In Dallas, a $15 million Broadcast Center built specifically for the 2026 World Cup is already slated for demolition immediately after the tournament concludes, according to The New York Times. This temporary facility demands a substantial taxpayer outlay, built for fleeting use before its immediate dismantling, leaving no enduring benefit for the city.
FIFA's revenue projections are soaring, but host cities are shouldering immense, often temporary, infrastructure costs and waiving significant tax income. This creates a stark imbalance as the global football body prepares for record profits.
The World Cup's economic model appears to privatize profits for FIFA while socializing costs and risks for host nations and cities, turning the event into a financial burden rather than a boon for its hosts.
FIFA's Billion-Dollar Bonanza
FIFA anticipates over $11 billion in revenue for the 2026 World Cup, against an operating budget of $2.7 billion, according to The New York Times. This staggering margin reveals FIFA's immense profitability and its financial dominance. The organization's projected windfall starkly contrasts with the burdens imposed on host communities, exposing a fundamental imbalance. FIFA's model ensures it accumulates vast wealth from the event.
The Hidden Costs for Host Cities
Host cities bear substantial, often unrecouped, financial burdens and lost revenue. Kansas City, for instance, planned a $25.8 million jail specifically for the World Cup, as reported by The New York Times. Concurrently, Missouri, Georgia, and Florida waived taxes on ticket sales, forfeiting an estimated $57.8 million in revenue, according to The New York Times. These figures reveal how host cities subsidize FIFA's record profits, undertaking costly, temporary infrastructure projects and sacrificing significant tax income with no lasting local benefit.
This pattern of expenditure—a $15 million Dallas broadcast center slated for demolition, millions in waived taxes, and a proposed $25.8 million jail in Kansas City—confirms that host cities are effectively paying FIFA to host a party. FIFA's economic model, generating over $11 billion while demanding such local outlays, is a clear strategy of externalizing costs onto taxpayers.
Prize Money: A Global Incentive
FIFA increased the prize and participation fund by $112 million (£82 million), as reported by The Guardian. All 48 participating countries are guaranteed a minimum of $12.5 million, up from $10.5 million, according to The Guardian. These increased payouts were split equally among teams, not based on performance, The Guardian reports. This substantial boost, particularly the guaranteed minimums and equal distribution, buys broader international participation, ensuring global buy-in for FIFA's spectacle, often at the expense of host city financial prudence.
Leveraging Existing Infrastructure, Minimizing FIFA's Risk
The choice of venues significantly impacts FIFA's investment versus host city responsibilities. The 2026 World Cup will utilize borrowed American football stadiums, with a quarter of games in Canada and Mexico, according to BBC News. This strategy drastically minimizes FIFA's direct infrastructure investment, leveraging existing, often oversized, facilities. Yet, it fails to alleviate other host city burdens. Dallas still constructs a $15 million Broadcast Center for demolition, and Kansas City still planned a $25.8 million jail, despite the use of established major venues. Even with existing infrastructure, FIFA's demands impose significant, temporary, and wasteful costs on host cities.
By the Numbers: Tickets and Tiers
Beyond the local subsidies, FIFA's revenue stream swells from ticket sales, where Category 1 seats for the final can climb to $7,875, according to Fortune. This premium pricing model guarantees substantial income from spectators, funneling profits directly to FIFA.
While the World Cup is a global spectacle, its economic significance for host countries often translates into substantial financial outlays, not returns. Additional prize money, such as $2 million for the last 32 and $4 million for the last 16 or quarter-finals, according to The Guardian, benefits participating national federations. For host cities, however, the direct economic return remains profoundly questionable, as they absorb costs while others collect rewards.
The primary beneficiaries of this economic model are FIFA and participating national football federations. The largest prize money increases, reaching $31 million for champions and $14 million for runners-up, according to The Guardian, incentivize competitive play. Yet, this system further solidifies a structure where the event's financial success is concentrated at the top, far removed from the local communities footing the bill.
If current trends hold, the 2026 World Cup will likely cement a model where FIFA's record profits are built directly on the temporary infrastructure and waived tax revenues of its host cities, leaving behind little but financial obligation.
