When Gianni Infantino traveled to Wales in March 2016 for his first major international meeting as the newly elected FIFA president, he flew on EasyJet, the European discount, no-frills airline.
“I always take the easiest and best option,” said Infantino, when pressed on the obvious PR stunt in the wake of the FIFA bribery scandal. “We are normal people and we have to behave like normal people.”
A decade later, both Infantino’s mode of transportation and his view of his place in the world have changed dramatically. These days Infantino jets around the planet on a private plane provided by the Qatari government, meeting with world leaders and corporate giants, addressing the United Nations. Upon landing, Infantino expects to be welcomed and treated not as a normal person but as a global power broker with few peers, the man who created a World Cup of what he believes are Biblical proportions.
So it should have come as no surprise that for FIFA’s Congress, the organization’s annual assembly, in Vancouver this past April, FIFA officials requested that city officials provide a Level 4 motorcade to the meeting’s waterfront hotel. A Level 4 motorcade allows the caravan to run through red lights as it races along shut-down city streets and is usually reserved for heads of state like the U.S. president, British royalty or the Pope.
“Pope level security,” Carson Binda, the British Columbia director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said laughing.
Mark Carney is Canada’s prime minister, but he doesn’t get the Level 4 treatment.
That Vancouver officials denied FIFA’s request, angering and embarrassing FIFA officials after it was leaked, caught critics of the World Cup and its price tag by surprise.
“It was one of the few times Vancouver mayor Ken Sim actually said no to FIFA,” said Binda. “Maybe the only time.”
A few minutes past 5 p.m. EDT on Sunday, July 19, at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium, Infantino will award the World Cup at the end of the largest and most expensive tournament in history, but the real winner has long been clear.
“We do know who’s going to win and that’s going to be FIFA and its corporate partners,” said Adam Beissel, a sports leadership and management professor at Miami (Ohio) University.
The World Cup will generate at least an $11 billion profit for FIFA, according to financial projections by the organization, making it the most lucrative sporting event in history. Some analysts predict FIFA’s profits could reach $13 billion for the 48-team, 104-match tournament played over 37 days in 16 North American cities, 11 in the U.S.
“The greatest event that humanity has ever seen,” Infantino said.
One-sided agreements
But Infantino and FIFA’s epic will leave tournament host cities, provincial, state, and federal governments with the likelihood of a combined bill in the billions of dollars for World Cup-related expenditures, according to a Southern California News Group review of Host City Agreements, memos of understanding between FIFA and tournament host cities, FIFA and government studies and analysis, as well as interviews with leading sports economists, government officials and World Cup bid officials.
The host city agreements reveal what a bid executive describes as “one-sided” contracts favoring FIFA, in which it controls “99.9” percent of the tournament’s revenue streams and can “unilaterally” change the terms of the contract and the demands it can place on the host city.
“FIFA may, during the term of this Host City Agreement, unilaterally specify, modify, reduce and/or enhance the obligations of the Host City Authority and/or define new, obligations in addition to those as contained in this Host City Agreement or as set out in detail in the 2026 FWC Hosting Requirements,” reads a host city agreement obtained by SCNG.
“Effectively, our politicians gave FIFA a blank check backstopped by the taxpayer to host these soccer games,” Binda said.
This is also the first World Cup where logistical arrangements are controlled by FIFA instead of a national organizing committee as was the case with the 1994 World Cup, denying host cities an advocate to address their concerns with FIFA.
Local host city committee and government officials have also exaggerated the World Cup’s economic impact on host cities, according to economists, and local government officials have characterized funding for state, provincial and federal governments to offset tournament costs as “revenue.”
“At the end of the day, FIFA rents these cities, the cities are on the hook for the costs and FIFA essentially takes all of the direct revenue and concessions and the stadiums,” Beissel said.
For Vancouver alone, the cost of hosting seven matches, none of them past the Round of 16, could reach $729 million, according to British Columbia government officials. That’s nearly $1.2 million per minute of play.
