In Reply to: TACO, EMPANADA, NACHO, or TAMALE Trump? posted by mh on July 11, 2026 at 14:34:58
The World Cup crowns only one economic winner: its organizer, FIFA, opens new tab. Host cities scrounge for equalizers, but usually end up outmatched by lavish spending commitments. The North American metros hosting the 2026 edition of the men’s tournament are enjoying modest bumps in hospitality, but more importantly made smaller, targeted investments in transit, security and stadium renovations. Compared to prior boondoggles, it offers some lessons for the future, even if the best anyone can hope for is a draw.
World Cup sponsorships, broadcast rights, and other official partnerships should generate, opens new tab about $13 billion. For Americans smarting over their team’s ejection from the tournament, however, that’s little comfort: that lucre flows to FIFA. The 16 host cities — 11 in the United States, three in Mexico, two in Canada — had to pony up $100 million to $200 million each, a North Carolina State University study, opens new tab found. The likes of former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel saw this as a raw deal for cash-strapped municipalities and opted out. Congress did approve $625 million in security grants that defray local costs for police overtime and helped with projects like improving New Jersey’s transit connections to MetLife Stadium, which is hosting the final match.