Countries and cities vie for the honor of hosting the FIFA World Cup, a tournament celebrated every four years. This event holds the promise of economic prosperity, a surge in tourism, and worldwide recognition. However, according to recent surveys and a report by insurance company Atradius, hosting the tournament might not be as beneficial as perceived.
Data from FIFA and the World Trade Organization indicates substantial contributions to the global economy from World Cup events. For instance, the 2026 edition is expected to add around $40.9 billion to the global GDP and create more than 800,000 jobs. Yet, while hosting offers prestige, research reveals that such events often cost the host cities more than they gain. Local governments shoulder significant costs, including security, policing, transportation improvements, and fan events. Although FIFA receives substantial revenue, host cities incur considerable risks.
FIFA’s spokesperson told Newsweek, “FIFA is proud of the strong partnerships established at every level, from national governments to local municipalities and host committees across Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Each host city has its unique challenges and priorities, and FIFA collaborates to accommodate local needs for a sustainable model.”
The spokesperson added that the World Cup generates economic activities and long-term opportunities for host cities and regions, emphasizing FIFA’s commitment to maximize benefits for all stakeholders.
How Host Cities Previously Fared
The 2026 World Cup features 48 teams playing 104 matches across 16 cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. There are concerns about potential losses for host cities this year, highlighted by lower hotel prices, costly flights, and unsold tickets.
Historically, host cities have struggled to achieve predicted revenues. A University of Toronto study found 12 out of the last 14 World Cups resulted in net losses for these cities. Despite optimistic projections, the expenses often exceed the economic benefits from tourism and local spending. The 1994 U.S. World Cup, despite being a success for FIFA, led to estimated losses of up to $9.3 billion for host cities.
A spokesperson from FIFA stated, “Host cities are accountable for transportation, FIFA Fan Festivals, and public safety costs. They receive government aid in all three countries.” They noted FIFA’s funding covers stadium rentals, technical infrastructure, broadcasting, and security.
While FIFA adjusts requirements to reduce costs, local authorities often find economic forecasts significantly exaggerated. Victor Matheson, a sports economics professor, mentioned that these forecasts should be treated as promotional rather than genuine economic analyses.
The “crowding out” effect makes host cities unattractive to regular tourists due to event-related congestion. Also, job gains are temporary, as noted by a recent Oxford Economics study.
Infrastructure challenges further impact projections. Urgent construction can inflate costs, as public budgets usually bear these overruns. Although this is less relevant in the U.S. due to existing infrastructure, it remains a concern elsewhere.
Poll Warns of Low Interest in the World Cup
Despite the grand scale, FIFA faces criticism over ticket pricing, with concerns about ticket sales and hotel bookings indicating fluctuating interest. A recent Emerson College poll showed 45% of the 1200 respondents were uninterested in the World Cup. Conducted just before the opening, the poll aligns with reports of potential ticket sale slumps. FIFA maintains that ticket demand is strong, offering competitive prices.
Furthermore, a report from the American Hotel and Lodging Association indicated that 80% of surveyed hotels were behind in bookings. Although concerns exist over partly filled stadiums, this issue isn’t new, as previous World Cups also faced similar challenges with attendance despite “sold-out” tickets.