Whenever a city or country is trying to get the World Cup to come to their area, we are told that these cities/countries will be rich after making trillions from these World Cup matches. Not only that, taxpayers will not have to spend anything for the matches.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Some recent expectations include:
Those all sound great. Except, the economic numbers never materialize, and taxpayers end up paying for a lot of things that weren’t discussed upfront.
Those cities in Japan and South Korea expecting to make $4 billion from their World Cup matches? Instead, the cities saw losses ranging from $5 billion to $9.3 billion.
The job growth in Germany thanks to the 2006 World Cup? Zero new jobs. None.
The $35 billion that Paris expected in 2012 from the Olympics? After the games ended in Paris, a report found that the estimate was off by $27 billion.
But now that the World Cup is coming to North America in 2026, it is time to hear about the riches that some North American cities will soon receive from their upcoming World Cup matches. Reports suggest that the upcoming 2026 World Cup matches should generate approximately $5 billion in economic impact for the hosting cities. To make matters even better, North American cities already have substantial infrastructure in place; therefore, this World Cup will not need “new construction or major investment.”
In Boston, city leaders are being told (by the same group with a long history of insanely wrong projections) to expect about 450,000 visitors from across the world and an economic impact close to $500 million. Other estimates say the State of Massachusetts could see economic impact numbers around $1 billion. In Boston’s bid to host the World Cup matches, Boston reps (called “Boston 26”) reminded FIFA that “everything” is “already in place to make it successful” in Boston. Specifically, the venues already exist, the transportation infrastructure exists, the airport exists and many hotels exist near the sports venues. The chairman of Boston 26 was quite clear that matches in Boston should be “relatively easy” and “low-cost” because “nothing… needs to be built” for the World Cup matches.
Over the last year, more and more articles have come out detailing how much taxpayer help is needed to put on the World Cup matches in Boston. 8 months ago, the Boston Globe released a story detailing how Boston 26 were now singing a different tune regarding needing taxpayer help. Apparently, Boston 26 was sending documents to city and state officials about the need for $170 million in taxpayer money to “shoulder some of the costs” of hosting the matches.
And what happens if the cities/states do not hand over money for these surprise expenses? Well…”FIFA could take its games elsewhere“. Today, Boston 26 argues that the city is in “jeopardy” of losing the matches unless $20 million in taxpayer money is given to them. Keep in mind that Boston 26 was first trying to demand almost $40 million but they have since brought that down to $20 million mark.
But didn’t Boston 26 say they wouldn’t ask taxpayers for help? That everything was already in place? In public, Boston 26 continues to tell the media that they are “not requesting any funding from the City of Boston“. Privately, they are saying the exact opposite. Recently, they sent documents to Boston city leaders requesting additional “city of Boston…funding” for preparation of the matches. When called out for the outright lie, Boston 26 claimed that “those documents are merely drafts not formal funding requests“. What in the hell does that even mean?
But speaking of that fantastic infrastructure, a few months ago, the city found out that its transportation infrastructure needed significant upgrades for the World Cup events. How much? Even today, we do not have an estimate. Thankfully, the city continues to “discuss…the final cost.” Sadly, the true cost will only come out after the World Cup matches have been played.
Boston isn’t the only city that is struggling with these surprise costs. Even after Congress approved $625 million in security funding for the host cities, several cities are still in need of at least $150 million for additional expenses:
