The World Cup At Any Cost?
Before the football takes centre stage, there are questions worth asking about FIFA’s most ambitious tournament yet.
On June 11th when the opening whistle blows between Mexico and South Africa in Mexico City, the talking will stop and the football will start. This is the way of any World Cup. But before we get there, there are some questions worth asking about the tournament itself.
Before I dive any further, I want to say that this not a preview of the teams, the tactics and who might ultimately prevail this summer. There are plenty of places where you can find those discussions if that is what you are after. Rather, this a look at the wider context of the tournament, including the politics, costs, culture and controversies of the biggest World Cup we have ever seen.
This summer will see us witness the ultimate celebration of football. Billions will watch around the world. Forty-eight nations competing for the greatest prize in the beautiful game, making it FIFA’s most ambitious tournament yet. Yet upon closer inspection, it reveals differing challenges and realities than anything we have ever seen previously.
The Return of the North American World Cup
Before we start to look at the 2026 World Cup, we need to go back thirty-two years to 1994, the last time the World Cup was held in the region. The tournament was the first to be seriously commercialised, bringing in $99.7m in net profit for FIFA in what at the time was ground-breaking. Sponsors and host-cities contributed to what was an estimated $4bn in total economic impact across the United States.
On the field, the host nation qualified from the group stages for the first time before succumbing to eventual champions Brazil in the round of 16. This progress and the popularity of the tournament as a whole was intended to inspire the next generation and their interest in football. As part of hosting the tournament, the US had agreed to set up a top-tier domestic professional league, resulting in the creation of Major League Soccer (MLS) in 1996. This would then lead to the Women’s World Cup also being hosted in the US in 1999.
These changes were intended to bring football to the mainstream in the US, and to a degree it has. The Premier League is incredibly popular with US audiences and the World Cup still garners incredible attention. However on a domestic basis, football still falls well behind the other major US sports such as NFL, NBA, MLB and college sports. The likes of David Beckham and Lionel Messi moving to MLS has generated short-term boosts admittedly. But if this summer’s World Cup still cannot shift football’s place in the consciousness of Americans, it’s fair to wonder if it ever will.
Three Hosts, One Narrative
If you have been following the build-up to the tournament then you would be forgiven for thinking that USA was the sole host country. All coverage and focus has been so gravitated towards them, that Mexico and Canada have often been forgotten about, despite being joint hosts.
In total, there are sixteen host cities for this tournament. Of which, eleven are in USA, three in Mexico and two in Canada. Whilst the opening game will be played in Mexico City, there was never any doubt that the final would be held at MetLife stadium in New Jersey (more on that later). As a reminder Mexico has hosted two World Cups prior to this, in 1970 and 1986.
July 2025 saw the opening of FIFA’s New York office inside Trump Tower, cementing the relationship between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and US President Donald Trump. The irony in the location hasn’t been lost on some. Trump Tower was previously the residence of Chuck Blazer, the infamous, corrupt FIFA executive whose undercover cooperation with the FBI sparked the massive 2015 FIFA corruption scandal.
The dominance in coverage towards USA has never been more illustrated than at the draw for the tournament itself, held in December 2025 in Washington D.C. Typially, this is an event usually remembered for the competing nations discovering who they will be facing. This draw however will be remembered for the presentation of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize by Infantino to Trump. For context, this was presented shortly after Trump missed out on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for which he is so desperate.
The award was given to recognise Trump’s involvement in diplomatic and ceasefire efforts including those in the Middle East. Just a couple of months later, the United States launched massive coordinated air strikes against Iran, causing regional escalation, worldwide economic instability and disruption to oil and trade markets. You might wonder if FIFA have any buyers remorse over the handing over of this award.
Indeed, it will be interesting to take note on whether there is ever a second recipient of this award in the future.
This all contrasts with the lack of time spent by Infantino with either Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney or Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum. These visits have been strictly business related, purely for photo opportunities or checking on stadium progress reports. This is in stark contrast to his visits to the White House.
Officially this is a World Cup hosted by three countries. However much of the discussion and Infantino’s actions suggest otherwise.
Bigger Than Ever
One of the key focuses of FIFA over the last couple of decades has been to bring the world’s game to the world. To continue expanding and present more opportunities for the smaller nations. To some extent it’s hard to argue with that. The first World Cups being held in Africa and the Middle East respectively can be seen as a sign of the games growth.
