US cities challenge FIFA over World Cup costs

President Donald Trump has celebrated next year’s World Cup as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show off the United States. But in many host cities, that honor is tempered by a growing concern over shouldering millions of dollars in security and logistical costs.

Local host committees, private organizations established to stage the World Cup in their areas, find themselves squeezed between two much bigger forces. Soccer governing body FIFA — for whom the quadrennial tournament is a leading source of revenue — significantly constrains local organizers’ ability to raise their own funds. While Congress has approved $625 million in security funding nationwide, local governments still have to find the money to cover other expenses that could run up to $150 million per city.

“There’s a little bit coming in, but certainly there is not enough to cover our cost,” said Lisa Gillmor, mayor of the Bay Area city of Santa Clara, California, where six matches will be played. “It’s a tall task to take on.”

Local and state governments are scrambling to bridge the gap. Houston and Dallas are tapping tens of millions from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program Fund. Kansas’ Wyandotte County, home to Kansas City, is considering a new hotel tax. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey put in a supplemental budget request for $20 million to be spent “in coordination with FIFA based on their needs.”

Some host cities are already starting to cut back on their World Cup dreams, especially around “FanFest” events that are a hallmark of the modern tournament. While all of the host cities in Canada and Mexico have committed to hosting the sprawling watch parties for the full duration of the 39-day tournament, fewer than half of those in the United States have. The others are likely to either shrink the festivals’ length or consider other ways to engage non-ticketed fans. At least two U.S. host committees have privately confronted FIFA over its lack of support on expenses like staging and entertainment, according to two people familiar with the planning at the local level.

Nowhere is the situation as tense as in California, where the state’s refusal to deliver more funding to two venues due to its own budget problems has driven the Los Angeles organizers to consider their own watch parties beyond FIFA’s control. The international federation countered with threats to deny public viewing licenses if the host committee deviates from its preferred format.

The dispute provides a window into the larger structural imbalance that’s been a source of ongoing friction between FIFA and the host cities. FIFA controls nearly all of the event’s lucrative revenue streams: global sponsorships, ticket sales, in-stadium advertising, broadcasting rights. Host committees, meanwhile, are on the hook for major public-facing costs, from policing to transportation, and now, weeks of free entertainment for tens of thousands of fans.

At a meeting this week with executives from the 11 host committees, the head of the White House’s World Cup Task Force sent a clear message: The federal government would help with security needs, but nothing more.

“That’s obviously an economic issue. Taxpayers can’t flip the bill for everything,” task force executive director Andrew Giuliani said in an interview. “There are certainly other very important things that President Trump has prioritized throughout this administration.”

The World Cup goes corporate

The first and last time the United States hosted the men’s World Cup, in 1994, a central organizing committee coordinated events across all cities, including ticket sales, sponsorships and licensing rights. The tournament generated a $50 million surplus, which was used to establish the U.S. Soccer Foundation to grow the sport domestically.

That experience also awakened the organization that controls the World Cup to its moneymaking potential. Since then, FIFA has doubled the tournament size, from 24 to 48 teams, and began to stage it across multiple countries. (The 2026 cup will be the first with three co-hosts.) The final match has come to resemble the Super Bowl, with a half-time show and premium hospitality packages. FIFA will spend $3 billion to stage next year’s tournament, a federation official said, and expects to bring in $13 billion in revenue over a four-year period from 2023 to 2026.

Cities have come to compete aggressively to share in the wealth and attention the World Cup generates. In previous tournaments, including in 1994, host nations — many with a federal sports ministry — dealt with FIFA through a single, centralized organizing committee.

But this time, FIFA and American planners have chosen a decentralized model through which the 11 U.S. cities awarded matches have independent relationships with Zurich-based organization . Each has negotiated a so-called host agreeement that outlines how financial and legal liabilities once the responsibility of a national organizers fall instead on local hosts.

But this time, FIFA and American planners have chosen a decentralized model in which city committees maintain their own relations with the Zurich-based federation. Host agreements delineate which costs are assumed by each side, legal and financial liability falling to local organizers rather than a national umbrella organization.

