With the kickoff of the largest World Cup in history less than ten days away, tens of billions of dollars are expected to be injected into the economies of the host nations. However, analysts believe that its relative impact will be limited.
اضافة اعلان
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to begin on June 11 across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This biggest edition in the tournament's history will feature, for the first time, 48 national teams competing across 16 host cities.
The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) has bet on massive economic returns, projecting that the three host nations will jointly generate up to $30.5 billion (€26.1 billion), and that the tournament will add up to $40.9 billion (€35 billion) to global GDP.
The organization also estimates that approximately 824,000 jobs directly or indirectly linked to the event will be created.
However, as the opening whistle approaches, analysts warn that the actual figures—once eventually available—might paint a far more modest picture than the currently prevailing narrative.
FIFA estimates that the total cost of this edition, including spending by the international governing body, host cities, and investors in the US, Canada, and Mexico, will reach around $14 billion (€12 billion), with the United States alone shouldering more than $11 billion (€9.4 billion) of this amount.
According to an analysis by Denmark's Saxo Bank, these broad figures imply a greater impact than what is actually expected, as most experts estimate revenues to fall short of FIFA's projections.
For instance, in the case of the United States—whose economy dwarfs most of its competitors—the projected increase of around $17 billion (€14.5 billion) represents less than 0.1% of its GDP, making the World Cup a marginal driver of growth.
Mexico appears to be the largest relative beneficiary of this tripartite arrangement. Its expected economic benefits, valued at around $3 billion (€2.57 billion), represent between 0.2% and 0.5% of its GDP, depending on the model used. The influx of visitors carries a more noticeable weight in an economy more reliant on tourism and services, with cities like Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Mexico City expected to feel the economic impact most clearly. On the other hand, Canada is expected to reap around 3.8 billion Canadian dollars (€2.36 billion), though analysts emphasize that these figures must be balanced against substantial public costs.
A recent study by Oxford Economics showed that the 11 US host cities will experience GDP growth this summer concentrated in the leisure and hospitality sectors, with Houston, New York, and Dallas emerging as the primary beneficiaries; however, the job gains will be temporary.
The study pointed out that, with almost zero new infrastructure built specifically for this tournament, tourism activity linked to the matches will mostly displace existing visitor flows rather than creating added economic value.
The "White Elephant" Problem and Its Impact on GDP
The recent history of World Cup tournaments provides a realistic, less optimistic benchmark. First, the final hosting costs often exceed initial estimates by a wide margin; research by Professor Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University shows that mega sporting events overrun their budgets by an average of 172%.
This cost inflation is primarily driven by the fact that a World Cup cannot be postponed. When infrastructure projects face delays, organizers are forced to accelerate construction at all costs to meet the opening deadline, with public finances usually absorbing these overruns.
Second, beyond the actual cost, a question arises regarding the medium- and long-term economic utility of these massive investments.
Studies show that a large portion of the infrastructure built for the tournament does not create sustainable value after it ends; many stadiums turn into expensive-to-maintain and underutilized "white elephants."
The Brazil 2014 and Qatar 2022 World Cups are prominent examples of this dilemma, leaving behind a string of stadiums with no sustainable purpose after the tournament. The "Arena da Amazônia" in the Brazilian city of Manaus has become a permanent symbol of misdirected public spending.
Meanwhile, the Qatar 2022 World Cup, which cost nearly $220 billion (€188.6 billion), was the most expensive in history, entirely transforming the country's infrastructure but leaving lingering questions regarding its long-term economic impact.
Nevertheless, the 2026 edition carries a materially different nature in this regard. The United States, Canada, and Mexico already possess most of the required facilities, the vast majority of which are operated by profitable professional clubs with established fanbases. This significantly reduces the risk of stadiums turning into "white elephants" this year, though host nations are still expected to exceed their budgets.
Demand remains the true source of concern. According to a survey of more than 200 hotels in the 11 US host cities conducted by the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA), around 80% reported that bookings are pacing below initial expectations. They attributed this to difficulties international visitors face in securing visas, rising geopolitical tensions, and the high costs of tickets and travel, squeezing attendance figures.
Some hotels went as far as describing the tournament as a "non-event." Furthermore, even if demand meets expectations, historical analyses show that real GDP impact estimates should be treated with caution, as results tend to diverge significantly from initial forecasts.
Even when economic growth does occur, it is typically limited in time and heavily localized, partially offset by what is known as crowding-out and displacement effects—macroeconomic phenomena where increased government borrowing, spending, or market intervention reduces private sector investment and consumer spending.
Hence, the aggregate benefits at the macroeconomic level remain limited, particularly in economies the size of the United States. In this context, the 2026 World Cup should be understood less as a driver of structural economic transformation and more as a temporary redistribution of economic activity, the actual scale of which is usually far more modest than the official narrative suggests.
In conclusion, as analyses by Oxford Economics and Saxo Bank deduced, some GDP growth will be achieved this summer, but it will be temporary, localized, and barely perceptible at the aggregate level—at least for the world's largest economy. Thus, the greatest football show on Earth may turn out to be far quieter on the national economy front than its organizers claim.
Translated by Euronews
