Watch the accompanying episode, produced in collaboration with Pablo Torre Finds Out on The Athletic Podcast Network, here. Subscribe to Torre’s award-winning show on YouTube, The Athletic or wherever you get your podcasts.
In the fall of 2021, FIFA executives traveled across the North American cities in contention to host the 2026 men’s World Cup.
The joint United States, Mexico and Canada bid secured hosting rights for the World Cup in 2018 but, at that time, 23 cities were in contention, before being whittled down to the eventual 16.
During a get-to-know-you meeting held at SoFi Stadium near Los Angeles, a senior FIFA executive set out the core principles of the hosting agreements between soccer’s global governing body and the prospective host cities. The gist of it was this: FIFA takes the vast majority of the revenue from World Cup ticketing, media rights, sponsorship, concessions and parking, while cities are responsible for costs related to transportation, safety and security, extending beyond the stadium to FIFA Fan Fest locations, airports and even vehicles used in the competition.
At one point, Kathryn Schloessman, CEO of the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission, raised her hand and asked a question, according to others who were present. It went something like this: “So, what exactly do we get out of this?”
The FIFA executive replied: “Hosting this tournament will put your city on the map.”
With that mic drop, a room full of Los Angeles sports leaders stared at one another open-mouthed. “What did he just f***ing say?” recalls one person in the room, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect relationships. “Hollywood, Tinseltown, La-La Land, the Oscars, the Grammys, the Emmys, the Golden Globes, Super Bowls, Olympic Games, NBA All-Star, NHL All-Star, MLB All-Star… but FIFA will put Los Angeles on the map?”
This is just one snapshot of what has often been a fraught and challenging relationship between FIFA and its 11 U.S. host city committees ahead of the 2026 men’s World Cup; a story of mounting costs and mounting frustration at just who is footing the bill for the biggest sports event on the planet.
Examples of lesser-known costs borne by U.S. host cities — and ultimately U.S. taxpayers — include:
For FIFA, the men’s World Cup — the biggest in history with 48 teams and the first to be run by the governing body, without a centralized local organizing committee — will be a bonanza. It is set to generate more than $11 billion in revenue, according to FIFA, set against an operating budget of $2.7bn.
The governing body’s response to criticism of these vast revenues is to point out, as its president Gianni Infantino did in his pre-World Cup press conference on Wednesday, that “every dollar goes back into football”.
But, to Schloessman’s point, what exactly do the host cities get out of it?
FIFA has often championed a report which claimed $30.5 billion in economic impact would be injected into the U.S. economy, a claim now doubted by host cities who have seen slower travel and hotel uptake than expected. The rows over transit pricing have overshadowed New York/New Jersey and Boston’s preparations for the World Cup, as well as the town of Foxboro almost refusing FIFA a license to host World Cup games at Gillette Stadium due to a $7.8 million security funding shortfall.
Some cities were very unhappy with the games they were allocated after the draw in December, and numerous official FIFA Fan Fest plans have been scaled back by cities unable to absorb the costs, notably in the Bay Area and New Jersey.
One thing’s for sure, with the U.S. the sole bidder for the 2031 Women’s World Cup after submitting a joint bid with Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica, host cities are in no rush to make the same concessions to FIFA again.
One city, Chicago, saw the alarm bells long ago, stepping out of the race for 2026. Their former Mayor Rahm Emanuel told The Athletic: “We were on the front end of the bad side and the back end of the good side. I said, ‘I don’t know what any other mayor or governor is doing, but do you expect me to treat the Chicago taxpayers as the dumb money at the table? You’ve got to be kidding me!’”
Lessons for the 2031 Women’s World Cup
Publicly, the 11 U.S. host cities continue to say positive things about soccer’s governing body. This may be because they agreed to coordinate with FIFA on “any public announcement, statement and/or public and private press briefings” relating to the men’s World Cup or host city, according to some host city contracts seen by The Athletic.
Behind the scenes, however, it can be very different — although some are more circumspect, saying the mistake was by predecessors who did not appreciate the strength of the contractual terms, while a dwindling number of executives maintain that the World Cup will deliver the value they crave.
The exasperation crystallized in November 2025. The U.S. had submitted a joint bid to host the Women’s World Cup in 2031 and an announcement was scheduled for April. This has now been pushed back until later this year. FIFA said this was because it wanted to create a “standalone” event to mark any announcement. Yet there are broader challenges at play, too.
The Athletic can reveal that 21 U.S. host cities signed a letter, intended to be sent to U.S. Soccer chief executive JT Batson, which warned that cities would not be prepared to sign for the 2031 edition without “meaningful negotiation of key terms.” The letter made clear that “many U.S. Host Cities are currently working through significant operational, financial, and contractual challenges stemming from the terms of the existing FIFA World Cup 26 hosting arrangements.”
