Unfortunately, the United States will be hosting yet again another World Cup in 2026.
On Wednesday morning, their combined bid alongside Canada and Mexico secured the rights to host the 2026 World Cup. FIFA voted overwhelmingly to approve this North American bid, which beat out Morocco’s proposal, 134-65. There will be 80 matches hosted between the three countries: 10 by Canada, 10 by Mexico, and 60 by the United States. Sure, American soccer fans are likely happy with this because of their love of the game — plus, it means the U.S. team automatically qualifies.
From an economic standpoint, however, this is not something that Americans should be cheering.
In 2014, University of Maryland economics professor Dennis Coates reported that the average host city of a World Cup experiences a negative impact of $712 million. On top of this, he said that AECOM had initially projected that the 1994 World Cup hosted in nine U.S. cities would have a positive $4 billion impact on the local economy; Coates argued that host areas actually saw a lost economic impact of $9.26 billion because of the event.
It’s not just Coates who has found that hosting the World Cup isn’t some great economic boost. The jobs associated with the events (in stadium work, airports, and infrastructure jobs) are usually only temporary and oftentimes part-time and low-paying, like when taxpayers fund a sports stadium.
Even in developing countries, who could certainly use the attention a World Cup brings more than the most powerful country on earth, the results have been disappointing.
According to CNN, South Africa spent nearly $13,000 per foreign visitor when they hosted the event in 2010. Keep in mind, from 2009 (the year before they hosted the event) to 2016, their GDP was stagnant and ultimately decreased by $900 million and their GDP went down 2.2 percent in the first quarter of this year. That said, it likely was not the best use of their money to host a month’s worth of soccer matches.
This year, Russia shelled out more than $11 billion to prepare to host the World Cup and the Kremlin argues it should result in $31 billion of economic growth over the next 10 years, according to Fox Business.
Moody’s Investors Service disagrees. “The games will last just one month and the associated economic stimulus will pale in comparison to the size of Russia’s $1.3 trillion economy,” Kristin Lindow, a Senior Vice President and analyst at Moody’s, said. “We do not expect the World Cup to make a meaningful contribution to broader economic growth.”
If soccer isn’t a popular sport in the United States and the country will have to spend several billion dollars in order to accommodate the event, what exactly is the point of hosting it if long-term economic benefits are not there? If Russia is spending that kind of money now to host the event, imagine how much the United States will be spending eight years from now. Granted, Russia built nine new stadiums and extensively renovated three more, but the existing U.S. stadiums to be used will likely require renovations. Furthermore, nearby infrastructure will have to be improved, with those projects focused on funneling people to the stadiums rather than more useful day-to-day infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
People may be celebrating the successful World Cup bid now. But in a decade, perhaps they will realize it was not the best use of money.
Tom Joyce (@TomJoyceSports) is a freelancer writer who has been published with USA Today, the Boston Globe, Newsday, ESPN, the Detroit Free Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Federalist, and a number of other media outlets.
