reportedly sought hosts willing to waive taxes on income, customs tariffs and ticket sales. Mexico and Canada accepted the terms, while US states have taken different approaches.
Those estimates, cited in the report, relate to the six World Cup matches scheduled for Kansas City. They underline how quickly a tax exemption can become a substantial public cost.
Host cities can expect visitors, hotel demand, transport spending and international attention. The public sector, however, remains responsible for security, infrastructure, public transport and amenities.
The commercial upside extends far beyond the turnstiles. ’s revenue model includes broadcasting, sponsorship, merchandise and tournament-linked fan activity. That imbalance is central to the argument: cities may fund the platform while the governing body retains much of the event’s commercial value.
The issue is not whether the World Cup creates benefits. It is whether those benefits justify the concessions demanded from taxpayers. One estimate placed South Africa’s 2010 tournament cost as high as $4.9 billion, with the country also encouraged to create a tax-free operating environment.
That history makes Chicago’s stance more than a local political decision. It is a warning that hosting rights can carry obligations that remain difficult to measure before the first ball is kicked.
As the 2026 tournament approaches, the next storyline will be whether host governments publish clearer cost-and-revenue accounts-or whether public pressure forces more cities to question the price of football’s biggest stage.