It was signed by representatives from seven of the U.S. host cities that will host the men’s World Cup in 2026: Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle. Although Philadelphia, Dallas, Kansas City and Atlanta did not put their signatures to the letter, sources familiar with the discussions say each city shares many of the reservations.
The cities’ letter, although never sent, makes clear their concerns about the 2026 men’s World Cup
Additionally, further cities who could be in contention for the women’s edition put their signatures to the letter, including Baltimore, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland/Columbus, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Orlando, Phoenix, San Diego, Tampa Bay and Washington D.C.
In the end, the letter was not formally sent, with sources indicating this was due to potential risks associated with “public relations and politics,” but the messages within the letter were fully relayed to U.S. Soccer, who, in turn, informed FIFA. Cities have, at this stage, signed only non-binding memorandums of understanding with FIFA, committing just to a “dialogue phase” after the 2026 World Cup to take on learnings.
U.S. Soccer declined to comment when approached by The Athletic, but sources close to the process insisted that while cities want things done “differently”, they remain “eager” to be involved in 2031. FIFA has been approached for comment.
No tequila sponsors, no stadium branding, fewer avenues for cities to recoup money
As host cities edged closer to the 2026 World Cup, they discovered all manner of cost obligations which have easily run into the billions for the U.S. taxpayer.
Some concerns were addressed. For example, the original hosting agreements included a commitment to provide free public transportation for World Cup ticket holders, as was the case at previous tournaments in Qatar and Russia. But in 2023, the cities secured a concession: they would be able to provide the transport “at cost” — even if nobody at FIFA foresaw that those costs would end up being $98 trains to MetLife Stadium in New Jersey or $95 buses to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro.
The 11 U.S. host cities also clubbed together hundreds of thousands of dollars to collectively lobby the federal government to provide security funding for the tournament, which President Trump eventually passed, releasing $625 million to be shared across the cities.
Many other demands, however, have remained in place. For example, this World Cup includes a demand for stadiums to waive the naming rights of their venues, which means that MetLife Stadium will be known as New York New Jersey Stadium (although New Jersey’s governor Mikie Sherrill requested that one of the two major signs at MetLife read “New Jersey New York Stadium”, to reflect the importance of her state).
The ‘clean stadium’ demand not only includes wiping the title sponsor physically from the venue’s exterior (which has cost some cities almost $500,000) but also stadium sponsors from every room in the venue and concourse in the venue, as well as clearing airspace and any temporary or permanent parking facilities. The Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta got an exemption, owing to the sheer physical challenge of covering the sign, but other cities were aggrieved and considered also refusing to do so until being reminded of their contracts.
The extent of FIFA’s control is extensive, according to the city contracts seen by The Athletic. Cities are even asked to ensure the FIFA names for the venues are used for all local directional signage from at least 14 days prior to the opening match, while the usual stadium name is not to be used in governmental communications.
Host city partnerships have also been stringently policed by FIFA to avoid conflicts with its own sponsors. These deals were important because they would help cover the operational costs for host committees, decreasing the reliance on public funds. For example, one might expect Boston and Seattle to do deals with major brands such as Dunkin’ and Starbucks which have headquarters in the cities, but Coca-Cola, a FIFA sponsor, has lesser-known coffee brands including Georgia Coffee, Costa Coffee and Caffe Vergnano, meaning deals such as these could not be approved by FIFA.
One host city executive joked: “If Coca Cola owned a luxury yacht as part of the portfolio, then I came in to FIFA and said, ‘I have a luxury yacht that wants to sponsor,’ they could be like, ‘No, no, we have one.’” Coca-Cola was approached for comment.
Similarly, Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship of FIFA extends beyond beer sponsorship for Michelob Ultra and Stella Artois, and into non-alcoholic versions, as well as the company’s brand NÜTRL Vodka Seltzer, ruling out local partnerships with seltzer brands.
In the same way, Diageo has a sponsorship of FIFA, which cuts across whisky, vodka and tequila. FIFA has similar deals across airlines, cars, banks and technology, all of which has left cities needing to be extremely creative to raise funds through partnerships.
As for Fan Fest, paid for by the cities, FIFA’s control even allows them the right to “determine the supplier of any of the giant screens, stages, as well as the sound and light systems.”
Some host cities have found creative ways around restrictions. For example, the Bay Area Host Committee created a separate entity, bringing together the NBA All-Star game in 2025, the Super Bowl in 2026 and the World Cup, which allowed them to circumvent some of FIFA’s conflicting rules. This is because their partnerships are with the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC), rather than the direct FIFA subsidiary. This allowed BAHC to do a deal with EA Sports, which previously had a close relationship with FIFA before a bloody parting of ways over the eponymous soccer video game, as well as PNC Bank, which ordinarily would conflict with FIFA’s deal with Bank of America.
Living in FIFA’s world
Dallas is hosting FIFA’s International Broadcast Centre (IBC) — housed at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas (KBHCCD) — and will be the hub for all radio, television and digital coverage of this summer’s tournament.
