Why sports-crazed cities like Chicago, Phoenix, and Detroit skipped the 2026 FIFA World Cup

The soccer fever as a result of grip the U.S. till July 19 will probably be most vivid within the nation’s 11 host cities, the place 78 video games will probably be performed in stadiums servicing sports activities meccas resembling Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Atlanta. That’s a lot of the 104 video games complete for the match shared between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Notably absent from that listing, nevertheless, are the cities dwelling to a few of America’s most passionate sports activities fanbases—a couple of of which have even hosted World Cup video games earlier than. Phoenix, which holds the world’s largest concentration of sports venues in a single metropolitan space, will see no gametime. It’s the identical for followers in Detroit, the place 4 main league groups all play within walking distance of one another within the metropolis’s downtown. Chicago gained’t host any video games both, regardless of being the third-largest U.S. metropolis, and having thrown the opening ceremony and game the final time the World Cup got here to the nation, in 1994.

The 2026 World Cup’s host cities had been introduced in 2022 after a aggressive bidding course of. But many cities that declined to be thought-about for participation on the marquee occasion made their reservations clear years earlier, typically citing monetary causes and cumbersome necessities set by FIFA, the match’s governing physique. For a lot of America’s most sports-crazed cities lacking out on this yr’s World Cup, the enchantment of internet hosting mega-events simply wasn’t sufficient to justify the prices.

“FIFA was not able to provide specific details on major unknowns that could result in a major financial burden to our cities,” Tom Sadler, president of the Arizona Sports & Tourism Association, stated in a 2018 statement explaining a dropped host metropolis bid for Glendale, a Phoenix suburb. 

Chicago backed out for related causes, with then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel accusing FIFA of constructing extreme calls for and missing transparency on points that “put our city and taxpayers at risk.”

“The guys from international soccer wanted us to underwrite their sporting event,” Emanuel told local broadcasters in 2018. “While I am always eager to boost tourism, I am not going to write a company a blank check that can fleece the taxpayers.”

FIFA didn’t instantly reply to Fortune’s request for remark.

Jilted by FIFA

To be thought-about eligible as a bunch, cities needed to adjust to an extended listing of necessities set by FIFA. Cities had to make sure stadiums met particular requirements, decide to waiving taxes on objects like ticket purchases, and shoulder the bulk of costs associated to safety and logistics. FIFA additionally demanded rights to amend its agreements with cities at any time, and for no indemnity clauses that might protect host cities and their taxpayers from monetary dangers.

To be certain, being a bunch for a globally televised occasion—some of the broadly adopted wherever—has its enchantment for cities. In Chicago’s absence, Kansas City has emerged as the one Midwestern consultant on the match, a truth typically touted by native officers. 

“The world deserves to see the beauty, hospitality, and strength of the American Midwest,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) wrote final yr in an open letter to President Donald Trump, after Trump floated the thought of pulling internet hosting rights from Democrat-run cities. 

“Unlike many coastal host cities, Kansas City stands alone as the only host city in the geographic heart of the United States,” Alford continued.

But the prices of taking up internet hosting duties can go away long-lasting scars. While nationwide financial impacts from internet hosting mega-events just like the World Cup will be within the inexperienced, as a result of tourism and spillover results, particular person cities typically have a tougher time breaking even. Spending on infrastructure can shortly find yourself as a sunk value, as centerpieces like stadiums lie idle and drain public funds for years after the meant occasion—as was the case following the 2010 and 2014 World Cups in South Africa and Brazil, respectively.

Something related already occurred within the U.S. After the 1994 World Cup, the 9 host cities posted cumulative losses between $5.5 billion and $9.3 billion, in keeping with a 2004 study, nicely beneath the $4 billion acquire forecast for cities earlier than the match. Losses had been as a result of infrastructure spending in addition to excessive safety and working prices. The research additionally discovered World Cup-related financial affect tended to crowd out spending from locals that seemingly would have occurred anyway, however didn’t as extra residents opted to keep away from extremely trafficked areas.

Infrastructure bills for this World Cup are small in comparison with earlier editions of the match, partly as a result of the U.S. hasn’t needed to construct any new stadiums. And a number of host cities have invested in projects that would have an extended financial tail, resembling public transit and extra city inexperienced areas.

But even for these cities swayed by the worldwide status that comes with internet hosting rights in a World Cup, the payments are already piling up, and officers are being compelled to decide on between FIFA and their taxpayers. In New Jersey, a extremely publicized disagreement between the federal government and FIFA over transport surcharges for followers attending the state’s eight video games lately culminated in fare reductions from $150 to round $100 with the assistance of exterior sponsors. New Jersey’s fares are nonetheless among the many highest throughout U.S. host cities this summer time.