The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the biggest in history. It will include 48 teams and 104 matches across the United States, Canada and Mexico. For fans, it is a global celebration of football. For FIFA, football's governing body, it is also a huge business event. FIFA expects to earn billions of dollars from broadcasting rights, sponsorship, ticketing and hospitality.
FIFA is often described as a not-for-profit organization. This does not mean that it cannot generate large revenue. It means that it does not distribute profits to shareholders. Instead, FIFA says that much of its income is reinvested in football development, including support for national associations, youth football and the women's game. In this sense, the World Cup helps fund football far beyond the stadiums where the matches are played.
But the money does not move in only one direction. Local governments also take on major responsibilities. They may need to improve transport, organize fan zones, prepare security plans and adjust stadium operations. Some of these costs are paid through public funding, including government grants and taxpayer money. Cities may also face liabilities if costs rise, plans change or promised support does not arrive as expected.
This creates a difficult question: how should the cost burden be allocated? FIFA receives much of the direct tournament income, while host cities often hope to benefit indirectly. Hotels, restaurants, bars and local transport companies may see a temporary windfall from visitors. Cities may also gain international attention. Economists sometimes call this kind of indirect benefit an economic spillover. However, spillovers are not always easy to measure, and they may not cover all public costs.
The risk is that early estimates can be too optimistic. Security, transport and crowd-management expenses may increase as the event approaches, leading to cost overruns. A city may expect tourism and publicity, but later discover that the financial benefits are smaller than hoped. In that case, taxpayers may carry part of the bill, even if most of the direct revenue goes elsewhere.
The World Cup can bring excitement, visibility and business activity to a city. At the same time, it can shift financial risk onto local governments. The real issue is not whether the tournament is "good" or "bad." A better question is whether the benefits and burdens are shared in a transparent and fair way. When a global event depends on local infrastructure, the public deserves to know who receives the revenue and who pays the bill.
