FIFA Makes $11 Billion From This World Cup. Host Cities Lose Money.
Author: Protik Ganguly
FIFA expects to make $11 billion from the 2026 World Cup. The host cities paying for it expect to lose money.
That is not a contradiction. It is how the modern World Cup is built. Ticket sales go to FIFA. Broadcast rights, projected above $4 billion, go to FIFA. Sponsorship and advertising revenue goes to FIFA. Host cities get the crowds, the bill, and a thin slice of local spending.
Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College who has studied World Cup hosting for decades, put it plainly: FIFA gets the revenue, cities get the costs, and those costs run well over $100 million per city. The US allocated $625 million in federal security funding to its 11 host cities. Toronto's bill rose from tens of millions to roughly $380 million. None of that money came back to either city — it was the price of admission.
There is real spending happening too. Atlanta expects over $1 billion in economic activity from its eight matches. Hotel rates across host cities are running 200 to 300% above normal. But economists draw a hard line between gross activity and net benefit. Set against the spending are the security costs cities are legally required to cover, the regular tourists who skip host cities to avoid the crowds, and the infrastructure upgrades FIFA's "clean site" rules require — most of which the host never gets to keep using afterward.
Even the national-level number, once you place it next to the size of the US economy, looks smaller than the headline suggests. FIFA projects a $17 billion boost to US GDP. Against an economy of roughly $29 trillion, that is under 0.1% — a rounding error wearing a press release. Hotel bookings across several host cities are already running below forecast, with visa friction and ticket prices cited as the reason.
Compare this to 1994, the last time the US hosted. That tournament generated over $1 billion for three cities and helped launch Major League Soccer two years later — a legacy that has compounded for three decades. Promoters lean on that kind of legacy argument heavily — increased visibility, future tourism, future investment — but independent economists who study mega-events without a stake in the outcome have generally found those longer-term payoffs are real in theory and unreliable in practice, since there is no clean way to prove a city's later growth came from World Cup exposure rather than everything else happening at the same time. The 2026 hosts are spending a fraction of what Qatar spent in 2022 building from scratch, which limits the downside even if the upside stays modest.
The World Cup is not a financial trap for the country. It is a financial trap for the city signing the contract. FIFA built a model where the revenue centralizes and the costs do not.
References
Euronews. (2026, June 2). The 2026 World Cup: Billions promised but will the economic boom arrive? https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/06/02/the-2026-world-cup-billions-promised-but-will-the-economic-boom-arrive
NPR. (2026, June 15). How much of an economic boom is the 2026 FIFA World Cup for US host cities? https://www.npr.org/2026/06/15/nx-s1-5847031/how-much-of-an-economic-boom-is-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-for-the-u-s-hosting-cities
Partners Real Estate. (2025, December). FIFA World Cup 2026 economic impact: Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio. https://partnersrealestate.com/research/market-edge-by-partners-fifa-world-cup-2026/
Smith College. (2026). 2026 World Cup: High costs for host cities. https://www.smith.edu/news-events/news/2026-world-cup-high-costs-host-cities
Related Articles
The Creator Economy Is a Gold Rush. Most Miners Lose Money.
• The creator economy is projected to reach $480 billion by 2027, but income is highly skewed: about half of the 50 million global creators earn under $10,000 annually, and only 5.8 % make six‑figure incomes. • Most creators rely on a mix of brand deals, platform ad revenue, affiliate commissions, subscriptions, and merchandise, with brand deals dominating for larger accounts and ad revenue providing a baseline for mid‑tier creators. • While platforms like Meta generate massive advertising revenue (e.g., $164 billion in 2025), creators bear most production costs, resulting in a structural asymmetry where the platform captures the majority of earnings despite creators being the primary content producers.
Brain Drain Is a Myth. Here Is What Migration Actually Does.
• Global remittances surged to $656 billion in 2023, far surpassing foreign aid, with countries like India receiving $129 billion and some economies (e.g., the Philippines, Tajikistan) relying on remittances for over 20% of GDP, stimulating household consumption, education, healthcare, and local employment. • Research shows migrants typically earn four to five times higher wages abroad, and their earnings substantially raise household incomes in origin countries; this income boost often leads to increased investment in education, creating a “brain gain” where more children attain higher education. • The presence of successful diaspora professionals enhances the home nation’s soft power, providing role models, facilitating knowledge transfer through diaspora networks, and improving the country’s global reputation despite the loss of individual skilled workers.
GDP Is Growing. But Does It Reach Ordinary People?
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the total monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country, but it does not necessarily reflect the living standards of its citizens. The US has the largest GDP in the world, at approximately $30 trillion in 2026. • GDP per capita, which divides total GDP by population, is a rough proxy for average income and living standard, but it has limitations, such as being influenced by high earners and non-resident multinationals. US GDP per capita in 2026 is approximately $85,000. • The difference between GDP per capita and median household income can indicate income inequality, with the US being a clear outlier due to a significant divergence between GDP per capita growth and median income growth between 1979 and 2013.