The Bay Area Host Committee, for example, agreed to pay $25 million to modify Levi’s Stadium, located between San Jose and San Francisco. (While FIFA has assumed responsibility for exterior fencing at stadiums, according to an official, interior modifications — typically to convert football fields for soccer use — fall to local organizers.) The host agreement obligates the committee to provide free public transportation for ticketholders, police escorts for dignitaries, and no-cost security, fire and medical services.

But in Los Angeles, those negotiations did not go so smoothly. Stan Kroenke, owner of the Los Angeles Rams and its SoFi Stadium — the most expensive sports venue on earth — expressed an interest in hosting the World Cup final. But Kroenke recoiled at the cost of improvements that FIFA demanded for its marquee match, which he seemed unlikely to recoup given the way revenue would be split. Relations between FIFA and the LA host committee have been fractious ever since.

“I know FIFA can be rapacious,” said a California state lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about dynamics between the two entities. “It’s been a constant challenge and source of complaint for the host committee.”

FIFA has tightly monitored how host committees are allowed to raise money to offset their costs, with the biggest point of tension surrounding sponsorships. FIFA has claimed the most commercially viable categories, like beverages and autos, for itself, leaving host committees to sell only limited local packages in less consumer-oriented sectors like real estate and utilities. Whereas FIFA’s global sponsorship packages have been selling for between $50 and $100 million, host committees’ “Supporter Program” deals have been typically priced between $3 to $5 million.“If you’re going to be very tight about what [FIFA is] willing to give to the host committees to help them raise money for the sponsorship packages, you can’t also impose multimillion-dollar requirements on top of their core costs,” said one person close to the planning at the host-committee level, granted anonymity to candidly discuss business practices.

The overall price tag to put on matches is expected to run between $100 million and $200 million per city, depending on factors such as the number of matches that will be played there and necessary improvements to transportation and infrastructure. FIFA argues that the local committees knew what they were taking on when they signed host agreements, and that the federation’s Miami-based team has been working with the committees to identify cost savings.

“We want to make sure that this is financially viable for all involved, including us,” said a FIFA official who works directly with the host committees granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Where that ends up and how balance sheets look, I can’t tell you. But where we can come up with creative ways to look at categories, or work with cities on finding new opportunities, we have a team that does it every single day.”

“It’s a partnership,” the official said. “No one wants them to fail.”

The money chase

Unable to access FIFA’s commercial bounty, host cities are relying on private donors, local sponsorships and whatever government dollars they can secure. Georgia, which will host a semifinal at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, has allocated $25 million for public-safety and security infrastructure. Washington state lawmakers set aside nearly $47 million for World Cup expenses, a large portion of which is funding a makeover of Seattle’s Lumen Field. Miami-Dade County pledged $46 million in subsidies and free services to support the tournament.

This summer, Congress approved $625 million to reimburse local law enforcement costs, which will be allocated across the 11 U.S. host committees via a FEMA grant program. That group encompasses six jurisdictions that the Justice Department identified this month for “sanctuary city” practices. Giuliani, the head of the White House’s task force, said host committees should expect close scrutiny of how they use federal money.

“This is not going to be a slush fund that a leftist politician can use for whatever they’d like,” said Giuliani, who discussed the reimbursement process in his meeting Tuesday with host committee executives. “We want to make sure that this money is actually accountable. We’re of course going to check the receipts and make sure that actually is going to law enforcement.”

In South Florida, where seven matches will be played, unrelated fiscal pressures are pushing local government officials to unwind commitments made in more economically flush times. The city of Fort Lauderdale has already moved $350,000 previously assigned to World Cup expenses to its homelessness budget instead, WLRN reported. In nearby Miami-Dade, the county commission is now considering whether to claw back a $10.5 million payment made in May to the local host committee.

Many local organizers across the country worry they will never be able to make it all add up, with the deficit saddled by wealthy stadium owners designated as the host committees’ financial backstop. In California, the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers football franchises have aggressively lobbied Sacramento to increase the $10 million allocated in direct support for World Cup operations, plus access to another $7 million in pre-appropriated funds for security around their stadiums.

Unable to cut back transportation and security costs without jeopardizing public safety, American host cities facing a budget crunch are looking first at the fan festivals. They can cost $1 million each day per city, amounting to up to one-quarter of an overall host committee’s costs.