FIFA is exclusively occupying just shy of 500,000 square feet of the KBCCHD from January 14 to August 24 and has built a temporary nucleus inside the exhibition hall that will also be where their Tournament Operations Center is based, effectively making Dallas the command centre for the entire event.
To meet FIFA’s “technical and operation requirements,” a memorandum from the City of Dallas — dated August 15, 2025 — detailed that Dallas City Council has committed at least $15 million to “capital improvements” in the KBHCCD.
This includes “roof repairs, drainage enhancements, climate control upgrades, and infrastructure modifications,” with these costs being capped at $15 million. Although FIFA has had to build out the temporary hub and will be required to dismantle it and return it to its original state once their exclusivity period ends, it is not fronting any of those costs.
The vagueness of FIFA’s hosting agreements has also provided cause for anxiety over costs and disruption. For example, host cities are expected to supply (and pay for) police escorts for ground transport for team delegations and referees, as most people would expect. However, a further clause says cities should also do so for “the FIFA President,” “other VIP members of the FIFA delegation,” and “further VIP members identified by FIFA.”
Read more in this series:
Some city contracts seen by The Athletic also said that “key representatives of FIFA and VIP guests” should receive, at any time during the World Cup, “special access traffic lanes.”
As for air travel, hosting agreements indicate that teams will travel by charter jet, as will members of the FIFA council, senior delegates and executive guests. Those travelling by private jet and in and out of executive terminals do not include the teams, match officials or even VIP guests. That is reserved for heads of state and international dignitaries, the cost of which will be taken on by host committees — as well as Infantino, who usually flies around in a private jet laid on by Qatar, host of the previous World Cup in 2022. FIFA did not respond when asked who covers Infantino’s in-tournament private travel, or the staffing costs to be received at the executive terminals.
There are also concerns about the extent of infrastructure adjustments which may be forced upon stadiums by FIFA. Former Chicago mayor Emanuel, for example, said one reason he pulled his city out of the 2026 process was due to a clause in the proposal which may have obliged Chicago to build a dome on Soldier Field. New Jersey congressman Josh Gottheimer has previously said that $37 million has already been spent on upgrades to MetLife Stadium to enable it to host the final. According to documents obtained by northjersey.com, the New Jersey Sport & Exposition Authority spent $13.04m to ensure the turf would be up to FIFA’s standard, with the public agency attributing the spending to “design work, field construction and pitch maintenance equipment and service.”
FIFA senior pitch manager Alan Ferguson told The Athletic that cities shoulder the cost for turf across the tournament: “I wouldn’t get too hung up on any of the numbers. I’ve seen them going about in the media and some of them are well wide of the mark. It falls on the host cities. It is their responsibility under the FIFA hosting contracts. It’s always been the case. It’s not any different this time around.”
New grass turf has been laid at World Cup venues for the tournament. (Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images)
Whether it is different for the women’s World Cup in 2031, however, remains to be seen.
The letter signed by the cities in November warns: “There is no demonstrated path to resolve the financial burden on Host Cities… No concrete proposals have been presented that demonstrate a viable framework for cost sharing, revenue participation, or expense caps.”
It adds that cities want clarity on “core matters”, which it describes as FIFA “sharing costs of Fan Festivals,” as well as cost caps to be established for city-borne hosting obligations. The cities also want consideration to be given to “venue and municipal naming rights partners” remaining in place. Most crucially, the cities want a revenue-sharing model on FIFA’s vast income to alleviate their exposure.
Democratic Congressman Rick Larsen told The Athletic some cities may not want to host again “because of their experience with FIFA.”
“You’re not working with Qatari government here,” he added. “You’re working with 11 host cities, not one government, and you’re working in a country that values freedom, democracy and people having their say. In 2031, FIFA needs to incorporate some lessons. That’s more important than host cities bending to FIFA.”
New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, speaking to The Athletic in early June, appears to understand the burden on the hosts. “It’s not about an opportunity for a city to make money, it’s just to ensure that never again do we land at a place where the cost of taking the train (to MetLife Stadium) is $98,” he said.
“This is part of a legacy of when FIFA offloads costs onto municipalities and states… I understand they (NJ Transit) are making this decision to try and cover costs that come with the hosting the (World) Cup. It’s not for a lack of money, in that FIFA is set to make billions of dollars in revenue, more than we’ve ever seen from any World Cup.”
The U.S.-led bid for 2031 estimates “a historic $4 billion of potential revenue” for FIFA, which would be around eight times higher than the 2023 Women’s World Cup in New Zealand and Australia, and now the cities want a greater slice of the pie to create greater value for their taxpayers.
Additional reporting: Chris Weatherspoon and Dan Sheldon
Watch the accompanying episode, produced in collaboration with Pablo Torre Finds Out on The Athletic Podcast Network, here. Subscribe to Torre’s award-winning show on YouTube, The Athletic or wherever you get your podcasts.