“One-point two million dollars per minute is an eye-watering amount of money to be spending on these relatively low-value FIFA soccer games,” Binda said.
The head of the United Bid Committee for the U.S., Canada and Mexico acknowledged that FIFA needs to re-examine its host city agreements moving forward.
“There were situations where FIFA did compromise on behalf of the cities but I think the big one that will need to be looked at again are access to revenue streams under currently this model FIFA is controlling 99.9 or a significant majority of the revenue streams which puts a really, really difficult burden on our host city structures because of our cities don’t have access to public dollars,” said John Kristick, executive director of the 2026 United Bid and a longtime international sports marketing executive. “So they have to raise those dollars privately, so with the tight stranglehold FIFA puts on the commercial rights, the cities have very, very limited abilities to do what they do best, which is attract local companies to support the event.”
Others, however, remain skeptical that FIFA will be willing to share future World Cup earnings with the cities hosting the tournament.
“FIFA is basically a revenue-generating machine,” said Michael Leeds, a Temple economics professor. “They get the revenue and they stick the host country and cities with the costs. They have no interests in paying any attention to the cost side of the equation.”
“FIFA is not awarding these games to host countries and cities as an act of altruism but as a way of revenue and/or profit maximisation for themselves,” said Moshe Lander, an economics professor at Canada’s Concordia University and the former senior economist for the Alberta government. “Much as Apple will protect the image of its precious iPhone or McDonald’s will invest millions to project the lifestyle that comes from eating a Big Mac, FIFA will stop at nothing to ensure that its crown jewel, the World Cup, goes off without a hitch.
“They leverage the false belief that hosting their event will transform cities and countries, will generate incalculable benefits to government coffers and will lead to tourism benefits for decades to come. PT Barnum said, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’ That could be FIFA’s motto when it comes to finding host countries. Each one thinks the previous ones made mistakes that the new ones will not repeat. The ego and vanity of politicians is strong, and FIFA threatens to give the event to another country that is prepared to sign over its soul if the current one does not do the same.”
Infantino, 56, is the face of what’s been called “FIFA 2.0,” the sport’s global governing body’s attempt to reframe itself after decades of corruption scandals.
“It’s old wine in new bottles,” Beissel said. “It’s really just a branding exercise. It’s a strategic play to try and rehabilitate a public image that beneath the surface is really still all about the same goals and objectives that FIFA has been about and is trying to generate as much revenue as possible so that they can dole it out to the 211 member associations.”
The 2026 tournament is the first World Cup that was awarded and organized totally on Infantino’s watch. The 2018 World Cup in Russia and the 2022 tournament in Qatar were awarded before Infantino was elected FIFA president.
This World Cup is the first to be hosted by multiple nations and the first since FIFA’s decision to expand the field to 48 teams.
Infantino elected to rebrand FIFA after scandals
Infantino was elected in the wake of the 2015 FIFA corruption scandal in which seven then-current FIFA officials were arrested at the May 2015 FIFA Congress in Zurich on suspicion of receiving $150 million in bribes and extradited to the U.S. following an investigation by the FBI and IRS into wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering. The arrests led to criminal investigations in at least six other countries and FIFA president Sepp Blatter being forced out of office in December 2015. Blatter and UEFA president Michel Platini were banned from the sport for eight years that same month after the FIFA ethics committee found Blatter had made a $2 million payment to Platini for consulting work.
In May 2016, a year after the initial arrests, FIFA under Infantino overhauled its World Cup selection process. Previously, World Cup elections were made by secret ballot by FIFA’s 24-member executive committee. Under the new selection procedure, each of FIFA’s 211 nations voted in an open and public tournament host election.
