Critics are not really arguing about colour alone.
That is often where World Cup hosting becomes politically sensitive. Public-facing upgrades can be sold as civic renewal, but they are judged far more harshly when everyday infrastructure still feels unfinished.
The axolotl is a powerful local emblem. As a tournament symbol, it is easy to understand: distinctive, rooted in place and visually memorable. But the report says specialists have raised another issue beyond cost - visibility and safety.
That matters because host cities want colour and personality, not a narrative that the event is detached from daily life.
City and national leaders have reportedly defended the makeover as urban improvement, not vanity. That defence is important. World Cups are always sold on legacy as much as spectacle. If officials can frame the changes as renewal, the criticism may soften. If the repainting becomes shorthand for misplaced priorities, the noise will only grow louder.
The next storyline to watch is simple: as the tournament draws closer, attention will shift from murals and mascots to transport, security and the fan experience around Estadio Azteca and beyond. If those basics hold up, the colour debate may fade. If they do not, it will intensify fast.