World Cup Tales: Colombia 1986, the Tournament That Never Was

A Legacy in Tatters

In 1974, FIFA made its decision. The 1986 World Cup would go to Colombia. The choice was the brainchild of Misael Pastrana Borrero, the country’s president, who had come to power four years earlier following a discredited election. Like many leaders of his era, Pastrana saw grand construction projects as the route to prosperity and national prestige. With Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico having already hosted, and Argentina scheduled for 1978, it seemed Colombia’s turn. This World Cup was to be his legacy.

It was not to be.

Pastrana was the last Conservative leader of his country. The fraudulent election of 1970 inspired the formation of guerrilla groups like M-19, and the years that followed saw Colombia slide into debt and violence. The rise of drug cartels created a backdrop of kidnap and murder, raising serious questions about the nation’s ability to safely host a major international event. Pastrana’s ambitious building plans, which included new stadia for the tournament, fell by the wayside. They hadn’t been built, and it became increasingly clear they couldn’t be. At the start of 1983, Colombia formally conceded defeat and handed the hosting rights back to FIFA.

The Havelange Opportunity

For FIFA, this was a crisis. But for its president, João Havelange, it was an opportunity. Havelange had taken power in 1974, the same year Colombia was awarded the tournament, ousting Stanley Rous. His campaign had been built on promising a greater role for African and Asian confederations, a direct challenge to the old European order represented by Rous, who had once argued for apartheid South Africa’s inclusion in the World Cup. Now, with the 1986 finals suddenly available, Havelange could reshape the tournament in his own image.

Four nations put themselves forward: the United States, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico. Brazil soon dropped out. Canada, a country that had never qualified for a World Cup finals, presented a weak bid. The USA, however, looked like a strong contender. Its case was championed by Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s former Secretary of State, who had been chair of the North American Soccer League’s Board of Governors since 1977. Legends like Pelé and Franz Beckenbauer spoke in favour of the American bid. The country had the sporting infrastructure to deliver a massive, lucrative tournament. Yet the US Congress refused to provide governmental support, and the bid collapsed.

Even with government backing, Kissinger’s bid may have been doomed. FIFA’s relationship with the United States Soccer Federation was fractious at best. In 1981, FIFA had threatened to outlaw the NASL and suspend the USSF for introducing radical rule changes, such as a thirty-five-yard offside line and using shoot-outs to decide drawn matches. The NASL never fully implemented the changes FIFA demanded. When the 1986 tournament became available, FIFA found that revenge is a dish best served cold. A vote was held, but it was less a democratic process than an instruction from FIFA’s executive committee. Every single vote went to Mexico.

The Televisa Template

The decision was no accident. A key figure was Guillermo Cañedo, a FIFA vice-president and the head of Televisa, the Mexican media conglomerate. Televisa owned Club América, Necaxa, and Atlante. Cañedo promised a World Cup that would provide a template for how the tournament would be run for years to come. Official partners were brought in. Ticket prices were increased, pricing out many locals and shrinking crowds for some group matches. It made some people very wealthy, and its appeal to FIFA was obvious. Giving the tournament to Mexico also appeased potential anger from the South American confederation, CONMEBOL, by keeping the finals in Latin America. It was a move that cemented Havelange’s worldview upon the game.

Mexico prepared to host its second World Cup in sixteen years. In September 1985, a hideous earthquake struck Mexico City, but miraculously the stadia survived and the tournament went ahead, complete with lunchtime kick-offs under a blazing sun for the benefit of European television audiences. Televisa profited massively. Colombia, meanwhile, suffered its own tragedies. Two months after the Mexico City earthquake, a volcano caused a landslide that hit the Armero region, killing 20,000 people. Six weeks after that, the M-19 guerrilla group seized the Supreme Palace of Justice in Bogotá. In the subsequent army raid, over one hundred people were killed, including eleven of the country’s Supreme Court Justices.

It now seems likely that Colombia will bid for the 2026 World Cup finals. There is a serious danger, however, that it will be overlooked again. The year 2030 marks the centenary of the first World Cup, and it is expected that Argentina and Uruguay will launch a joint bid to commemorate the final they contested in 1930. CONMEBOL is understood to be highly supportive of this emotional proposal. While CONCACAF’s Jack Warner has urged the Colombians to bid for 2026, it seems inconceivable that FIFA will allow two successive tournaments on the same continent. Considering the internal workings of FIFA remain a mystery to most, it would seem unwise to bet against Colombia getting another chance eventually.