As FIFA prepares to stage the largest and most lucrative World Cup in history, concerns are mounting that host cities across North America could be left with massive financial burdens long after the final whistle.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino, once known for projecting a modest image, now presides over a global sports empire that is expected to generate at least $11 billion in profit from the expanded 2026 tournament. Featuring 48 teams, 104 matches, and 16 host cities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the event is being promoted as the biggest sporting spectacle ever staged.

But while FIFA and its corporate partners stand to reap enormous financial rewards, local governments are facing billions of dollars in costs tied to infrastructure, security, transportation, and stadium upgrades—expenses largely borne by taxpayers.

Critics argue that the agreements signed between FIFA and host cities are heavily skewed in favor of the organization. These contracts grant FIFA near-total control over revenue streams while allowing it to unilaterally modify requirements, leaving cities with limited ability to offset their expenditures.

“Effectively, cities signed a blank check,” said Carson Binda of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, pointing to provisions that obligate municipalities to cover extensive costs without guaranteed returns.

For example, Vancouver could spend up to $729 million to host just seven matches, none beyond the Round of 16. Similar financial pressures are expected across other host cities, many of which must also provide free public transportation for fans, extensive security measures, and premium accommodations for FIFA officials.

Unlike previous tournaments, the 2026 World Cup lacks a national organizing committee to advocate for host cities, further consolidating control within FIFA. Economists warn that projected economic benefits—often cited by local officials—may be overstated.

Experts highlight three key factors that tend to reduce the real impact of mega-events: substitution (local spending shifts rather than grows), crowding out (regular tourists avoid host cities), and leakage (profits leaving local economies, particularly through ticket sales and corporate revenues).

Recent data suggests these concerns may already be materializing, with hotel bookings in some host cities falling short of expectations. In certain markets, the tournament is even discouraging typical summer tourism due to higher prices and congestion.

Historical analyses reinforce the skepticism. Studies of past World Cups, including the 1994 tournament in the U.S., found that host cities collectively suffered billions in losses despite optimistic forecasts of economic gains.

Additional contractual restrictions further limit local opportunities. Cities are barred from hosting competing major events during the tournament period and must comply with strict branding rules, including removing stadium sponsor names in favor of FIFA-approved titles.

Meanwhile, FIFA retains tax advantages and faces minimal financial risk. The organization reported billions in assets and continues to operate as a highly profitable entity, with executive compensation and operational spending reflecting its global scale.

Despite growing criticism, demand to host the World Cup remains strong, driven by political ambition and the promise—often disputed—of long-term economic benefits. More than 50 cities initially competed for a place in the 2026 tournament.

For many economists, however, the pattern is clear: FIFA secures the revenue while host cities shoulder the costs.

As the 2026 World Cup approaches, the question remains whether the prestige of hosting the world’s biggest sporting event justifies the financial reality that may follow.