Host cities pay billions as FIFA revenue rises

U.S. host – When FIFA walked into Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium for early talks about the 2026 World Cup, the message from the governing body landed like a challenge: cities would be “put on the map” while FIFA kept the bulk of tournament money. Now, as the U.S.-hosted World

A room at SoFi Stadium near Los Angeles was already full of sports executives when the question came. Kathryn Schloessman, the CEO of the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission, asked what each city would “get out of” hosting the 2026 World Cup.

The FIFA executive’s answer—recounted by people who were present—was blunt. Hosting, the executive said, would “put your city on the map.”

The reaction was immediate. “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?” one person remembers from inside the meeting. speaking on condition of anonymity to protect relationships.

That exchange has become a kind of shorthand for a growing conflict around the 2026 men’s World Cup: FIFA executives argue the host cities are buying exposure and long-term football investment. while 11 U.S. host-city committees increasingly see the deal as one where FIFA captures the upside and the public bears the cost—often with obligations they say were either underestimated or expanded in the contract language.

The U.S. secured World Cup hosting rights as part of the joint bid with Mexico and Canada in 2018. The bid won against an earlier field that had 23 cities in contention before being whittled down to 16.

In the fall of 2021. FIFA executives traveled across the North American cities competing to host the tournament. and the core structure of those agreements was laid out in meetings like the one at SoFi Stadium. FIFA. the executive told cities. takes the vast majority of revenue from World Cup ticketing. media rights. sponsorship. concessions. and parking.

Cities, the same agreements require, cover costs related to transportation, safety and security, and expenses that stretch beyond stadiums to FIFA Fan Fest locations, airports, and even vehicles used in competition.

The argument over who benefits isn’t theoretical. Host cities have pointed to expenses they say run into billions for U.S. taxpayers, while FIFA counters that the tournament’s financial scale will flow back into football.

FIFA has forecast a payout model with its president Gianni Infantino making a defense at a pre-World Cup press conference on Wednesday. Every dollar. Infantino said. “goes back into football. ” and FIFA “has to invest in the countries no one else invests in: Sierra Leone. East Timor. Vanuatu…”. FIFA has also said the World Cup is set to generate more than $11 billion in revenue—set against an operating budget of $2.7bn—describing it as the biggest World Cup in history with 48 teams and the first to be run by the governing body without a centralized local organizing committee.

But Schloessman’s question—what cities “get out of it”—has kept resurfacing as preparations have collided with slow travel and hotel uptake that host cities expected to be stronger.

FIFA previously championed a report claiming $30.5 billion in economic impact would be injected into the U.S. economy. Host cities have come to doubt that figure as their own projections have lagged.

Transit disputes have also become a flashpoint. The rows over transit pricing have overshadowed New York/New Jersey and Boston’s preparations for the World Cup. and in Foxboro. the town of Foxboro came close to refusing FIFA a license to host World Cup games at Gillette Stadium due to a $7.8 million security funding shortfall.

After the draw in December, some cities were unhappy with the games they were allocated. And as budgets tightened, numerous official FIFA Fan Fest plans were scaled back by cities that said they couldn’t absorb the costs—particularly in the Bay Area and New Jersey.

Chicago’s exit from the process came earlier. and its former mayor Rahm Emanuel framed it as a matter of basic fairness. In comments carried to The Athletic. Emanuel said Chicago was on “the front end of the bad side and the back end of the good side. ” adding. “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!’”.

That experience is now being weighed against what host cities want to avoid in the next tournament cycle. After submitting a joint bid with Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica, the U.S. is the sole bidder for the 2031 Women’s World Cup.

Publicly, 11 U.S. host cities have continued to speak positively about FIFA. But behind the scenes, contract terms and financial exposure have been central.

Some host city contracts seen by The Athletic include a requirement to coordinate with FIFA on “any public announcement, statement and/or public and private press briefings” relating to the men’s World Cup and host city.

In private, the mood has been described as harsher. The exasperation crystallized in November 2025, when the U.S. had submitted a joint bid to host the Women’s World Cup in 2031 and an announcement was scheduled for April.

That announcement has been pushed back until later this year. FIFA said the delay was because it wanted to create a “standalone” event to mark any announcement, but cities have been pointing to deeper friction as well.

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. The letter warned that cities would not be prepared to sign for the 2031 edition without “meaningful negotiation of key terms.” It said “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.”.

The letter was signed by representatives from seven 2026 host cities: Boston. Houston. Los Angeles. Miami. New York/New Jersey. San Francisco Bay Area. and Seattle. Philadelphia. Dallas. Kansas City. and Atlanta did not sign. but sources familiar with the discussions say those cities share many of the same reservations.

The letter also drew signatures from cities in contention for the women’s edition, 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. Sources indicate that choice was shaped by potential risks tied to “public relations and politics.” Yet the messages inside were still relayed to U.S. Soccer, which then informed FIFA.

At this stage, cities have 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, and sources close to the process said cities want things done “differently” but remain “eager” to be involved in 2031. FIFA has been approached for comment.

One flash of that cost pressure showed up in how obligations were changed as 2026 neared.

Some concerns had been addressed. The original hosting agreements included a commitment to provide free public transportation for World Cup ticket holders. as had happened in Qatar and Russia. But in 2023. cities secured a concession: they would provide transport “at cost. ” even if no FIFA foresight had aligned with how those costs could balloon.

Cities describe those costs in concrete terms—$98 trains to MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and $95 buses to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro—an illustration of how quickly “at cost” can become a public bill.

Security funding also had to be lobbied for. The 11 U.S. host cities clubbed together hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby the federal government, and President Trump eventually passed security funding, releasing $625 million to be shared across the cities.

But many demands remained in place, and host cities have argued that FIFA control reaches beyond the stadium.

One demand for this World Cup requires stadiums to waive naming rights for venues. meaning MetLife Stadium will be known as New York New Jersey Stadium. New Jersey 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’ requirements go further than signage outside the venue. They include wiping the title sponsor physically from the venue’s exterior, which has cost some cities almost $500,000. They also require removing stadium sponsors from every room in the venue and concourse. clearing airspace. and clearing temporary or permanent parking facilities. Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta received an exemption because covering the sign posed a physical challenge. but other cities were aggrieved and considered refusing to comply until being reminded of their contracts.

City contracts seen by The Athletic depict FIFA’s control as extensive. Cities are asked to ensure FIFA names for 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.

Another burden involves sponsorship restrictions. Host city partnerships were expected to offset operational costs and reduce reliance on public funds. But FIFA has policed those partnerships to avoid conflicts with its own sponsor agreements.

For instance. cities might have planned local deals with major brands based in their cities—Boston and Seattle. for example—but Coca-Cola is a FIFA sponsor. and its coffee portfolio includes brands including Georgia Coffee. Costa Coffee. and Caffe Vergnano. That has restricted local coffee sponsorship opportunities.

One host city executive described the logic as absurd, joking that if Coca-Cola owned a luxury yacht as part of its portfolio, the executive imagined walking into FIFA with a sponsor offer for a yacht and being told, “No, no, we have one.” Coca-Cola was approached for comment.

Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship of FIFA spans not just beer sponsorship for Michelob Ultra and Stella Artois but also non-alcoholic versions and the brand NÜTRL Vodka Seltzer. limiting local partnerships with seltzer brands. Diageo’s sponsorship covers whisky. vodka and tequila. and FIFA’s deals extend across airlines. cars. banks and technology—leaving cities to be extremely creative to raise funds.

Fan Fest is also entangled. Paid for by cities, FIFA retains the right to “determine the supplier of any of the giant screens, stages, as well as the sound and light systems.”

Still, some cities have tried to work around restrictions. 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. The reasoning: partnerships are with the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC) rather than the direct FIFA subsidiary. That structure allowed BAHC to do a deal with EA Sports. which had a close relationship with FIFA before a “bloody parting of ways” over the eponymous soccer video game. and to partner with PNC Bank. which ordinarily would conflict with FIFA’s deal with Bank of America.