“They want everybody to put on a fan festival, which is great,” said Alan Rothenberg, who chaired the 1994 organizing committee. “But they’re saying you can’t commercialize it. So that’s where the issue is. A lot of risk and limited reward.”

How to party on a million dollars a day

FIFA first launched the fan festivals in 2006 after recognizing that many fans arrived on match days without tickets. Organizers designated expansive spaces with giant screens where fans could gather away from the stadium — a crowd-control measure with the trappings of a cultural celebration.

The events have grown more central to the tourist experience, and a fixture of World Cup imagery broadcast worldwide. FIFA’s requirements for the festivals, which have historically been free for the public, are now outlined for host committees in a 159-page document including signage guidelines, food and beverage standards, and medical facilities.

The seemingly innocuous parties have already become a political flashpoint. In 2014, after hundreds of Brazilians took to the streets in protest of high spending on the World Cup, Recife’s mayor pulled public funding for the FanFest. FIFA threatened legal action against the Brazilian city, as the Associated Press reported at the time, ultimately forcing a cut in its festival budget from $8.5 million to about $4.5 million.

FIFA initially asked host cities to plan facilities that could accommodate 15,000 visitors and to operate them for the full length of next year’s tournament, which will extend more than a week longer than any past World Cup due to the competition’s expanded size. The three cities in Mexico and two in Canada agreed to do so, even though they will be hosting fewer matches than any of the U.S. cities.

Philadelphia, site of a July 4 knockout match, has committed $30 million in city funds for events related to the United States’ 250th anniversary, including a FanFest celebration at Lemon Hill for the World Cup’s duration. So will Dallas and Houston, which are receiving tens of millions of dollars each from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. New York/New Jersey, which will have both a match during the tournament’s opening weekend and the final on its closing day, will maintain its fan fest throughout.

“The FIFA Fan Festival is an important responsibility and priority for our team as we prepare to welcome the world in 2026,” NYNJ host committee spokesperson Natalie Hamilton told POLITICO in a statement. “Fundraising is a key tenant of its success, and our team is dedicated to delivering this central fan destination for local communities, families and fans from around the globe.”

But most U.S. cities have balked at that expectation, leading FIFA early last year to soften its demands around FanFest venue size and duration. Now the federation is considering the possibility of allowing host committees to generate revenue by selling FanFest tickets, said a person familiar with the conversations between FIFA and the host committees. Nonetheless, for many American cities plans remain in limbo.

“Most cities haven’t definitively told us, ‘This is exactly what we’re doing. This is exactly when we’re doing it,’” said the FIFA official who works directly with the host committees.

At least a half-dozen host cities are planning on keeping the festival open only on days when the tournament is most active in their areas. Seattle and Boston are even weighing whether to host watch parties without the official FanFest branding. Los Angeles is exploring a hybrid solution, in which the host committee would open with a weeklong FIFA-approved celebration at the Memorial Coliseum before shifting to smaller regional events that will be operated outside the federation’s purview.

“The Los Angeles World Cup Host Committee is working closely with FIFA on a community engagement model that better fits the needs of the region, which is vast and spread out,” Kathryn Schloessman, CEO of the Los Angeles World Cup 2026 Host Committee told POLITICO in a statement. “In addition to the FIFA Fan Festival, we plan to host regional watch events that touch every corner of the county, ensuring it is easy and accessible for all our residents to participate in celebrating this major event.”

But FIFA appears unlikely to immediately acquiesce to cities’ efforts to reduce costs. A federation official, granted anonymity to discuss the organization’s internal thinking, emphasized that any public viewing would still need to apply for a license subject to approval from both FIFA and Fox, the tournament’s broadcaster.

The White House task force does not intend to get involved in the budget disputes, according to Giuliani.

“I want to make sure that those fan festivals, whether they’re open for 20 days or for 40 days, that they’re safe. That’s really what our focus is on this,” Giuliani said. “But if, for some reason, in Philadelphia, let’s say a fan festival is only open for 20 days. Well, then you know what? They can go on the other side of the fan festival and run the Rocky Steps. Yeah, they can go to Constitution Hall and learn about American history.”