Yes, the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be up for grabs in Moscow on June 13.

What a contrast with last time around, when the simultaneous battles for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments generated squillions of column-inches day in, day out from a year or more before the decisive votes.

This is partly because the field - as, ultimately, in the respective contests for the 2022, 2024 and 2028 Olympics - is very restricted; it is a two-horse race.

What is more, like that battle for the 2022 Olympics and Paralympics, it looks like a mismatch, pitting the combined might of the United States, Canada and Mexico against Morocco.

More Shergar against Muffin the Mule than Coke versus Pepsi, surely.

But that, frankly, is what we all thought about the 2022 race as well - and yet Almaty, the rank outsider from Kazakhstan, came tantalisingly close to snatching the prize from Beijing with a barnstorming finish.

This time too a closer-than-expected finale looks well within the bounds of possibility, with the result that media interest is picking up and may actually skyrocket in the remaining 11 weeks of the contest.

Just about everything has changed since one Wednesday in early December 2010 when I spent much of the last evening before the votes to determine the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts perched on the arm of Chuck Blazer's sofa near a large Christmas tree in Zurich's plush Baur Au Lac hotel.

This is because, of course, for all the screeds of coverage it generated, that double race for 2018 and 2022 ended up by playing a big part in wrecking FIFA's reputation.

So we have a new electorate, a new system - and a new uncertainty of the sort that tends to attach itself to prototypes.

One uncertainty is whether things will actually get to a vote.

There are two hurdles before we reach that point: an assessment by FIFA's Bid Evaluation Task Force and shortlisting by the FIFA Council. (This replaced the discredited Executive Committee which formed the electorate for the 2018 and 2022 contests).

Another uncertainty is whether, if indeed there is a vote - which this time would engage all 200-odd member associations - said ballot would actually designate a winner.

Bizarrely, the new voting procedure features a third, "none-of-the-above" option.

This could trigger a second race, with new candidates, scheduled to culminate only in 2020.

You might regard this as a mere technicality that has no chance of actually transpiring.

You might well be right.

Nonetheless, the provision does further muddy the waters of what ought to be a straight mano a mano fight, not least because the bidding guide specifically stipulates that national associations from Asia and Europe would be able to enter the re-run.

Asia and Europe together account for 101 national associations, i.e not too far short of the 104 majority that looks like it might be required to win a June 13 vote.

Should momentum behind this option start to gather in the hothouse pre-Congress atmosphere, moreover, it does not seem too far-fetched to suggest that the odd South American nation might be tempted to jump on the "plague on both your houses" bandwagon.

This would be according to the logic that if Europe hosted 2026, they could not stage the centenary World Cup in 2030 which South America, host of the inaugural 1930 competition, appears to covet.

The "none-of-the-above" option arguably makes more sense if only one candidate is proprosed to Congress as the 2026 host, since it hands national associations a veto over a choice that would, in effect, have been made by the Evaluation Task Force/Council.

Increasingly there seems also to be uncertainty over who national associations would back if they are given a vote and if they refrain from sending everyone home to try again in 2020.

I still score the US-Canada-Mexico behemoth ahead, but by a narrow enough margin to make the biggest confederation UEFA's 55 votes potentially critical.

Had I sat down to write this last week, indeed, I would have been tempted to say that, as with so many other aspects of global affairs at present, it could all come down to Russia and the additional votes that its endorsement of one or other candidate might influence.

And so yesterday, it was with great interest that I noted my colleague Thomas Giles' report that the Russian Football Union was throwing its weight behind Morocco.

Having now processed this information, I have to say that my gut feeling, amid the uncertainties, is that the revenue-generating potential of the US/Canada/Mexico bid, along with the hyper-developed infrastructure, especially non-sporting, that it will be able to draw on, still make it the likelier winner. 

But, 77 days out, Morocco has never looked more in the game.

Nor have we exhausted the list of uncertainties that crystal ball gazers may need to consider.

Here are two more questions for you:

Does FIFA President Gianni Infantino mind who wins?

How might what happens over the next 11 weeks impinge on the Presidential election, due next year, which I would imagine he is intending to contest?

When the two gigantic bid books were published this week, Infantino focused, properly and understandably, on the new process' objectivity and transparency, and on the need for a fresh start.

"FIFA has been heavily criticised for how it conducted the selection of hosts in the past," he stated.

"It was our obligation to learn from this and leave no room for any doubt or subjectivity."

When I ponder the first of these questions my honest impression is that, in his heart of hearts, I think Infantino would prefer a US/Canada/Mexico victory.

I say this partly because in 2016 I spent a not-insubstantial part of the one hour and 17 minutes that it took to complete the interminable second round of that year's FIFA Presidential voting process looking down from a gallery watching then United States Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati.

It appeared that he was beavering away trying to ensure that as many as possible of those who, like the United States, backed Prince Ali bin al-Hussein in the first round, switched their allegiance to Infantino.

As I wrote at the time: "The new FIFA President owes Gulati…a big debt of gratitude" - not, I hasten to add, that this makes me think today that he would preside over the present contest in anything other than an impeccably even-handed way.

It seems I am not alone in having formed this impression; Keir Radnedge, that experienced and highly respected FIFA observer, wrote this week that "Infantino is considered to be privately favourable to the United 2026 bid".

You would think, by the way, that those directly responsible for raising revenue for FIFA would have a preference for the tripartite bid - much as we largely assumed that the International Olympic Committee's money men would be rooting for Beijing 2022 - simply because of the vast scale of its home market, after a period when FIFA has not exactly been an easy sell.

There seems little reason why FIFA would earn less overall from broadcasting rights, its biggest income stream, as a consequence of opting for Morocco.

The United 2026 bid book estimates, however, that ticketing revenue might reach $2.1 billion (£1.5 billion/€1.7 billion).

The Morocco bid book forecasts overall revenues of $785 million (£557 million/€636 million) from ticket sales, though it also says that venues would be provided free of charge.

By way of comparison, FIFA is budgeting for revenue from hospitality and ticket sales of $575 million (£408 million/€466 million) in 2015-18 and $500 million (£355 million/€405 million) in 2019-22.

Finally, could the events of coming weeks have some bearing on next year’s Presidential contest?

I would think that the most likely scenario under which this might happen would be if one or other candidate for 2026 were knocked out of the running before a full Congressional vote.

Irrespective of the objective facts of the situation, I would think it would be very difficult under those circumstances for Infantino to avoid being blamed by supporters of the excluded bid for its exclusion and therefore its defeat.

Should he then present himself in 2019, and should there be a viable challenger, it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that some of these disappointed supporters might view the Presidential vote as a chance to, as they would see it, exact their revenge.

At any event, I think we should stand by for what has so far been another low-key sporting mega-event bidding race to burst into life in coming weeks.