FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Photo: Getty Images
FIFA has numerous sources of revenue. It owns all the rights to the World Cup. Consequently, it reaps all the financial benefits from the tournament. The federation receives the lion’s share of all revenue from the sale of television broadcast rights for matches, ticket sales, sponsorship contracts, stadium merchandise sales, parking fees, and so on.
But what about the host cities that host the world’s premier soccer tournament? They have no special rights — only obligations and expenses. The cities hosting the matches must organize public transportation, ensure safety and public order, and even provide security escorts for VIPs whom FIFA includes on its lists, according to “Sport-Express”.
And there’s much more: for example, “cleaning up” the stadiums where matches are held by removing all non-FIFA-related sponsorship references, and even changing street signs in the cities. Just this kind of forced facade decoration alone can sometimes cost $500,000.
What’s in it for them: “The whole world will learn about your city”
In the United States, they know how to count money, so negotiations between FIFA and candidate cities didn’t always go smoothly. As a result, Chicago — the third-largest city in the U.S.—didn’t make the list of host cities for the World Cup. FIFA included in its contract with the city the right to require the construction of a roof over the stadium, which would have entailed additional costs of up to $100 million. After city officials refused to cover these costs, FIFA did not include Chicago on the list of host cities for the 2026 World Cup.
Citing The Athletic, a report in *Sport-Express* also recounts this story. During a FIFA commission visit to Los Angeles in 2021, the head of the city’s sports commission asked about the host city’s obligations as stipulated in the FIFA contract: “What, exactly, do we get out of this?” To which an official from the international federation replied in all seriousness: “Your city will become known around the world.” After that, a dead silence fell over the room — everyone was so shocked.
Real and Imaginary Money
Economists hired by FIFA prepared a report stating that the U.S. economy would receive an additional $30 billion from hosting the 2026 World Cup. Most of the revenue is expected to come from tourists — hundreds of thousands of fans who will arrive from all over the world and fill hotels and restaurants, use public transportation, and shop in stores…
But such calculations don’t always pan out. American hoteliers are already complaining that the forecasts and expectations aren’t being met.
At the same time, in addition to direct spending on the construction or renovation of facilities for the World Cup, as well as related infrastructure, the organizers have a host of other obligations that result in direct losses to the budget.
For example, FIFA requires that revenue from ticket sales be tax-exempt. As a result, according to The New York Times, the states of Missouri, Georgia, and Texas will forgo $57.8 million in tax revenue.
Host cities are also restricted in their ability to attract sponsors to offset expenses. Theoretically, they can do so, but if FIFA has a contract with a company in that sector, they cannot bring in that company’s competitors as sponsors. And since the international federation has sponsorship contracts with global leaders in all the most “lucrative” sectors — automobiles, beer, electronics, watches, and even coffee—the organizers don’t have much choice.
So FIFA’s $11 billion in revenue from the 2026 World Cup is one side of the business model. On the other side are the host cities, for whom the tournament is turning from a prestigious event into nothing but a headache.