“So Infantino comes in and he sort of says we’ve got to rebrand FIFA, losing corporate sponsors, we have a terrible image, what we need to do is try and position FIFA as a source of social good, as actors in global geopolitics, bringing about peace and furthering global diplomacy,” Beissel said. “So for years we’ve seen Infantino going to the IMF, the World Bank, going to the UN and addressing the United Nations, brokering talks between Palestine and Israel. Getting involved in global geopolitics, which on the surface, you’re the head of the largest football associations, what are you doing there? But I think it gives him a sense of purpose and it’s all part of a strategy to try and rehabilitate FIFA’s image as something other than a commercially oriented organization that is unscrupulously trying to get as much cash and revenue from World Cups as possible.
“What gives him purpose, it’s what gives him power and support among all the 211 member associations, is unapologetically trying to generate as much revenue as humanly possible.”
FIFA, based in Zurich, has had tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status in the U.S. since 1994. FIFA reported $872 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending in December 2024 with $6.14 billion in assets, according to its IRS filing. Infantino receives $6.1 million in annual compensation in a contract that also includes first-class or charter travel for companions, a housing allowance, health and social club memberships and a maid, chauffeur and chef. FIFA pays “current officers, directors, trustees and key employees” a total of $31.8 million in annual compensation and spends another $188.6 million on salaries and wages for other employees.
In a way, with the windfall from the 2026 World Cup, Infantino and FIFA are cashing in on a 32-year investment. In 1989, FIFA, under pressure from some of its leading corporate sponsors but defying some of the leading figures in the sport, awarded the 1994 World Cup to the U.S.
The 1994 tournament shattered World Cup attendance and revenue records, drawing 3.58 million fans and generating $700 million in net revenue. The attendance record still stands despite FIFA expanding the tournament from 24 teams in 1994 to 32 nations four years later.
“Ninety-four FIFA invested, in ’94 FIFA sewed and in 2026 they are reaping,” said Holy Cross economics professor Victor Matheson, author of “The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Events.” “They really did put in place, and intentionally, and this really did horrify the rest of the world that they were taking the world’s premier soccer event and putting it in the land of the heathens, right? And to some extent they were right. It really was the land of the heathens, but on the other hand they saw a lot of potential because, No. 1 obviously, the biggest economy on the planet, the biggest, and we have more soccer fans in the United States than England does.
“They kind of went on a limb in ’94 saying, ‘If we do this right, it seeds one of the great soccer hotbeds not for players but consumers, and of course they’re really taking the scythe to us today in ticket prices and the reaping part.”
FIFA’s sales pitch sounded familiar.
“Any time you listen to FIFA or the IOC talk about the benefits, I’m reminded of the ‘Music Man,’ the musical,” Leeds said. “They’re just selling us on a boy’s band.
“And if you believe them,” he continued, laughing, “you’re just gullible and they count on that gullibility. I don’t say they’ve lied, but what they’ve said bears only a passing resemblance to reality.”
In this case Infantino is FIFA’s Harold Hill and North America his latest River City.
Infantino and FIFA’s approach was three-pronged: emphasize the financial and commercial success of the 1994 World Cup and the groundbreaking 1999 Women’s World Cup, also in the U.S., promise an economic impact in the tens of billions and take advantage of the U.S. surplus of world class stadiums by pitting cities against each other and then locking them into restrictive host city contracts highly favorable to FIFA before the U.S., Canada and Mexico were awarded the tournament.
Further fueling interest in U.S. cities was the disappointment surrounding the FIFA executive committee’s 2010 controversial vote to award Russia the 2018 World Cup and the 2022 tournament to Qatar instead of the U.S. Of the 22 FIFA executive committee members who voted on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, 11 have been banned for life, prosecuted, suspended or fined for corruption.
FIFA is projecting that the World Cup will have a $30.5 billion “main economic impact” on the U.S., creating 185,000 jobs and generating $3.4 billion in tax revenue, according to FIFA’s Socioeconomic Impact Analysis.
But leading economists characterize the FIFA projections as anywhere from “wildly optimistic” to “unrealistic” to “misleading” to “borderline dishonest.”
