The FIFA World Cup is, without a doubt, the biggest sporting event on the planet, and it only comes around once every four years. In 2026, the tournament returns to North America for the first time since 1994. Back then, the USA took on hosting duties alone. But in 2026, they’ll be joined by their neighbors to the north and south: Canada and Mexico, respectively.
There will be 16 host venues spread across the entire North American continent. Mexico has three host cities—Guadalajara, Mexico City, and Monterrey—while Canada has two: Vancouver and Toronto. The other 11 are in the US: L.A., San Francisco-Bay Area, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Atlanta, Boston, Miami, N.Y.-N.J., and Philadelphia.
One of those host cities, San Francisco, is facing some financial trouble due to its hosting duties. Each of the local hosts received $13 million from FIFA to put on their World Cup festivities, but the hosting costs are estimated at about $50 million. As David Skilling recently reported, that means the San Francisco 49ers themselves will be left to foot a $37 million bill.
As reported by Culture of Sport, “Hosting costs are projected at $50 million. FIFA is putting up just $13 million. And the state of California? Governor Gavin Newsom’s revised budget has pulled out entirely, citing fiscal pressure from national budget instability and a $12 billion local deficit.”
“That leaves one of the NFL’s most valuable franchises staring down a potential $37 million bill. Not to renovate infrastructure or build new facilities. Just to host the games.”
The City Council of Santa Clara (where the 49ers’ Levi’s Stadium is located) approved the use of that $13 million from FIFA for city expenses. However, that leaves the 49ers holding the bag for any public safety and other costs.
When the stadium secured a half-dozen World Cup games, it was viewed as a positive for the region. Hosting such events should be an economic boon for the city. But that has not been the case for many World Cup hosts in the past, and San Francisco is learning that the hard way.
“Cities that hosted past tournaments, from Johannesburg in 2010 to São Paulo in 2014, have seen inflated forecasts dissolve in the face of public cost overruns and uneven benefit distribution. In Santa Clara’s case, there is the added constraint of a local ordinance that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for stadium events. Ironically, that rule may now shield the city more than it limits it.”
The 49ers have their hands tied here, as FIFA controls most of the key revenue streams like sponsorships, ticketing, and even in-stadium ads. That means the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara have to figure out how to cover costs relating to policing, crowd control, transport, and more.
Surely not quite the honor that the Bay Area was expecting when they bid to be one of America’s 11 World Cup host cities.
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source link
