Why big sports cities in the US won’t host the 2026 World Cup
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to make history as the first edition hosted by three nations—the U.S., Mexico, and Canada—but not all of America’s sports powerhouses will be in the spotlight. Chicago, Phoenix, and Detroit, cities synonymous with passionate fan bases and elite sports franchises, have opted out of hosting matches. Despite their world-class stadiums and loyal audiences, they passed on the opportunity. The reason? FIFA’s stringent demands turned hosting into a high-stakes gamble.
The Cost of Playing FIFA’s Game
Hosting a World Cup isn’t just a matter of rolling out the welcome mat—it’s a financial and logistical nightmare. Cities were forced to agree to onerous conditions, including:
- Full financial responsibility for security and infrastructure
- Tax waivers on ticket sales, shifting revenue loss to local governments
- Unilateral contract changes, allowing FIFA to alter agreements at will
For some leaders, the equation was simple: the risks outweighed the rewards.
In Phoenix, city officials balked at the idea of unpredictable costs, fearing taxpayer dollars could vanish into a black hole. Meanwhile, Chicago’s mayor in 2018 labeled FIFA’s demands "excessive," arguing that the organization expected public funds to cover too much—without solid guarantees of returns.
The Myth of the Economic Windfall
The allure of a World Cup is undeniable: a global stage, tourism booms, and international prestige. But history suggests the reality is far murkier.
Take the 1994 World Cup in the U.S.—a landmark event that promised profits for host cities. Instead, many lost billions. Stadium investments and security spending didn’t trigger the promised economic surge. Some areas even saw fewer visitors as locals avoided congestion, leaving businesses with empty wallets.
Now, as Kansas City steps in to represent the Midwest, the question lingers: Will this gamble pay off—or will it be another cautionary tale?
The FIFA Paradox: Legacy vs. Liability
FIFA’s own track record paints a sobering picture. Stadiums built for one-time events often become white elephants, draining public funds long after the final whistle. Brazil and South Africa faced similar fates after their World Cups, with abandoned venues and crumbling infrastructure.
Yet, some U.S. cities still tried to make hosting work. By investing in public transit, parks, and long-term urban projects, they hoped to turn a temporary spectacle into lasting progress. The gamble? Short-term buzz vs. enduring value.
The Bottom Line
FIFA’s World Cup is a high-risk, high-reward proposition. For some cities, the math just didn’t add up. But for others? The bet might just pay off—if history doesn’t repeat itself as tragedy.