“Not really worth anything,” Beissel said of the financial impact projections. “Not worth the paper that they’re printed on.”
“The question facing potential host countries is whether the rosy forecasts predicted actually occur in reality,” Matheson and Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade have written. “At times, the predictions are so outlandish as to defy common sense. For example, it is hard to believe a four-week-long soccer tournament could really generate anywhere near the $70 billion impact that the Brazilian Ministry of Sports predicted in 2014, a figure that would represent nearly 4% of the annual Brazilian GDP. But even when the predictions are in the realm of reality, there are several common problems that can occur when ex ante economic impact studies are created.”
Matheson said in an interview this month that “the big issues with most types of economic impact statements are they tend to measure gross economic impact instead of net economic impact. So there’s going to be a bunch of stuff happening because of the World Cup, but there’s also going to be a bunch of stuff not happening because of the World Cup.”
How economic impacts are overestimated
There are three basic factors that undercut the economic impact projections.
“Three real big problems,” Matheson said.
Substitution: Mega events like the World Cup aren’t increasing spend among local residents within the community; rather residents are spending money on the tournament that they would have spent elsewhere in the area.
“So instead of going to restaurants in Manhattan Beach or going to Disneyland or going to the Angels game, they’re going to the World Cup,” Matheson said. “So that’s the substitution effect.”
Crowding out: Mega events scaring off potential tourists who don’t want to fight World Cup crowds or pay expensive hotel rooms and airfares created by the tournament’s expected demand.
Leakage: “What’s spent in LA but doesn’t stay in LA,” Matheson said. “World Cup tickets, that’s the big one. That’s 400 bucks that doesn’t stay in LA but goes right back to Switzerland. Hotel room rates, increasing the corporate profits, but you’re not doubling or tripling the wages of your desk clerks or your room cleaners, so that money all goes back to corporate headquarters instead of your workers’ pockets, which gets spent and respent in LA.
“You put all those things together and you get a lot lower economic impact than just measuring all the dollars and cents that are being spent as part of the World Cup without measuring all these other things that are reducing the total economic impact.”
World Cup economic impact projections have been further undercut by reports that hotel bookings in tournament host cities are well below projections or previous year numbers for the same period. A report by Fortune in May said that 80% of hotels surveyed reported that bookings in World Cup cities were tracking below expectations, with the tournament described as a “nonevent” in some cities. An American Hotel and Lodging Association survey, released last month, shows that bookings for Kansas City hotels are nearly 90% below expectations.
“Not only is this FIFA World Cup not drawing tourists to Vancouver,” Binda said, “now it’s pushing out families that would otherwise be coming out to the West Coast for the summer.”
In their 2004 study, “The Quest For the Cup: Assessing The Economic Impact of the World Cup,” Matheson and Baade wrote “An ex post analysis of the 1994 World Cup held in the U.S. suggests that the economic impact of the event cannot justify this magnitude of expenditures and that host cities experienced cumulative losses of $5.5 to $9.3 billion as opposed to ex ante estimates of a $4 billion gain touted by event boosters. Potential hosts should consider with care whether the award of the World Cup is an honour or a burden.”
Red flags in agreements
The host city agreements contained additional red flags. Cities signing the host city agreement were entering an irrevocable contract with FIFA and U.S. Soccer under the terms of the agreement in which FIFA could alter throughout the length of the deal.
An “irrevocable offer is legally binding and fully valid until one month after the selection of proposed host cities and stadiums,” Los Angeles chief legislative analyst Sharon M. Tso, David Michaelson, chief assistant city attorney and Richard H. Llewellyn Jr., interim city administrative officer, wrote in a February 8, 2018, inter-departmental memo to city council members. “In making the offer, the City additionally affirms that FIFA/MA may unilaterally modify the terms of the host city selection process. Once FIFA/MA accept the City’s irrevocable offer, FIFA/MA may continue to unilaterally modify any of City’s obligations under the agreement. This right to unilaterally modify continues throughout the term of the HCA, which does not terminate (except under limited circumstances) until December 31, 2026. The HCA further requires the host city to affirm that these unilateral changes would be legally binding and fully valid.”
