★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ WORLD CUP ’26 HOSTING COSTS ≡
“The 11 US World Cup host cities are facing a collective shortfall of at least $250m, due to a highly restrictive deal from Fifa that may yet see the federal government – as well as local and private funding – have to pick up the costs.”
That’s the opening of a lengthy story posted Wednesday by Britain’s The Independent, explaining that many of the U.S. host cities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup are struggling to deal with the costs imposed by FIFA for support, but with little opportunity to recover them.
The host cities – Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle – have all signed lengthy contracts with FIFA that include lists of requirements for fully-equipped office space, outdoor advertising control, safety and security, transportation support – including ad space – plus no-cost-to-enter fan festivals and more. The same is true for the three Mexican and two Canadian host venues.
In return, FIFA has granted host city organizing committees limited numbers of tickets and commercial opportunities, but always giving its own sponsors a first right of refusal and requiring services to be provided even if the host organizers are unable to obtain any outside funding.
A 5 December blog post by the non-partisan, Washington, D.C.-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) headlined “Not-So-Free Kick: How the 2026 FIFA World Cup Will Cost Cities Millions” pointed out:
“Missouri’s Department of Revenue caught our attention the other day when it reminded fans that it won’t charge sales tax on tickets for the World Cup matches played in Kansas City.
“Missouri hasn’t published an exact estimate of how much revenue this will cost them, but a reasonable guess is around $1.9 million per game – funds that otherwise would support public education, health care, and other public services. With six matches set to be held at Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium, over $11 million in state and local revenue could be lost. …
“Missouri, it turns out, is not alone. Every city hosting World Cup games will exempt sales tax from ticket prices. The state of Florida will lose around $7.4 million on games played in Miami, and Georgia expects to lose up to $25 million in state and local sales taxes on World Cup games played in Atlanta. These estimates exclude tickets re-sold – often at much higher prices – through FIFA’s official marketplace that will also be tax-free.
“But Missouri, Georgia, Florida, and other host states aren’t giving tax breaks to World Cup fans out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, FIFA demanded these sales tax breaks as a price to play ball.”
It’s in the Host City Agreement; you can find the 244-page Kansas City agreement from the City Council agenda from April 2024 here. The Kansas City Docket Memo for the agreement notes that the Kansas City Convention and Tourism Fund will be used for $15 million in support of the hosting of the World Cup, and the question “Does the legislation generate revenue, leverage outside funding or deliver a return on investment?” was answered, “No.”
The ITEP blog post added:
“Unfortunately, tens of millions of dollars in lost sales tax revenue is just the tip of the iceberg. To host part of the tournament and reap its economic rewards, each city is expected to shoulder between $100 to $200 million in costs related to infrastructure, security, and logistics. FIFA also requires host cities to provide them with office space equipped with state-of-the-art amenities, free of charge.
“FIFA justifies these high costs and lofty demands with the promise of economic returns. It says North American cities will receive a huge influx of tourists eager to spend their money on hotels, restaurants, and other parts of the local economy which will make up for the lost revenues.
“Other countries’ experiences are less convincing. Twelve of the last 14 World Cups hosted since 1966 have resulted in financial losses for host countries. With losses ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, the last three World Cups have an average return on investment of negative 31 percent.”
The story in The Independent reported that “only two cities – Houston and Atlanta – have so far performed well in the [Host City] programme, with very few others so far announcing ‘Host City Supporter’ deals,” and that pressure is mounting to ask for state or Federal support on the costs.
The story quoted a source, “Fifa weren’t willing to subsidise, so they created this other programme, and then strangled it once it was out there.”
As of 2 December, a review of FIFA World Cup sponsors shows seven FIFA Partners, eight FIFA World Cup-specific partners and six regional partners; 21 in all.
It is worth noting that the 2026 FIFA World Cup is the first time that there is no organizing committee in the host country. FIFA is running all aspects of the tournament itself, from new headquarters in Coral Gables, Florida, and will keep essentially all revenue from the World Cup.
The U.S. government has authorized $625 million in funding per H.R. 1, passed earlier this year, but this is earmarked for security requirements and not local host support.
FIFA’s primary pitch to host cities was that the World Cup is so overwhelmingly popular that waves of tourism will hit each city, generating significant spending. Now that the match schedules have been set and everyone knows who will play where and when, the cities – and FIFA – will see how this plays out over the next seven months until kickoff on 11 June 2026.
¶
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 850-event International Sports Calendar for 2025, 2026 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