This summer sees that taken to a new level. Forty-eight teams will be competing, an increase of 50% from recent tournaments. We will see four nations make their debut, Cabo Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan. In addition, Qatar has progressed through qualification for the first time having participated as hosts four years ago. Whilst no-one would begrudge these teams their opportunity to perform on the biggest stage, the consequence of the expansion has arguably led to a dilution of quality.
Part of this dilution is the increase in matches, going from 64 matches to 104. This expansion has meant that the tournament will see 72 group matches alone. This will result in the elimination of only sixteen teams before we enter the knockout round of 32.
But what does more matches actually mean from a non-sporting perspective? More tickets. More commercial opportunities. More broadcast revenue. This World Cup is projected to generate approximately $8.9bn, a staggering number compared to what we saw the last time the World Cup was in North America.
This opens the question of whether expansion of the tournament is purely for sporting benefits and how much of it is influenced by the finances on offer?
The Cost of Following a World Cup
We already know that for fans travelling to follow the World Cup, it’s an expensive process. There’s flights, hotels, tickets, spending money, internal travel. The list seems never ending.
Let’s start wth the ticket fiasco, which has been well-documented but needs to be repeated. The prices themselves have seen an average increase of 500% compared to Qatar 2022. For the final itself, the cheapest ‘value’ ticket is $4,185 (£3,119) whilst premium tickets go up to $8,860. Well, they say these are the prices, however for this World Cup FIFA have introduced dynamic pricing, allowing tickets to surge or drop in real-time based on system demand. This was tried in last years FIFA Club World Cup and was evidence of a failed strategy, with tickets initially being priced too highly and leaving a number of stadiums half-empty.
For the final itself, four tickets were recently listed for $2.3m each on FIFA’s official resale platform. Infantino defended this before joking that “If somebody buys a ticket for the final for $2m, I will personally bring him a hot dog and a Coke to make sure that he has a great experience”. Forgive me for wanting slightly more than that for $2m, but maybe I’m just a bit picky.
Resale itself has been a cause of concern for fans. Whilst this has been an issue across other ticketing industries such as concerts and festivals over recent years (think of the Oasis reunion tour last year), never has it been more prevalent in football than this summer. FIFA permits open reselling on its official platform but takes a 30% cut of every secondary transaction. This creates a direct incentive for FIFA when ticket prices inflate on the open market. Fan groups have filed complaints and protested against the pricing methods used, accusing FIFA of hiding it pricing structures and using vague algorithms. The result of this is the exploitation of the fans themselves.
Can Fans Actually Get Around?
Now let’s say you are lucky (or rich) enough to be able to buy tickets for a game at the World Cup this year. The next job is to find a way to get to the stadium. Without stating the obvious, this tournament covers a vast area of the globe, even it were confined to USA alone. This means fans will likely have to fly between cities as North America does not have the vast train network in comparison with Europe or Asia, for example.
This is exacerbated on a local level. A number of the host stadiums are situated outside of the main cities, however there are several that do not have local transit networks with which to transport fans to and from games. In Dallas for example, there are a number of games being held at AT&T Stadium which is approximately twenty miles west of the downtown area. However, as the area has no public mass transit system, local authorities have set up a multi-layered temporary network to transport the nearly 100,000 fans to and from the stadium. The common method for fans attending Dallas Cowboys games or concerts held at the stadium is to drive and park or ride share (Uber, Lyft). Although you will be likely stuck in gridlock traffic for several hours trying to get in and out of the area. All of this sounds completely foreign to fans of a European persuasion.
For all the criticism that the Qatar World Cup faced four years ago, one of the resulting benefits was the close proximity of the stadiums to each other. It meant fans could travel throughout the region in a way not possible at previous tournaments.
‘But what about New York?’ I hear you say. ‘Doesn’t that have a famous subway system? Surely there won’t be any issues getting to the final?’. As mentioned above, the final is being held at MetLife Stadium which is located outside of New York in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The typical round-trip train fare from Penn Station, Manhattan to the stadium costs $12.90 (£9.50). However, for the World Cup, fans were originally going to be charged $150 (£111), an increase of 1,162%. To add insult to injury, there are no concession discounts on offer either.
All of this has been heavily defended by New Jersey Governor, Mikie Sherrill, who has highlighted the cost of the extra transit would be $48m. She has stated that local taxpayers should not be forced to pay for these expenses and that this should be for the responsibility of FIFA.
Following an intense public backlash and pressure from US senators, local governors have stepped in to mandate belated price reductions. The aforementioned $150 train fare has been reduced to $98, still nearly eight times the normal rate.
