Why big sports cities in the US won’t host the 2026 World Cup

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is coming to the US, Mexico, and Canada, but some of America’s biggest sports cities won’t be in the game. Chicago, Phoenix, and Detroit—home to passionate fans and major sports teams—are sitting this one out. Even though these cities have huge stadiums and loyal followings, they turned down the chance to host matches. Why? The rules set by FIFA, soccer’s global leader, made hosting feel like a risky bet. Hosting a World Cup isn’t cheap or easy. Cities had to agree to strict demands, like paying for security, waiving taxes on tickets, and letting FIFA change agreements anytime. Some leaders argued that the costs outweighed the benefits. In Phoenix, for example, officials said they couldn’t risk unexpected expenses. Chicago’s mayor in 2018 called FIFA’s demands "excessive, " saying the organization wanted taxpayers to cover too much without clear guarantees.

Big events can bring short-term tourism and attention, but history shows they don’t always pay off. After the 1994 World Cup in the US, host cities lost billions despite early forecasts of profit. Spending on stadiums and security didn’t magically boost local economies. Instead, some areas saw fewer visitors because locals avoided crowded spots. Even now, cities like Kansas City stepped in to represent the Midwest, but will the gamble pay off? FIFA says hosting can leave lasting scars. Stadiums built for one event often sit empty after the party ends, draining public money. Brazil and South Africa faced similar issues after past World Cups. Still, some US cities tried to make hosting work by investing in projects like public transit and parks—hoping these changes would bring long-term value, not just short-term buzz.

Actions