Critics of the current bidding process are raising concerns about the influence of FIFA and the potential for unnecessary, high-cost infrastructure projects. Skeptics argue that the push for a 'faraonic' stadium in Morocco ignores the practical realities of long-term maintenance and the risk of creating 'white elephants'—expensive facilities that see little use after the tournament concludes. There is a growing sentiment that the focus should remain on utilizing existing, proven infrastructure in Spain, which already possesses world-class stadiums like the Santiago Bernabéu.
Many observers are also wary of the opaque nature of FIFA's decision-making process. By allowing competition between host nations to escalate, critics suggest that FIFA is effectively pitting allies against one another to drive up construction costs and extract more concessions. This dynamic creates uncertainty for local governments and taxpayers, who may end up footing the bill for projects that are driven more by prestige than by actual community need. The concern is that the spirit of the joint bid is being undermined by a race for status.
Furthermore, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the fan experience and logistical efficiency. Spain’s established transport networks, hotel capacity, and experience in hosting major events provide a level of security that a new, unproven venue cannot guarantee. For those prioritizing fiscal responsibility and operational reliability, the choice of a venue should be based on proven capability rather than the promise of future development. The risk, according to these critics, is that the pursuit of a grand spectacle could overshadow the practical requirements of hosting a successful and sustainable tournament.