TL;DR
Get travel and outdoor gear delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
Host cities for the 2026 World Cup are bearing heavy financial burdens, with costs exceeding revenue and FIFA reaping billions. The event benefits FIFA more than the local governments hosting matches.
Host cities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup are incurring substantial costs, with local governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars, while FIFA continues to generate billions in revenue, highlighting a significant imbalance in the tournament’s economic impact.
According to recent reports, cities hosting matches for the 2026 World Cup are responsible for massive expenses, including stadium upgrades, security, transportation, and public services. For example, North Jersey has spent over $300 million, and Toronto and Vancouver have committed hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars. Meanwhile, FIFA is projected to earn approximately $13 billion from ticket sales, sponsorships, and broadcasting rights, but does not share these revenues with host cities.
One notable example is New Jersey, where the local transit authority planned to charge $150 for a round-trip train ticket from Midtown Manhattan to MetLife Stadium—more than ten times the usual fare. The price was later reduced to $105 after corporate donations. New Jersey officials, including Governor Mikie Sherrill, have criticized FIFA for not covering transportation costs, arguing that taxpayers should not subsidize the tournament’s expenses. FIFA responded by expressing surprise at the state’s stance.
Why It Matters
This situation underscores a broader issue in international sports events: host cities often shoulder the financial burden while FIFA reaps the majority of the profits. The economic benefits for local economies are questionable, especially given the high costs and limited tourism impact, due to substitution effects where visitors replace other spending. The disparity raises concerns about fairness and sustainability of hosting such large-scale events.
train ticket from NYC to MetLife Stadium
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Background
The 2026 World Cup is the first expanded tournament with 48 teams, involving multiple host cities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Past tournaments in Russia and Qatar faced criticism for autocratic governance and infrastructure costs. The U.S. hosts, unlike those in authoritarian regimes, must navigate complex negotiations with local governments, often leading to contentious financial arrangements. The event’s economic impact remains a subject of debate, with many experts questioning whether the promised boost in tourism and revenue will materialize.
“FIFA should cover the cost of transporting its fans. If it won’t, we will not be subsidizing World Cup ticket holders on the backs of New Jerseyans who rely on NJ TRANSIT every day.”
— Governor Mikie Sherrill
“We are quite surprised by the NJ governor’s approach on fan transportation.”
— FIFA spokesperson
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Remains Unclear
It remains unclear whether future host cities will be able to fully recover their costs or if FIFA will adjust its revenue-sharing policies. The long-term economic impact on local communities is also still uncertain, as the full scope of expenses and benefits will only be apparent after the tournament concludes.
public transportation fare meters
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What’s Next
Next steps include ongoing preparations for the tournament, with host cities continuing infrastructure upgrades and security arrangements. Monitoring will focus on actual attendance, revenue generation, and the final costs incurred by local governments. FIFA’s financial strategies for post-tournament revenue sharing also remain to be clarified.
event security screening equipment
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Why do host cities spend so much on the World Cup?
Host cities invest in stadium upgrades, security, transportation, and infrastructure to meet FIFA’s standards and accommodate fans, often at significant public expense.
Does FIFA share its profits with the host cities?
No, FIFA typically retains the majority of revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships, and broadcasting rights, leaving host cities with high costs and limited financial return.
Will the host cities recover their expenses after the tournament?
It is uncertain; many cities face ongoing costs with limited evidence of proportional economic benefits, raising questions about the long-term financial sustainability of hosting the World Cup.
What is FIFA’s position on the costs incurred by host cities?
FIFA has generally maintained that host nations and cities are responsible for their expenses, and has shown little willingness to reimburse or share profits beyond the tournament’s revenue.
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
