The World Cup’s Dirty Secret: Who Really Pays for the Show?

The recent announcement that New Jersey will charge $105 for round-trip train tickets from Midtown Manhattan to MetLife Stadium, where eight World Cup matches will be held, has sparked outrage among fans. But the real scandal is not just about price gouging; it’s about who bears the financial burden of hosting the most expensive sporting event in the world.

The 2026 World Cup will unfold across three countries – the United States, Canada, and Mexico – with local taxpayers shouldering the costs while FIFA reaps the benefits. The Zurich-based organization stands to take home a staggering $13 billion from ticket sales, sponsorships, merchandise, and television rights. Meanwhile, host cities and states are left to pick up the tab for stadium retrofits, security, transportation, administration, and other expenses.

The situation is not new; it’s simply the latest iteration of a familiar pattern. Host countries have long been forced to absorb the costs of hosting the World Cup, only to be left with debts that can take years – if not decades – to pay off. In 2010, South Africa spent an estimated $4 billion on infrastructure for the tournament, including new stadiums and roads. Many of these projects were still unfinished or woefully underutilized a decade later.

In the United States, cities are particularly vulnerable to FIFA’s financial demands. New Jersey is set to lose at least $48 million on World Cup-related expenses, while FIFA stands to make $11 billion. This is a stark reminder that FIFA’s contracts are notoriously one-sided, leaving hosts with little room for maneuver.

FIFA’s control over local budgets has been a long-standing concern among host cities. In 2018, a group of mayors from around the world signed an open letter to FIFA President Gianni Infantino, expressing their frustration at the organization’s “onerous and unworkable” contracts. The signatories included mayors from major cities such as Los Angeles, Paris, and Buenos Aires.

Despite these concerns, FIFA has shown little willingness to reform its business practices. Instead, it continues to reap the benefits of a tournament that is increasingly seen as a boondoggle for local taxpayers. Hosts are not alone in their struggles; professional-sports organizations like the NFL and NBA have learned that hosting major events can be costly propositions – often failing to deliver on promises of economic growth and job creation.

The World Cup’s financial dynamics are also shaped by its unique format. As a global brand with a massive media presence, FIFA commands top dollar for sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and merchandise sales while minimizing its own costs and risks. The $105 train ticket from New Jersey to MetLife Stadium is less an anomaly than a symptom of a larger problem – the way FIFA has structured its business model to prioritize profit over people.

Host cities and states are left footing the bill for the show, with little return on investment. It’s time for FIFA to rethink its business practices and recognize the true costs of hosting the world’s most expensive sporting event. Host cities and states must demand a fairer deal from the organization that is reaping all the benefits.

The future of international soccer depends on it.