The United States Soccer Federation imagined that securing the rights—along with Mexico and Canada—to host this year’s World Cup would be a boon to soccer’s popularity in America. Cities and states, eyeing the payoff from a worldwide audience arriving for a once-in-a-generation event, scrambled to secure their piece of this soccer pie by winning the privilege to host games. But with only weeks remaining before the 2026 World Cup begins on June 11, many officials fear that the event could become the economic development equivalent of an “own goal.”
While the tournament’s organizer, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), expects a massive windfall from hosting the event in the U.S., its stratospheric ticket prices and controversial resale policies have sparked worldwide outrage among fans. Meantime, officials in host cities are suddenly learning the true cost of their commitment. Many apparently didn’t read the fine print of their World Cup agreements closely enough and are now discovering that the costs may greatly outweigh potential benefits.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
U.S. Soccer set off a frenzy among local officials when it announced a bid for the 2026 games. Seventeen U.S. cities joined the soccer federation’s attempt to entice FIFA. They were buoyed by news that FIFA was anxious to return to the states because the 1994 edition of the games in America was the most successful event in FIFA history. The 2026 tournament, expanded by 50 percent to include 48 national teams, promised to be an even more spectacular windfall.
Then-New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy epitomized the enthusiasm among local officials when he said that there was no way to “overestimate” how big a bonanza the games could be for his state. Only a few skeptics voiced concerns, including officials in Chicago who withdrew their bid to be a host city, fearing open-ended costs. Still, FIFA president Gianni Infantino hyperbolically claimed the U.S. economy would derive $30 billion from the games. Eventually, FIFA chose 11 U.S. cities as hosts and designated Jersey’s MetLife stadium as the home of the prestigious final.
The glow quickly started to fade once sales began. The first disquieting signs were unprecedented ticket prices and a decision by FIFA to allow unlimited resale of tickets, from which it would take a cut of the profits. This set off a worldwide effort by scalpers to corner tickets they knew they could hawk for significant profits. As sales proceeded, anger grew over what seemed to be questionable efforts by FIFA to squeeze fans. Early buyers were sold tickets for certain sections in the stadiums, but not with individual seat numbers, only to later receive actual tickets that were farther from the action and less desirable than stadium maps had implied. “It’s just hard to not feel scammed and/or bamboozled,” one fan said.
Local officials soon realized that fans weren’t the only ones burdened with stiff prices. The city council in Foxborough, Massachusetts—home to seven World Cup matches at Gillette Stadium—suddenly faced a nearly $8 million bill for public safety related to the tournament. This included not only the games themselves but also FIFA-mandated fan fests, security for tournament officials, and additional airport security. The city council refused to issue special licenses for the games until the Kraft family—owners of the New England Revolution MLS soccer team—agreed to cover the town’s costs until promised federal funding arrived.
Soon after, the Los Angeles and New Jersey organizing committees announced that, contra FIFA’s free fan-fest requirement, they would be charging tickets to these events. Security costs for fan fests could exceed $1 million a day—a big bite many city organizers hadn’t anticipated.
Open sniping between FIFA and some hosts subsequently broke out over costs. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority announced that it would charge $80 for a round-trip train ride from Boston to Gillette Stadium, four times the price fans pay for the same trip to NFL games. Special buses to the stadium reach up to $95 round trip. Those looking to escape the steep transit fares by driving will pay up to $175 for a spot in the stadium lot.
New Jersey officials, employing the public-transportation version of “hold my beer,” announced that train tickets from Manhattan to MetLife, which normally cost $12.90 on game day, would be $150. New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat who took office in January, was decidedly less enthusiastic about bounty from the games than her predecessor. She claimed that Murphy, also a Democrat, had left her with a $48 million bill for World Cup transportation and criticized FIFA, arguing it could earn as much as $11 billion on the tournament while providing no subsidy to host cities. FIFA warned that the $150 fare would have a “chilling effect” on the World Cup. The Trump administration, meanwhile, pointed out that it had sent New Jersey $10 million to defray transportation costs and suggested that the state’s price tag for moving about 40,000 fans a game was vastly inflated.
Though more skepticism early on would have served them well, local officials are justified in their concerns about costs. Independent research confirms that major sporting events are often a big loss for taxpayers. A 2004 study examining the 1994 FIFA World Cup concluded that the average host city experienced more than $700 million in reduced local income during the tournament. Such losses were linked to a “crowding out” effect in which higher prices for hotels and other venues discouraged regular tourists from visiting host cities.
Subsequent World Cups have inflicted similar adverse economic impacts. While South Africa spent nearly $4 billion to host the 2010 event, it attracted only half the anticipated visitors, and economic output in the country slowed during the event.Brazil’s government invested a sobering $14 billion on new stadiums and infrastructure to host the 2014 World Cup, only to spark protests within the country on rising costs borne by Brazilians to finance the effort.
Pushback is already beginning in the U.S. over future efforts to attract big events. U.S. Soccer is bidding for the 2031 Women’s World Cup, a smaller tournament than the men’s version but one rising in popularity. Several American cities, including Chicago and Pittsburgh, have declined to participate in the bid, reportedly because of FIFA’s extensive demands.
International events like the Olympics or the World Cup will always find countries willing to invest vast sums to announce themselves on the global stage and boost their visibility. Qatar, ruled by the al-Thani monarchy, spent an astounding $220 billion of petrodollar riches on infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup. Russia invested some $14 billion of public money to host the tournament in 2018.
By contrast, Washington has designated a mere $625 million of special funding for host cities to aid with security and transportation. Local governments are spending meager amounts, relative to what we’ve seen elsewhere over the years, to support local efforts. But for many Americans, polls suggest, the cost is still too high, especially when an organization like FIFA walks about with billions in profits.