Even so, more than 50 cities lined up to host the World Cup’s return to North America in 2026.
“The enthusiasm during the bid for us to host the World Cup was very high,” Kristick said. At one point, there were 52 cities that wanted to take part in the process. A number of those cities took part in the unsuccessful bid for the 2022 World Cup, so they really wanted to be successful this time. They knew the agreements were one-sided. They read them with great scrutiny. There were a number of components in those agreements that were still subject to future guidelines that would be issued by FIFA and for certain I believe they went into it with a very good spirit that these issues could be resolved or a number of them could be resolved favorably for them. Quite frankly, a number of the issues have been resolved.”
The 50 were reduced to 25 cities, who signed host city agreements with FIFA even before the World Cup was awarded to the U.S. in June 2018. There were some notable absentees. Chicago, host of the 1994 World Cup opener, was pulled out the bid process by then mayor Rahm Emanuel. The host city agreement, Emanuel said, was a “blank check” that could “fleece the taxpayers.” Montreal, site of the 1976 Olympic Games, also withdrew from the bidding, Caroline Proulx, Quebec’s housing minister, calling the FIFA contract “greedy.”
The 25 remaining U.S. candidate cities were later reduced to 17 for FIFA’s evaluation period in 2021 and 2022. FIFA named the tournament’s 16 host cities in June 2022.
“Unlike previous competitive bid processes we didn’t know which cities would be hosting when country was awarded the hosting rights and that was deliberate by FIFA because what they did was shortlisted 25 cities with a two-, three-year second round of bidding in which the cities were pitted against one another traveling around the country, meeting with NFL stadium owners and effectively lobbying, creating a sense of competition to get the most favorable terms possible,” Beissel said.
“FIFA gave Cincinnati a draft of an MOU 24 hours before the deadline. Three city counselors had to look at it and basically come to the conclusion if we want even the possibility of hosting games we need to issue FIFA a blank check, we need to cover all of the security costs, we need to cover all of the at least $700 million of stadium renovations. But we don’t actually know what this is going to cost us for three games.
“FIFA was extraordinarily successful in creating that second round of competition and lo and behold, now that it’s time to pay the bill the cities, many of whom have elected officials who weren’t the ones who voted for it, are now being asked to pay the bill and they’re like, ‘Wait a minute, now I’m reading the fine print, this is outrageous, why did we ever agree to this?’”
The host cities and local businesses are further hindered in generating revenue by a clause in FIFA’s host city agreement that prohibits cities from holding “no other major sporting event, other than the” World Cup “for a period starting seven (7) days prior to the Opening Match and ending seven (7) days after the Final Match.”
The FIFA agreement also prohibits cities from devoting “greater resources to the promotion of another major sporting event staged in the Host City in the year prior to the Competition Period than it does to the promotion of the Competition.”
Cities also can’t organize or stage substantial cultural events (such as music concerts) which draw together large numbers of people, other than concerts or Host City Event approved by FIFA … within a period commencing one (1) day prior to a Match Day or opening ceremony taking place.”
The last two clauses were among deal breakers for Montreal, host of a widely popular F1 race and the Montreal Jazz Festival.
Under their agreement with FIFA, host cities are required to organize “public transportation on Match Days, including free public transportation for Ticket holders and hospitality guests as well as for FIFA Fan Fest visitors.”
“Our administration inherited an agreement where FIFA is providing $0 for transportation to the World Cup. Zero,” New Jersey governor Mikie Sherrill told reporters in April. “That leaves New Jersey Transit with a $48 million bill to safely get 40,000 fans to and from every game.
