes are wrong. The US may genuinely be the best host for 2038; this morning’s final made a decent case, and I wrote earlier about what FIFA borrowed from America to stage it. The objection isn’t the destination. It’s the pantomime of an open road. If the decision is made, say so, and own it. Dressing a foregone conclusion in process doesn’t add legitimacy. It spends it.
Look at your own project’s governance this week and run the test. When did it last produce a decision anyone found surprising? If you can’t remember, you may be paying for theatre and calling it control.
Ben Webb is an Australian project manager and event delivery strategist. He was named AIPM Project Manager of the Year in 2022 and nominated for IPMA World Project Manager of the Year in 2023. He writes about project management, event delivery and leadership at benwebb.au.
Leave a Reply