Note: The views expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of The Echo, and some concepts may be oversimplified for clarity.

Here’s a snippet from the speech that kicked off the 2022 FIFA World Cup:

Morgan Freeman: “So we gather here as one big tribe, and Earth is the tent we all live in.”

Speaker: “Yes. And together, we can send out the call for all the world to join us.”

FIFA aims to convey a message of peace, dialogue, and unity through hosting the 2026 World Cup, which will occur across cities throughout North America (including MetLife Stadium) from June 11 to July 19th. It’s not surprising that soccer, a sport watched by over 5 billion people, can unite individuals across all cultures and places.

But before a single match can even begin, the host country has to build stadiums, provide the infrastructure needed to transport millions of spectators, and manage the hidden logistical complexities of hosting games.

All of this comes at a massive cost. During the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, Brazil spent a whopping 15 billion dollars to simply host the event. That money is spent as a long-term investment. For example, the 2002 World Cup generated about $2.86 for the South Korean economy for every dollar, euro, or monetary unit spent by a tourist who came because of the World Cup, and cities hosting the World Cup saw a 2.3x increase in tourism (about 57.7% of tourists visited exclusively to see the 2002 World Cup). Hosting the World Cup can increase the amount of tourists, create jobs from the demand for someone to help construct and run the World Cup, and pump money into the economy that could theoretically further development. 

South Africa saw this phenomenon by hosting the 2010 World Cup, which created about 130,000 jobs, added about 500 million to the GDP, and spent $3.12 billion on infrastructure that continued to have beneficial effects on South Africa after the event. Additionally, hosting such World Cups can also boost patriotism within the host country and serve as a way for the government to prove itself competent. About 91% of South Africans said in a survey that they felt united while the World Cup was being hosted.

However, these expectations often fail to materialize. South Africa only regained about 10% of the amount of money they poured into hosting the World Cup, while Brazil only regained 2.5%. Likewise, we can see this happen with this current World Cup, as FIFA cancels thousands of pre-booked hotel rooms. Demand to watch the World Cup also often fails to meet expectations of the host country, and tourism income doesn’t contribute to the ROI of hosting the world cup because income from buying World Cup tickets goes to FIFA, not the host country. 

Additionally, this influx of tourists can cause regular tourists—who visit the city for reasons unrelated to the World Cup—to reconsider visiting, either due to increased prices or the feeling that they are being “crowded out” from enjoying the city’s other attractions. While most countries expect an increase in tourism, the World Cup actually brings mixed results. For example, in Germany, tourism heavily increased the GDP, while Brazil actually saw a minor decrease in GDP as a result of increased tourism.

Benefits from hosting don’t trickle down to residents either. Although money is brought into the economy through tourism and public spending, that money largely ends up in the pockets of hotels and restaurants, rather than those of workers. Money used to host the World Cup is often redirected from social programs (the 2014 World Cup faced massive protests because of this controversy). Additionally, cities where the World Cup takes place see a massive hike in rents, which can exacerbate already existing affordability crises. For example, this can lead to the disruption of the pre-existing social fabric and cause gentrification within the area, which displaces existing residents who should enjoy, rather than be excluded from, the benefits from their tax dollars funding the World Cup. 

The World Cup is also a target for corrupt practices that siphon off money from projects related to the World Cup. Corruption, especially embezzlement, is normally present in construction projects, which delays the construction of essential infrastructure by siphoning essential funds to construct said infrastructure, causing these projects to cost the state excessive money.

Is there an upside? A solution? How can the World Cup be reorganized to dampen the downsides? I believe the World Cup should occur within one stadium, instead of having multiple, one-time use stadiums throughout the country, so money is saved by constructing fewer stadiums. At minimum, part of the earnings from the tickets sold should be given to the host country for developmental purposes. Most importantly, the countries hosting any event, the organizations that are responsible for hosting the World Cup, and investors should be mindful of those who are also impacted by hosting something as monumental as the World Cup.

The World Cup is referred to as a “big gathering of people,” or “one big tribe” who lives on Planet Earth. Despite this image that the World Cup tries to create, the losers in the World Cup are the people who have to actually deal with hosting it, instead of watching it. This “big tribe” of people happens to exclude the people who help make this gathering possible: Canada, the US, and Mexico, in causing affordability crises in cities that host the World Cup.