Econometer: Is it worth it economically for US cities to host the World Cup?
FIFA drove a hard bargain for U.S. cities that get to host the World Cup and now some leaders and residents are wondering if it was worth the cost.
Under the agreement, FIFA gets to keep the vast majority of revenue from tickets, sponsorships, parking, concessions and media rights. Meanwhile, cities must pay for security, transportation and often multimillion-dollar upgrades to infrastructure.
Chicago officials notably sent FIFA packing, but some fans are now voicing disappointment that the city didn't participate in the massive tournament.
The White House has projected the World Cup could bring in $30 billion for the U.S. economy, and FIFA said around $17.2 billion. Most economic studies cite job creation as the main driver of growth, but it is often criticized as only a short-term gain with no lasting benefit.
Question:Is it worth it economically for U.S. cities to host the World Cup?
Economists
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: If you were looking around the world for a place to host the World Cup at the lowest cost, you might well pick a U.S. city that already has the stadium, hotel and transportation infrastructure. If the city is a popular tourist destination, that can help make hosting a modest net positive. But I am skeptical of the claims by some boosters of huge benefits and would recommend against making big new investments in order to host events like this.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: Not for host cities - but possibly "yes" for San Diego, which hosts no matches yet captures the upside: hotel, restaurant, and transit demand from team base camps and overflow visitors, without nine-figure FIFA host-city costs. San Diego's high occupancy tax, which feeds the same fund that pays police, may well offset extra security costs. The catch: foreign visitors are running far below projections, deterred by travel bans on 39 countries, tighter entry rules, and citing presidential rhetoric as reasons to stay away.
Ray Major, economist
NO: FIFAs touting of massive positive economic impacts is egregiously misleading. FIFA's one-sided deal captures the majority of the revenue for themselves while local cities are forced to absorb significant operational costs including building temporary infrastructure, and rebranding their stadiums. At the same time, cities wave millions in ticket tax revenue. Additionally, marketing restrictions imposed by FIFA ensures that any financial windfalls bypass host communities. So from an economic perspective, it does not make sense.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The host city typically covers expenses related to venue upgrades, crowd management, and transportation while not sharing in the revenues from ticket sales and media rights. Fans spend money on hotel rooms, meals, and other services provided by local businesses, but this is partly offset by displaced tourists who avoid the city during World Cup matches. Some residents will stay at home to avoid crowds rather than patronize local businesses. Any benefit will be modest.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: That is if a city or region doesn't have to spend a lot of money to upgrade facilities, such as stadiums and infrastructure. That's why San Diego will do well with the Olympic soccer matches coming to Snapdragon Stadium in 2028. The impact this year may be less than originally expected as foreign attendance is being affected by travel restrictions and international political issues. The tourists that do come may help offset a decline in tourism to the U.S. due to these same reasons.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: Though the biggest gains aren't where people usually look. Tourism brings real revenue to U.S. cities during the World Cup, but the more valuable returns are the publicity and goodwill the host country generates on the world stage. Unfortunately, much of that goodwill is being squandered this time around. Travel and ticket costs are high, and the hostility shown to many international visitors is leaving a sour impression that will outlast the matches.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: According to Goldman Sachs, using previous World Cup data since 1982, whatever modest rise in the host nation's real GDP during the year of the tournament, long-term effects on economic growth are "effectively zero." Attendance is already reportedly lagging due to geopolitical concerns and high costs of travel in the U.S. FIFA imposes significant limitations on local benefits with sharply higher ticket prices over previous World Cups and "dynamic seat pricing," while misrepresenting allocated seating.
Executives
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: Like hosting the Olympics or the Super Bowl, cities spend heavily upfront, hoping that demand will follow and deliver economic gains for businesses, tourism and future travel interest. Yet blue dot fever from concerts is spreading to events like the World Cup, with ticket prices so high that seats are going empty as consumers opt out. For host cities, high costs and lower attendance weaken return on investment, while tourism gains from global exposure or word-of-mouth remain difficult to quantify.
Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.
YES: However, the positive impacts of hosting major sporting events can take years to materialize. But there is value to hosting - for example, the 1992 Olympics put Barcelona on the world map in a way that it wasn't previously, and that investment pays dividends to this day. The return on investment for a World Cup host city may not be immediate. But with the right marketing, it can reward the city with increased visitors and tax revenue for years to come.
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: The numbers just don't seem to add up. FIFA has outrageous demands for security, transportation and lodging that must be paid for by host cities. All the jobs that are created are very short-term. Meanwhile FIFA will be netting billions of dollars from the games. Yes, the worldwide visibility for host cities could boost future tourism, like our PGA games at Torrey Pines or Comic-Con, but with much less demand for expensive services.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
YES: Economic costs can be measured in many different ways. While American cities are disproportionately fronting the costs, the long-term upside probably outweighs the short-term costs. Think improved infrastructure, tourism, support jobs, redevelopment potential. And there is also the immeasurable pride and civic achievement that must be part of the overall calculation.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
YES: Critics exist, but hosting the World Cup delivers a real boost in tourism spending and global visibility, something U.S. cities haven't seen since 2019. Do cities absorb major security and operations costs? Yes. Does FIFA capture much of the revenue, and do some studies say impacts are overstated? Also, yes. But large metros with strong tourism infrastructure typically benefit overall. And the bonus remains: global travel and cultural exchange support world peace.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: Hosting the World Cup may be culturally exciting, but the economic benefits are oversold. FIFA captures most of the financial upside while cities assume substantial costs for security, transportation and infrastructure. The organization's history of corruption has invited blatant bribery and rewarded countries seeking image enhancement rather than responsible stewardship. Existing facilities and more equitable economics could justify future hosts, but not until FIFA fundamentally changes.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: Historically, major sports events rarely deliver large net profits for cities, and I think that might be particularly true due to the high cost of providing security. Plus, FIFA is keeping most of the revenues for itself. But the secondary benefits like national and civic pride are valuable offsets.
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.