The 2026 FIFA World Cup has kicked off—the biggest sporting event of the quadrennium, eagerly anticipated by billions of people. For the first time in history, a tournament of this scale is being hosted by three countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This year’s World Cup features 48 teams, 104 matches, stadiums that hold tens of thousands of fans, and a combined audience of billions of viewers.
For fans around the world, this is the birthplace of new stars and major dramas. However, let’s leave discussions of playing styles and match results to specialized sports publications and soccer experts. After all, an equally fascinating battle is unfolding off the field—an economic one.
How much does it actually cost to host the World Cup? Who pays, and who profits? How much did previous tournaments cost and generate? UA.News investigated the issue.
“Let’s split the bill three ways”: expenses and expected revenues for the 2026 World Cup
Long before the opening whistle, the world’s leading soccer organization—FIFA—released its financial projections. According to FIFA’s annual report, the federation plans to generate record revenue of $13 billion over the 2022–2026 four-year cycle. In 2026 alone, revenue is expected to reach $9 billion.
The key driver of revenue is the sale of global television rights. The report states that these will generate $4.3 billion, which is 26% more than the $3.4 billion expected during the 2022 tournament in Qatar.
The prize fund for participants this year is also unprecedented. An official FIFA press release notes that the total payout to the 48 national teams will amount to $1 billion. In its study of the tournament’s global economic impact, Bank of America estimated that the World Cup could add $41 billion to global GDP and help create about 800,000 jobs worldwide.
But how do these massive sums compare to the costs and benefits for each of the three host countries?
Canada is taking a pragmatic approach. It will host 13 matches in Toronto and Vancouver. According to a May 2024 report by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, the country’s total costs for the tournament are estimated at 800 million Canadian dollars. The federal government contributed 297 million, with the remainder coming from provincial and municipal authorities. The PBO calculated that each of the 13 matches will cost taxpayers approximately 51 million Canadian dollars.
At the same time, FIFA analysts estimate that the preparation and hosting of the tournament will collectively bring an additional $3.8 billion to the Canadian economy. The main contribution is expected to come from tourism, temporary employment, and infrastructure spending.
The U.S. will see a primarily local financial impact from the 2026 World Cup. Americans will host the lion’s share of the tournament—78 out of 104 matches. The country has long had a well-developed sports infrastructure, so the main expenses are directed toward security and overall organization. The U.S. government has allocated $625 million to strengthen security measures during the tournament. Each of the 11 host cities is spending up to an additional $200 million from local budgets on logistics, transportation, and public services.
Given the enormous size of the U.S. economy (this year’s U.S. GDP is projected to exceed $32 trillion), the direct macroeconomic impact will be limited. According to estimates from the same Bank of America study, the tournament’s total contribution to the U.S. economy will be about $17 billion—less than 0.1% of GDP. The main impact will be concentrated in the host cities due to the influx of tourists, increased occupancy at hotels and restaurants, and so on.
Mexico, meanwhile, is placing a major emphasis on infrastructure. The country is hosting 13 matches in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey. Unlike its more developed neighbors, it did not have fully ready infrastructure. According to government data, total spending on stadium renovations, airport upgrades, road networks, water supply, and hotel facilities exceeded $11 billion. The expected benefit from the tournament, according to a forecast by Mexico’s Ministry of Tourism (SECTUR), is $3 billion, equivalent to approximately 0.2–0.5% of the country’s GDP.
For the Mexican economy, which is heavily dependent on the service sector and tourism, such a boost could have a long-term positive effect—even though direct costs currently significantly exceed projected revenue.
Lessons from the past: three World Cups and three financial models
To understand whether such investments are justified, it is worth looking at the three previous World Cups: those of 2022, 2018, and 2014.
In 2022, Qatar hosted the most expensive World Cup in history. The expenses of this small oil-rich monarchy were unprecedented. The total amount of investments related to World Cup preparations exceeded $200 billion. An important detail: the vast majority of these funds did not go directly to stadiums, but rather toward the long-term modernization of the entire country. Doha built a metro system, a new airport, port infrastructure, housing, hotels, water desalination systems, and more.
The economic impact for Qatar itself was estimated at “only” $17 billion—that’s a lot of money, but considering the funds spent, it’s certainly very little. For FIFA, the tournament proved to be extremely successful: according to the FIFA Financial Report 2022, the federation’s revenue from the Qatar cycle amounted to $7.5 billion. For the Qatari state, this was primarily an image-building and strategic investment, rather than a project with a quick return on investment and any reasonable payback.
Russia effectively broke even in 2018. The official report of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, published in 2019, recorded total expenses for the preparation and hosting of the 2018 World Cup at $14.2 billion. This included the construction and renovation of 12 stadiums, 95 training facilities, upgrades to airports and transportation infrastructure, and more.
The tournament’s total impact on the aggressor country’s GDP amounted to approximately $14.5 billion—meaning the costs nearly matched the economic benefits. However, independent studies pointed to the problem of “white elephants”: after the tournament ended, numerous infrastructure facilities remained chronically unprofitable and required significant annual subsidies from regional budgets.
In 2014, Brazil spent about $15 billion on organizing the World Cup. They built or renovated 12 stadiums, including the “Arena da Amazônia” in Manaus, which cost over $600 million.
The economic impact was estimated at approximately $14 billion—again, a nearly zero balance. But the main consequence was not the numbers, but mass protests: millions of Brazilians took to the streets chanting “FIFA, go home!” and demanding that money be spent on schools and hospitals, not stadiums. This case can still be considered an example of how poor planning can ruin even a completely positive sporting impact.
The World Cup: Profitable, but Not for Everyone
In summary, the question arises: is it profitable to host the world’s premier sporting event? And the answer here is actually ambiguous.
For FIFA, the World Cup is a surefire business venture with profit margins that any corporation would envy. Revenue of $9 billion in a single year is a figure comparable to the GDP of an entire country like Costa Rica or Montenegro.
But for the host countries, the picture is far more complex. Direct financial benefits rarely offset costs in the short term, or even the long term. However, there is certainly the so-called “soft power” effect: prestige, international attention, a steady flow of tourists for years to come, upgraded infrastructure, and so on.
The problem is that this effect is difficult to measure in dollars. However, it is safe to say that a country’s reputation and prestige can be no less—and perhaps even more—important than direct revenue.
The 2026 World Cup case is unique in that the three countries are playing different financial games and implementing different models. Canada is a cautious pragmatist with minimal investment and sound forecasting. The U.S. is an economic giant for whom the tournament is more of a local event than a macroeconomic driver. And Mexico is an ambitious player that has placed a big bet on an infrastructure push.
The main question: what will happen to all this infrastructure after the final whistle? Will the stadiums turn into “white elephants” that sit idle and endlessly drain the budget for maintenance—or will these facilities successfully integrate into the daily life of the cities? The answer will determine whether the 2026 World Cup goes down in history as a financial success story or becomes yet another reminder that major sports events are always a financial risk and more of an expense than a source of revenue.