It is worth highlighting that Sherrill was not in office at the time when the original hosting agreement was put together. However, hosting a World Cup means accepting the responsibilities that come with it. The easy option it always seems is to pass the cost onto the fans.
A World Cup in the Heat
Obviously, this is not the first World Cup to be played during the height of summer. However, the conditions facing players and supporters will vary significantly depending on location. In Dallas, Monterrey, Houston and Miami, average daytime temperatures regularly reach between 32°C and 38°C (90°F to 100°F), with Houston and Miami also experiencing extremely high humidity. Miami is particularly exposed as it is the only one of these venues without a retractable roof or meaningful climate control. Those conditions stand in stark contrast to the cooler temperatures expected in Canada or the unique challenges created by the altitude of Mexico City and Guadalajara.
Recent tournaments have seen the introduction of mandatory cooling breaks designed to protect player welfare. For the 2026 World Cup, referees will be instructed to implement three minute cooling breaks in each half whenever temperatures exceed 26°C (79°F). As a result of this, FIFA has given the green light to broadcasters to cut away from pitch to show full screen advertising, with networks being allowed to sell to any local or global entity. From what was a game of two halves, we now have something which more closely resembles and American game of four quarters. What has initially started out as protecting players has turned into another commercial opportunity.
The other weather dynamic of games being played in North America during peak summertime is the significant potential for thunderstorms, as seen in last years Club World Cup. If lightning is detected anywhere within 8-10 miles of an open-air stadium, then play is automatically suspended.
During last years Club World Cup, six different matches were suspended due to lightning protocols. One match between Benfica and Chelsea took nearly five hours to be completed. US fans are used to these occurring as they are frequent in both NFL and MLB games. Indeed, it is commonplace for any delayed MLB games to be made up the following day in a double-header.
However, given the physical nature of football and the tight schedule of the tournament itself, there are several logistical problems should any significant weather delays occur. This tournament is simply not set up for games to be rescheduled. Teams set to play away from the higher risk areas may have an advantage over those more exposed, especially in the longest World Cup we have seen.
Local Culture vs. FIFA Control
One of the highlights of any World Cup is how visiting countries embrace the local culture of the host nation. Never was this the case more than the 2010 World Cup in South Africa where ‘Waka Waka’ by Shakira became a global sensation whilst fans cheered on Bafana Bafana.
For NFL games, one of the key fan events of game day is tailgating, where supporters come together hours before a game to cook food, drink and enjoy themselves in the stadium car parks. However, FIFA has banned tailgating for this World Cup in an effort to protect sponsors and their revenue potential (such as McDonalds and Coca-Cola).
In addition, MetLife stadium is to be renamed during the tournament as the New York/New Jersey Stadium. This is because MetLife is not an official sponsor of the World Cup and FIFA do not want to be seen to be giving out free advertising against other companies who have paid a fortune for that right.
The beauty of the World Cup is to focus a spotlight on the culture of the host country. In this instance, it appears that local culture is being sacrificed for commercial benefits.
Politics Never Stays Away
There are a lot of people who believe that politics should be kept out of sport. Whilst that is idealistic, it isn’t feasibly possible.
The Trump administration has been frequently outspoken on immigration and the current political climate is highly charged. This was exacerbated in January 2026 by the fatal shooting of two US citizens by ICE immigration federal officers in Minneapolis. Following the public outcry, there has been a scaling back of the ICE operations however it has certainly not gone away. ICE agents will be present at the World Cup, however this will reportedly only be in the role of maintaining the commercial perimeter around stadiums. Essentially this is to stop counterfeit goods being sold near matches. It remains to be seen whether any headlines will come from other flashpoints during the tournament.
The concerns are also present at the border. Fans of a number of countries have been unable to obtain visas to attend the tournament given the rules in place by the Trump administration. There was even a refusal by US immigration to implement fast-track visas, which have been common in recent World Cups. For what is typically a celebration of fans across the world from coming together, it is unfathomable that some fans are denied this opportunity, even more so for some who had already bought tickets.
In addition to those travelling from around the world, there is also concern to the south in Mexico. Since Trump’s first term and his initial campaign for presidency, the rhetoric has been to ‘secure the border’ and ‘build the wall’. Given that Mexico are co-hosts of the tournament, this has sparked tension and safety fears amongst Mexican fans planning to cross the border for matches.
Whilst to the north, Trump has been engaged in a war of words with Canada’s Carney since the latter came into office. Carney has taken Trump head-on, refusing to back down over threats of increased tariffs and trade friction. The tournament’s message is ‘United 2026’ but at times it feels a long way from that.
The world has asked questions of the last two World Cup hosts in Russia and Qatar, is it not fair that we ask the same questions of the United States?
The Players Caught In The Middle
Given the above concerns there has been calls for fans and teams to boycott the tournament, especially the United States. We saw similar questions raised ahead of Russia and Qatar given the human rights concerns and persecution of LGBTQ fans.
Ultimately, it is once again those without a choice who are being put in a difficult position. Is it fair to ask players to sacrifice what might be a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, something they have worked their entire life for? They are not responsible for any hosting decisions and it is easy to call for them to take a stand from the outside looking in. Maybe it takes one nation to take a stand for others to follow, especially if it is one of the traditionally larger nations. It is too late for any boycott to take place now, but that won’t stop concerns being raised.
Football Without a Break
The expanded World Cup presents more opportunities for players to show their skills on the biggest stage. However, the increasingly packed football calendar puts more pressure on the players at a time when most are fatigued from a long season. I wrote previously about the challenges faced by players in the modern game, but they are never more apparent than after the longest World Cup ever.
The increase in matches also presents the opportunity for commercial exploitation. The prime example of this is that we will now have an expanded half-time in the World Cup final for a show (as seen in the SuperBowl) featuring Shakira, Madonna and BTS. This is a break from the tradition of football with fans criticising it as another sign of the ‘Americanisation’ of the game. The reality is that nobody asked for a half-time show, especially anything that takes the focus away from the football.
What Will Be Forgotten Once It Starts?
The general consensus from previous World Cups is that there is always political dominated discussion ahead of any tournament. You only need to look at Russia and Qatar as evidence of this.
Yet as soon as the football starts, a lot of this gets forgotten. The discussion over whether Qatar was fit and proper to host a tournament of this magnitude dissipated into the background and the stars on the field took over. Arguably, everyone remembers that World Cup for maybe the greatest final there has ever been rather than anything that foreshadowed the tournament.
Given the speculation and spotlight of what lies ahead this summer are we likely to see the same thing this time around? We forever live in an attention economy where the main headlines change by the hour. Once the football takes over, how much will we discuss everything else?
Inspiring the Next Generation
We all remember the first World Cup that we watched and what inspired us to fall in love with the beautiful game. This is typically applicable to any host nations, where children get swept up in the drama of the tournament and become fans for life. This is usually aided if the host country fairs well, such as South Korea reaching the semi-finals in 2002.
Yet as mentioned above, the other major sports in USA and Canada already dominate the attention of children and the public in general. No matter how successful the tournament is for the host nations, they still face an uphill battle to compete on a serious level with NFL, NBA and MLB. You can’t imagine it ever touching the popularity of the NHL in Canada.
Realistically, is it possible for this World Cup to be the tournament that finally pushes football into the mainstream of North American consciousness?
Looking Beyond 2026
The finances now involved in hosting a World Cup make it extremely difficult for single nations to host the tournament on their own without an extraordinary level of wealth (such as Qatar). In four years time, we will see joint hosts of Spain, Portugal and Morocco. In 2034, the World Cup will travel back to the Middle East to be hosted by Saudi Arabia.
Given the rotation policy in place for hosting tournaments, the decision for 2038 will likely come down to either North America again or Oceania. Whilst I think a lot of people like the idea of a World Cup in Australia (especially as they have bid previously to host tournaments), the logistics, scheduling and time zones appear to make it unlikely that FIFA would ever choose to go in that direction. All of that leaves the increasing possibility that we could be back in the same situation as we are now, with North America being the most likely viable host.
Does this mean that we are past the days for single hosts and therefore this tournament represents an indication of where we might be heading rather than an exception to the traditions of years gone by?
Where does it leave us?
Despite what goes on around it, the World Cup remains the ultimate spectacle in the football universe. There are always questions that get raised, some of which we will probably never know the answer to. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the discussion around it.
The billions around the world tune in for the product on the field. Not the politics. Not the sponsors. Not the adverts. Not the controversy. Once the first ball is kicked, a lot of the surrounding noise will be silenced, or at least quietened down for six weeks.
The questions surrounding this World Cup deserve to be asked. Whether we are still talking about them by the time the final whistle blows remains another matter entirely.