“At the same time, FIFA is making $11 billion off of this World Cup, and charging fans up to $10,000 for a single ticket for the final. I won’t stick New Jersey commuters for that tab for years to come – that’s not fair.”
To offset the cost, New Jersey officials initially said New Jersey Rail tickets to MetLife Stadium for World Cup events would cost $150. That figure has since been dropped to first $105, then $98.
Cities are required to provide FIFA office space “free of charge” and equipped with “state-of-the art technical devices, infrastructure and facilities of the highest quality available.” The agreement also allows FIFA to require that the cities appoint a “competent staff member” to assist FIFA/MA with the enforcement of FIFA media and intellectual property rights.
“The HCA does not appear to provide any revenues to offset costs incurred by implementing the obligations of the HCA,” read the February 2018 memo to Los Angeles City Council members.
Then there are the cost of amenities for FIFA officials and other VIPs or VVIPs.
“To the extent relevant for the Host City, the Host City Authority shall support the preferred treatment procedures for the entry to, and exit from, the Host Country to be available for the Team Delegation members, the FIFA Delegation members, VIP/VVIPs, Referees and other individuals nominated by FIFA, including special immigration, customs and security procedures, such as VIP/VVIP gate pick-up, access to VIP/VVIP waiting rooms, special passport control procedures or assistance, VIP/VVIP luggage collection and VIP parking,” according to the host city agreement. “This includes support of the FIFA Delegation members to access those sites to perform their duties.”
Part of the $185 million British Columbia is spending on upgrades to BC Place is for the construction of FIFA-required luxury boxes and suites for FIFA officials and VIPs as well as a special entrance to the stadium.
“So the FIFA executives don’t have to mingle with the unwashed masses who they’re leaving with the tab,” Binda said.
Government officials in host cities like Vancouver, Beissel said, “They’re effectively like, ‘sure FIFA, we’ll give you whatever you ask for, we’ll let you supersede local laws, we’ll give you as many tax exemptions as possible and we’ll figure it out later.’”
Anne Kang, British Columbia’s minister for tourism, arts, culture and sports, said the province is projecting a net deficit of between $90 and $114 million on World Cup related expenses.
To offset the World Cup costs, a new 2.5 percent hotel tax on all stays in Vancouver has been established. The tax will run through at least 2030.
“Which means we’re still going to be paying bills for FIFA long after the games have left,” Binda said.
British Columbia officials said they consider funds generated by the hotel tax as well as $100 million from the Canadian government for security as revenue.
“Vancouver is also playing fast and loose with accounting rules claiming that the federal government’s C$100 million contribution toward security costs counts as revenue,” Lander said in an email. “This minimizes the economic losses that Vancouver will suffer but calling it revenue is hard to justify.
“That’s pushing the limits of ethical reporting to claim it as revenue. The same goes for the hotel tax.”
Learning from FIFA’s cautionary tales
The U.S. is an early front runner to host the 2038 World Cup when the tournament is slated to be awarded to North America or Oceania. Will FIFA offer a more user-friendly host city agreement by then? Will North American cities still be paying off their tabs for the 2026 tournament?
“I think that’s where a key learning will come out of this and it might be applied even come Women’s World Cup in 2031, is that FIFA will have to adapt its model to ensure that there’s more of a guaranteed revenue stream that cities can count on,” Kristick said.
The 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup will be co-hosted by the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica.
“The economic impact is important,” Kristick continued. “We know the exposure the cities get, tourism and that’s important, but I think this has proven out that there have to be very hard revenue lines as well that the cities can rely on to fund not only the core requirements of security and transportation and stadium infrastructure but also letting them do the extra things.”
Even so, Leeds said FIFA’s history is full of cautionary tales that were ignored by many of the cities struggling to figure out how they’re going to pay for this World Cup.
“In my eyes this was perfectly predictable, but people were looking at things through rose colored glasses,” he said. “As is often the case, the reckoning will come after the fact.