Agreements for the 2026 FIFA World Cup leave many U.S. host cities shouldering large costs with limited direct revenue, while FIFA projects major profits.
A U.S. host city can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stage the FIFA World Cup, yet see little in direct game-day revenue, according to contract reviews and analyses cited by Misryoum.
As Houston and Dallas prepare to welcome matches in June and July. the question facing local leaders is whether the terms of hosting deliver enough measurable benefits to justify the public costs.. The broader network of U.S.. host cities agreed to cover substantial expenses for the tournament. with Misryoum reporting that the arrangements limit how much local organizers can earn from sources typically tied to local control.
The financial setup extends beyond match operations.. Host cities and their local organizing committees are expected to pay for security at the matches. retrofit stadiums to better accommodate soccer. and run fan festivals in addition to the games.. Misryoum also reports that an earlier requirement for cities to transport FIFA officials to all matches was waived by organizers in Houston.
A key concern is that host cities do not receive direct slices of revenue from ticket sales. concessions. merchandise. or parking.. Sponsorship-linked opportunities can also be constrained.. Misryoum reports that even selling tickets or suites in exchange for corporate sponsorships. which can be a major revenue stream for local organizers. was restricted by FIFA this year.
This imbalance has historical echoes.. When Texas committed $22 million to host the 2017 Super Bowl between the New England Patriots and the Atlanta Falcons. state officials expected a return.. A later state analysis found it was “impossible” to determine whether Texas taxpayers broke even on the investment. and it indicated Texas came up $14 million short in that assessment.
Now. Misryoum reports. host cities have also been working under FIFA demands that were set before the United States. Mexico. and Canada submitted their bid in 2017 to host the tournament.. Many host city contracts remain secret. and as the tournament nears. some officials are pressing for clarity about what they agreed to pay and what they can realistically earn.
Contracts, costs, and a shrinking path to revenue
Misryoum reports that Chicago withdrew during the bidding, with local decision-making framed in part by the uneven nature of the agreements. In other places that continued, pressure has grown as match dates approach.
In Foxborough. Massachusetts. local officials threatened in February to withhold permits for the matches unless FIFA. or the Patriots owner. committed to paying $7.8 million in security costs ahead of time.. Misryoum says permits were approved after local World Cup organizers agreed to pay the bill in advance.
To critics. these episodes reinforce a broader concern: contract terms may lock host cities out of revenue streams more than in prior tournaments. leaving FIFA with a larger share.. Misryoum also reports that FIFA did not respond to specific questions about the criticisms. but instead provided a written statement saying it is working with host sponsors and expects cities to benefit.
That statement, attributed to FIFA spokesperson Jhamie Chin by Misryoum, projected that the tournament will generate significant economic activity across Canada, Mexico, and the United States, spanning tourism, hospitality, employment, and “long-term global visibility.”
Texas funding, secrecy, and difficult economic measurement
A major part of the debate in Texas centers on who pays for hosting and how taxpayers can assess whether the spending is worthwhile.. Misryoum reports that Houston’s host committee holds the contract with FIFA and that the committee is responsible for finding funding for expenses. with Canetti describing that none of it comes directly from the city or county.
Even where the host committee is described as the payer, the funding mix can include public money.. Misryoum reports that Houston’s host committee uses revenue from corporate sponsorships. payments FIFA makes to rent NRG Stadium. and subsidies from state and federal governments.. Misryoum further reports that $65 million in federal support is expected to help Houston pay for security as part of a broader $625 million investment by American taxpayers.
State support also plays a role.. Misryoum reports that the host committee expects to draw tens of millions of dollars from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. an offshoot of trust funds created in 1999 during Texas’s bid to host the Olympics.. Canetti did not disclose the precise amount Houston expects. and Misryoum says the Chronicle was still awaiting a response from the governor’s office to records requests.
The reimbursement program itself has drawn scrutiny for years.. Misryoum reports that administrators have struggled to verify whether events create positive return on investment for taxpayers.. Under the program. cities apply for state funding based on estimates of increased revenues such as sales and liquor taxes. then submit expenses for reimbursement after the event.
Misryoum describes how oversight has not settled the question of impact.. State auditors reviewed the program in 2015 and suggested officials were not vetting out-of-town visitor estimates stringently enough. nor verifying that invoices were directly tied to the events.. After rules were clarified and funds moved within state government. Misryoum reports that administrators continued to write that they could not determine whether events had a positive or negative impact.
FIFA projections meet skepticism over true impact
Misryoum also reports that FIFA points to projections about economic impact tied to the tournament. including estimates of $11 billion in profits for FIFA and broader figures circulated in connection with a study released in April alongside the World Trade Organization.. Misryoum reports that experts interviewed for context argue that economic calculations for major events are often exaggerated and difficult to pinpoint.
One academic quoted by Misryoum. Victor Matheson. criticized the framing of such numbers. describing the scale as unrealistic and suggesting that the methodology functions more like a promotional release than rigorous research.. Misryoum also notes that other assessments of economic benefit can depend heavily on assumptions such as whether visitors represent truly incremental spending.
For host cities. the practical challenge is not only measuring benefits. but also tracking the public spending required to deliver hosting commitments.. Misryoum reports that host city and committee documents include confidentiality language that supports withholding contract details unless required by local law. and that committees are generally not subject to public disclosure laws.
According to Misryoum. FIFA said the contracts include information that is “commercially sensitive” and that withholding it is standard for events of this scale.. That means details that could clarify the balance of costs and returns remain limited from public view. including figures about what FIFA pays to rent stadiums and the tax breaks tied to hosting responsibilities.
At the same time. Misryoum reports that contract clauses reviewed outline broad categories of city responsibilities. such as security. transportation. and stadium retrofits. but often do not attach dollar figures to those tasks.. For residents and taxpayers, the uncertainty can make it harder to evaluate what hosting is buying locally.
In this context, the tournament’s value is framed differently depending on perspective.. Supporters emphasize economic activity driven by tourism and international attention. while critics emphasize the secrecy of terms and the difficulty of isolating tournament effects from other forces shaping local and state economies.
For host cities, the timing of these questions may be especially important. As agreements near their operational phase, the public will increasingly rely on what is knowable in the open record, even as contract confidentiality and complex funding channels shape what remains difficult to verify.
Misryoum