Beyond allowing residents to learn the results of matches based on the screams outside their windows, how much does hosting the World Cup truly benefit its host cities and countries?

According to FIFA, a lot. The Mundial organizer says that fans from around the globe are flocking to cities across the US, Mexico, and Canada to watch this year’s games and will rack up local bar tabs, boosting economic growth. It estimates that the tournament could inject up to $9.6 billion into the US economy.

But detractors say the event that turns everyone into a huge soccer fan for a month is an unjustified drain on local coffers. Cities have signed on to pay for security and transportation, while reportedly agreeing not to receive any game-day revenues and to comply with restrictions on corporate sponsorship revenue. Meanwhile, FIFA stands to rake in $11 billion selling TV rights and controversially priced tickets.

Saddled with mounting spending, some localities are trying to offset expenses by charging fans as much as $100 to get to games via public transit.

Own goal

Many experts doubt that FIFA’s financial estimates are accurate. One economist told ProPublica that the group’s projections imply that each fan creates as much as $7,000 in economic benefit. Plus, skeptics note that the gains from visitor spending are typically concentrated in the hospitality industry. And, even then, hotel owners have complained of underwhelming bookings for the tournament.

Meanwhile, there’s some evidence that suggests hosting the global football festival can actually harm local economies. A widely cited study estimated that host cities across the US took a collective hit of as much as $9.3 billion from hosting the 1994 World Cup:

• Its authors explain that World Cup disruptions can drive away non-soccer-related events, like conferences.
• To avoid game-day mayhem, some locals might avoid visiting neighborhoods where matches take place, meaning they won’t spend money there.

But…the US isn’t building any new stadiums for these games, and the $625 million that the federal government is spending to compensate cities’ World Cup expenses pales in comparison to the billions that previous host countries Qatar and Russia poured into shiny new infrastructure.—SK

When it comes to competing internationally in sports, Uncle Sam has a pretty good track record (including in track). But in soccer, the American men just can’t quite put the ball in the back of the net. The US has never won a men’s World Cup, despite being the third-most-populous country in the world. So, what gives? There are many theories:

• The US doesn’t care as much. For years, soccer was the US’ fourth-favorite sport, behind football, basketball, and baseball, which siphon off a large chunk of talented athletes. But soccer is growing in popularity and recently surpassed baseball for third place, according to The Economist.
• The US doesn’t have the right infrastructure. While many countries have top-down national youth development initiatives, the US has a patchwork of local leagues and amateur clubs. And that’s where “95% of player development happens,” US Soccer Sporting Director Matt Crocker told The Athletic.
• Experience matters: There are real benefits for national teams that have players and coaches who routinely compete against the world’s best. While the US’ top league, Major League Soccer, has made inroads, other countries have much stronger domestic leagues, richer soccer traditions, and players with more experience on the world stage. At least the US can claim Ted Lasso.

Meanwhile, the US women’s team has dominated, winning four of the nine Women’s World Cups since 1991. That’s partly because Title IX began forcing colleges to divert money to female athletics (and soccer scholarships) in 1972, when much of the world was still banning women from the pitch. That helped give the American women a head start, which, in turn, led to success that stoked more interest in the sport.—BC

FIFA’s global media rights for World Cup 2026 are like a kids’ rec soccer game: slow-going, messy, and featuring many players who aren’t doing what the big bosses wish they would.

It’s all in the timing. In big countries where swaths of the population will be asleep or groggy when the North America-based games kick off, FIFA may be getting less money from broadcasters than it was hoping for:

• Last week, FIFA finally reached a broadcast deal with India, the world’s most populous country, after cutting its asking price from $100 million to $60 million. The final amount may have been lower—an Indian broadcaster that paid $60 million for the 2022 rights ultimately lost money, and that World Cup was hosted in Qatar, a much closer time zone.
• China, the world’s second-most-populous country, reached a late-stage deal with FIFA last month that valued the 2026 World Cup rights at $60 million—down from the $300 million FIFA reportedly originally sought there—at least in part because of the massive time difference between China and North America, the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile…the TV operator that aired the World Cup in Malaysia for more than two decades will pass the torch to a public broadcaster this year, after saying “rampant piracy” had heavily devalued the rights.

Even so…FIFA expects record broadcast revenue from this World Cup, propelled by lucrative deals in North America and Europe. Also, this year’s tournament expanded to have 104 matches instead of 64, which gave FIFA more content to sell to broadcasters.—ML

The most valuable soccer teams are dominated by clubs in the English Premier League, with six in the Top 10 and 11 in the Top 30. No US-based MLS team is higher than 17, and only one team from the French league is in the Top 30. But money isn’t necessarily everything, because Paris Saint-Germain, the fifth-most-valuable team, according to Forbes, just won the Champions League for the second year in a row last weekend.

A note about the most expensive team: Real Madrid had a record 2024–25 season, bringing in $1.27 billion in revenue. That figure not only beats every other soccer team but also surpasses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys’ $1.23 billion in 2024 season revenue, which previously set the record for highest revenue from a sports team, per Forbes.

Private equity gets in on the pitch. There is a smattering of private equity dollars in the Top 10 clubs: Qatar Sports Investments (which is government-backed) owns Paris Saint-Germain, while Clearlake Capital has a majority share of Chelsea.—MM

How do I watch? All 104 matches will be on Fox or FS1 in English, and on NBC’s Telemundo in Spanish.

How do I watch without my boss knowing? Yeah, some of these matches are during business hours, so keep your earbuds out and head on a swivel.

Who are the favorites? Spain, France, and England have the best odds for raising the trophy and, if this were the 15th century, colonizing North America.

Can Team USA win it all? They are favored to win their group, and their best player—Christian Pulisic—just broke a more than 1,100-minute goal drought, so that’s a positive sign. (But no.)

Who are the players to watch? It’s possibly the last go-round for 41-year-old Cristiano Ronaldo (of Portugal) and 38-year-old Lionel Messi (Argentina). As for players who weren’t alive when Friends debuted, there’s Man City striker Erling Haaland (Norway), Real Madrid star Kylian Mbappé (France), and 18-year-old FC Barcelona wunderkind Lamine Yamal (Spain). Here’s a guide to all 1,248 players.

What’s that I’m hearing about cooling breaks? It’s the first time FIFA is requiring mandatory three-minute hydration breaks, regardless of weather, halfway through each half. It’s also a way for broadcasters to squeeze in commercial breaks, proving that FIFA will never run out of ways to extract every dollar it can from this tournament.—DL

The origins of the word “soccer” aren’t as black and white as the ball might suggest. For starters, it’s not even an American invention. Per Britannica:

• England’s Football Association formalized the rules for modern-day soccer back in 1863.
• But rugby football was also a thing back then.
• To distinguish between the two, some Brits called rugby football “rugger” and the Football Association sport “assoccer,” which got shortened to soccer.

Rugby football eventually joined Madonna territory and became simply rugby, while the no-hands sport exclusively became known as football.

Things played out differently on our side of the pond, where a new sport, gridiron football, got abbreviated to just football, and the soccer moniker caught on for the other sport. In fact, the word soccer is also used in other countries besides the US, like Canada and Australia, where multiple versions of football are still played.—BC