All of it is playing out in the shadow of FIFA’s logistical footprint. In Dallas, FIFA is hosting its International Broadcast Centre (IBC) at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas (KBHCCD) and will serve as the hub for all radio, television and digital coverage of the summer tournament.

FIFA is exclusively occupying just shy of 500,000 square feet of the KBHCCD from January 14 to August 24. It has built a temporary nucleus in the exhibition hall where its Tournament Operations Center will be based, effectively making Dallas the command center for the entire event.

A memorandum from the City of Dallas dated August 15. 2025. says Dallas City Council committed at least $15 million to “capital improvements” in the KBHCCD. That includes “roof repairs, drainage enhancements, climate control upgrades, and infrastructure modifications,” capped at $15 million. FIFA. according to the memorandum. is not fronting those costs. even though it has to build out the temporary hub and dismantle it afterward to return the space to its original state once exclusivity ends.

Even contract language has created anxiety about disruption and costs.

Host cities are expected to supply and pay for police escorts for ground transport for team delegations and referees. A further clause extends that obligation to “the FIFA President. ” “other VIP members of the FIFA delegation. ” and “further VIP members identified by FIFA.” Contracts also say key representatives of FIFA and VIP guests should receive. at any time during the World Cup. “special access traffic lanes.”.

Air travel and terminals add another layer. Hosting agreements indicate teams will travel by charter jet. as will members of the FIFA council. senior delegates and executive guests. Private-jet travelers and those entering and leaving executive terminals do not include teams, match officials or even VIP guests. That category is reserved for heads of state and international dignitaries, with the cost taken on by host committees. Infantino is listed as flying on 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 executive terminals.

Concerns about stadium changes have also surfaced. Emanuel said one reason he pulled Chicago out of the 2026 process was a clause in the proposal that may have obliged Chicago to build a dome on Soldier Field.

New Jersey congressman Josh Gottheimer previously said $37 million has already been spent on upgrades to MetLife Stadium to enable it to host the final. Documents obtained by northjersey.com say the New Jersey Sport & Exposition Authority spent $13.04m to ensure the turf would meet FIFA’s standard. with the public agency attributing spending to “design work. field construction and pitch maintenance equipment and service.”.

FIFA senior pitch manager Alan Ferguson told The Athletic that cities shoulder turf costs 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.”.

That pitch manager’s line lands differently for those bracing for the next tournament. The women’s World Cup in 2031 may be where negotiations become decisive.

The letter signed 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. ” including FIFA “sharing costs of Fan Festivals. ” and cost caps for city-borne hosting obligations.

The letter also asks for consideration of venue and municipal naming rights partners remaining in place. Most crucially, it seeks a revenue-sharing model on FIFA’s vast income to reduce host cities’ exposure.

Democratic Congressman Rick Larsen told The Athletic that some cities may not want to host again “because of their experience with FIFA.” He said. “You’re not working with Qatari government here. ” and stressed that the arrangement is with 11 host cities rather than one national government. adding that 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 in early June, described the burden in plain terms. “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 connected it to a legacy where FIFA “offloads costs onto municipalities and states. ” while saying FIFA’s revenue is expected to be billions—more than any World Cup before.

The U.S.-led bid for 2031 estimates “a historic $4 billion of potential revenue” for FIFA, about eight times higher than the 2023 Women’s World Cup in New Zealand and Australia. Host cities now want a larger slice of that figure.

At the heart of the current fight is the same question Schloessman asked at SoFi Stadium near Los Angeles: what a city receives, when the money and the control appear to flow one way.

If 2031 is to be different, the host cities believe the terms will have to change before another round of “hosting” becomes, in practice, a lesson in what public budgets are asked to absorb.

2026 FIFA World Cup FIFA host cities host city costs SoFi Stadium Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission transit pricing Fan Fest MetLife Stadium naming rights clean stadium requirements security funding $625 million 2031 Women's World Cup bid U.S. Soccer JT Batson