The FIFA World Cup is widely regarded as one of the world’s most commercially successful sporting events, with FIFA and host governments often projecting that the tournament will generate significant economic activity.

One study estimated that the 2026 FIFA World Cup, held in 16 host cities across the United States, Canada and Mexico, could generate up to $40.9 billion in gross domestic product, including up to $620 million for U.S. host cities. 

Whether the FIFA World Cup is truly that lucrative remains a matter of debate, as economists have often criticized economic impact studies for overstating benefits and understating costs.

“Many economic impact studies are structured in ways that predictably produce large numbers,” said Michael Edwards, a professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at North Carolina State University. 

Edwards, whose research and teaching includes sport finance, said economic impact studies typically calculate total event-related spending and apply economic multipliers to estimate broader benefits. But they often fail to fully account for public hosting costs. 

Simply put, the studies tend to focus on money flowing into the local economy while giving less attention to the taxpayer-funded costs required to stage the event. That includes the public costs of security, transportation, venue preparation and other services. 

“Full hotels, busy restaurants and crowded fan festivals make compelling images, but they do not prove that the World Cup produced substantial net growth.”

Economic impact studies also often fail to compare World Cup-related spending with what would have happened in the absence of the tournament. As a result, it is difficult to determine how much of the economic activity is truly new and directly attributable to the event.

For example, a host city may see $500 million in spending during the tournament. But some of that money might have been spent anyway through regular tourism, local entertainment or business travel.

That distinction is especially important in established tourist destinations such as New York, Los Angeles and Miami, where hotels, restaurants and attractions draw large numbers of visitors regardless of major events. 

“Full hotels, busy restaurants and crowded fan festivals make compelling images, but they do not prove that the World Cup produced substantial net growth,” Edwards said. 

What matters, Edwards added, is how much additional local income and employment the event generated after accounting for costs and comparing the outcome with what would have happened otherwise.

Who actually profits from the FIFA World Cup?

Economic impact studies for mega sporting events like the FIFA World Cup and even the Super Bowl often project large economic returns for host cities, but in reality, Edwards said it’s the event organizers that capture a significant share of the financial gains.

“When it comes to the World Cup, FIFA is the clear economic winner because it controls the tournament’s most valuable and scalable revenue streams,” Edwards said. 

Those billion-dollar revenue streams include broadcasting rights sold to global media networks, corporate sponsorship deals with multinational brands, licensing for merchandise and media products and direct revenues from ticket sales and premium hospitality packages. 

FIFA reported generating roughly $14 billion in revenue across the two World Cup cycles from 2015 to 2022, covering the 2018 tournament in Russia and the 2022 tournament in Qatar, driven largely by commercial deals.

Building on this trajectory, FIFA’s 2026 World Cup cycle is projected to generate over $13 billion, including $3.9 billion from broadcasting rights, $3 billion from ticketing and hospitality, and $2.8 billion from sponsorships.

How do host cities benefit financially from the FIFA World Cup?

While major sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup can boost a host city’s global visibility, Edwards said the economic benefits are often less substantial than many expect.

“Historical evidence gives us little reason to expect substantial, lasting economic gains for host cities,” Edwards said. “Host cities and other public entities generally receive little or none of the direct game-day revenue.” 

Some local businesses certainly benefit, particularly hotels, restaurants, transportation providers and businesses located near tournament activity, as large numbers of visitors spend money on lodging, food, transportation and entertainment during the event

Those gains, however, are likely to be concentrated and temporary, according to Edwards. Once the event ends and visitors leave, demand often returns to normal levels, limiting the long-term economic impact on the broader local economy.

Even within the hospitality sector, Edwards said the benefits are unevenly distributed. Hotels, restaurants and other businesses can often charge premium rates and boost profits during major events, while workers’ wages often remain largely unchanged.

Other businesses may see little benefit, largely because congestion and higher prices from an influx of World Cup fans may deter regular customers and tourists, leading them to avoid the area or postpone visits during the tournament.

Governments can generate additional tax revenue and benefit from infrastructure improvements tied to events like the FIFA World Cup, but these returns must be weighed against public costs and alternative uses for the funds.

Edwards stressed again that FIFA and its commercial network — including global sponsors and media rights holders — benefit the most financially from the World Cup, not host cities and the public. “Governments and taxpayers assume much of the financial risk.” 

What are the public costs of hosting the FIFA World Cup?

Hosting the World Cup comes at a cost to taxpayers, according to Edwards. Major infrastructure expenses, including stadium construction and upgrades, transportation improvements and security preparations, are typically funded with public money.

For example, Brazil’s 2014 World Cup cost an estimated $11.6 billion, including billions spent on stadiums, transport upgrades and airport improvements, largely financed through federal, state and municipal funds.

The 2026 World Cup reduces some of the most expensive infrastructure demands seen in past tournaments, particularly large-scale stadium construction, as most venues already exist, with FIFA utilizing NFL or MLS stadiums in cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and New York. 

“Using existing stadiums is a significant advantage because it avoids the largest and riskiest expense associated with many previous World Cups,” Edwards said. 

Even without new stadium construction, hosting remains a substantial public commitment. U.S. host cities face estimated costs of $100–$200 million or more per city to cover services like traffic management, emergency response and public fan events.

Governments may forgo revenue by granting tax exemptions and absorbing costs that would normally be paid by event organizers, which increases the overall financial burden on host cities. 

As a result, U.S. host cities, including Seattle and New York/New Jersey, have scaled back fan festivals since the events can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per day but generate little direct revenue for local governments or organizing committees.

“Taxpayers should therefore evaluate these expenses as public spending, not assume they will pay for themselves through economic growth,” Edwards said, adding that this requires weighing actual tax gains against total public costs and considering alternative uses for the funds.

Edwards also noted that existing World Cup stadiums should not be considered “free” simply because they were built earlier, adding that many were publicly subsidized on the basis that they would later host events such as the World Cup or Super Bowl.

Do the benefits of hosting the FIFA World Cup outweigh the costs?

Despite its costs, the FIFA World Cup can generate short-term benefits for host cities, including what economists call “psychic income” — the pride, excitement and sense of community associated with hosting a major international event.

“We are seeing full stadiums and public spaces filled with people sharing an experience that feels larger than an ordinary sporting event,” Edwards said, referring to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.  

He also noted that international visitors are interacting with American communities and with one another at a time of considerable political and social division, both in the U.S. and abroad, creating opportunities for cross-cultural exchange beyond the tournament itself.

“Those encounters can temporarily complicate stereotypes and create a genuine sense of openness and connection,” Edwards said. 

But these benefits, while meaningful, are unlikely to endure. Previous World Cups show that feelings of unity and goodwill often fade once the tournament ends and do little to resolve deeper political and social divisions.

These limits raise questions about the World Cup’s public value. Edwards said host cities should weigh the full public expense against both the tournament’s limited financial returns and its less tangible benefits, while considering who benefited and who bore the costs.

Communities may decide to host the World Cup because of benefits such as global attention, local pride, civic excitement and a sense of prestige. But these outcomes are not evidence of a good economic investment.

“The honest conclusion may be that the World Cup was a valuable shared experience without being a successful economic-development strategy,” Edwards said.

This post was originally published in College of Natural Resources News.