The eagerly-anticipated and delayed report from the FIFA Evaluation Task Force, published late last night, put forward both the United 2026 and Morocco 2026 bids for approval by the ruling Council.

After all the build-up, including the most hastily-resolved and ludicrous Ethics Committee investigation of all time, the unpredictable nature of United States President Donald Trump and suggestions that FIFA is desperate for one of the two bidders to succeed, we will have a vote at the FIFA Congress in Moscow on June 13.

Speculation had grown before the reports were published that FIFA President Gianni Infantino had seemingly got his wish that Morocco be eliminated from the race, paving the way for the United 2026 bid, with all its headline financial figures and promises, to be awarded the tournament in the Russian capital.

The rumour mill was buzzing with claims that the Task Force, which had the power to exclude either candidate if they deemed them not to have met FIFA requirements, had removed Morocco from the two-horse race.

While that proved untrue in the end, the time of the publication of the report - which came at nearly midnight Zurich time - suggests there was plenty of wrangling and behind the scenes politicking before the Task Force’s verdict was released.

When it did eventually arrive, the contents of the report were to be expected.

One bid curled a shot from outside of the area into the corner of the net and the other trickled over the line after a chaotic goalmouth scramble. It is not difficult to guess which one is which.

United 2026 scored four out of five, compared with the 2.7 score given to Morocco 2026 - marginally over the two out of five required for the bid to proceed.

Unsurprisingly, the joint attempt from the US, Canada and Mexico outscored their Moroccan rivals in almost every department. The only area the North African proposal was considered better than the United 2026 behemoth was organising costs.

Morocco 2026 had three areas deemed high risk by the evaluation panel – stadiums, accommodation and accommodation/transport - all of which are pretty crucial when it comes to organising a World Cup.

The number of high-risk elements in the joint North American bid? None.

All 14 stadiums included in the Moroccan bid would need to be built or renovated, while the United 2026 would not need to build any new stadiums. The inspectors said the attempt from the US, Canada and Mexico contained a “portfolio of existing, high-quality and fully-operational stadiums”.

“The amount of new infrastructure required for the Morocco 2026 bid to become reality cannot be overstated," the executive summary of the report reads.

"While this is covered in the report in regard to the bid's individual components, the Evaluation Task Force considers it its duty to emphasise the significant overall risk, on a compounded basis, of a bid that has so many facilities (from stadiums and training sites to major transport infrastructure and accommodation projects) that would need to be built or completely renovated."

In a more general sense, the United 2026 bid was labelled very good, with their Moroccan challengers merely sufficient.

“The Morocco 2026 bid and United 2026 bid represent two almost opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the nature of their bids,” read a line in the report.

It was not all plain sailing for United 2026, however, as the main challenges and issues highlighted with their bid centred on immigration, human rights and labour standards and Government support.

While Morocco 2026 has the latter element in abundance, the backing of the Governments, in particular the US, has always been a concern.

The Trump effect, as it has been dubbed not just in connection with the 2026 World Cup but also the general state of American society at the moment, has lingered over the joint candidacy ever since they confirmed their intention to seek the hosting rights to football’s quadrennial showpiece.

From comments he allegedly made about African countries to warning nations that he may withhold US support if they did not support the United 2026 bid come vote time, Trump has done his best to be an ever-present throughout the process so far.

His plan to deny access to the US from several predominantly Muslim countries was worthy of a mention in the report as the Task Force said it poses a “significant risk to discrimination-free entry to the country", while the panel added that there were “still some questions to be answered in relation to how the three countries would ensure cross-border integration, co-operation and consistency in this area”.

But for those blemishes, the report largely made pleasing reading for bid officials and supporters of United 2026, although there were some who thought they might score even higher than they did.

If the inspection panel were choosing who got the 2026 tournament, there would be little doubt as to where the event will be held.

But the fact is the report has now served its purpose and is likely to have barely any influence on the decision of the 207 voters on June 13.

It is politics, not points, which will now decide the destination of the 2026 World Cup.

On that front, Morocco will fancy their chances and there is plenty of reason for optimism for supporters of their bid. 

Chief executive Hicham El Amrani recently tried to position a World Cup in the North African nation as “almost European”, perhaps in an effort to take advantage of the growing hostility between UEFA and FIFA over Infantino’s controversial Club World Cup and Nations League proposals. El Amrani knows full well that the European and Asian bloc will have a huge say in the final result.

The aforementioned Trump effect is arguably the biggest fear of United 2026 executives and it will be interesting to see how Morocco 2026 try to capitalise on that before the vote.

They might not have to, of course, as the irrationality of the most powerful man in the free world and his ability to shoot the United 2026 bid in the foot cannot be underestimated.

As FIFA have shown in the past, the most obvious choice is not always the right one. Russia and Qatar scored the lowest of all the 2018 and 2022 candidates but were still awarded the hosting rights, albeit amid a mire of controversy and scandal.

Morocco 2026 has already won its first battle by getting on the ballot paper, which many thought would not be the case a few weeks ago. The only line in the report which will matter to them is thus: "The 2026 Bid Evaluation Task Force has determined that both bids have qualified for designation by the FIFA Council."

Game very much on.