Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
The United States’ 11 World Cup host cities face a collective shortfall of at least $250m due to the overly restrictive deal. fifa The federal government – as well as local and private funding – may have to pick up the cost. In the words of various sources, some cities are so desperate that they are being forced to offer sponsorship to “local dry cleaners and mechanics”. FIFA’s own commercial contracts mean cities cannot even make deals with local convenience store chains, as their food sales are considered a cut to primary partners such as McDonald’s, as the global governing body is set to keep almost all of the $11-14 billion revenue generated from the 2026 World Cup.
This has led to increased frustration in the host cities, who feel they are “not getting any help from anyone”, with sources openly asking whether “donald trump I know he has become “prominent” in what he described as “the worst deal in the history of the FIFA World Cup”.
FIFA sources say they are working with the cities on a day-to-day basis in a way that has never been done before, as they work out specific nuances for each city. As the tournament gets closerWhich also includes financial help.
Yet reductions could mean cutting key tournament elements like FanFest, which is open every day, due to costs. While FIFA will protest that all FanFest revenue goes directly to the host cities, many insiders are also criticizing FIFA as typical of a World Cup that seems less concerned than ever about host legacy, as evidenced by the fact that there was minimal mention of the development in Friday’s draw – there was virtually no presence from the host national football federations.
The idea is now often being described by sources as a poorly designed event that no one would be likely to repeat – especially for the Women’s World Cup in 2031, which the US is also scheduled to co-host. Such a process also raises questions about whether the 2035 Women’s World Cup in the UK will face similar issues, and whether any assurances have been given to host cities.
FIFA insiders will insist that this is seen as a success for the 2025 Club World Cup.
Yet the situation largely arises from the governing body’s own new approach of getting rid of the old “Local Organizing Committee” and moving almost all logistics in-house. This led to the creation of the new “Host City Supporter” programme, which FIFA alone designed and set the rules for. This involved the host cities – Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, two in Canada and three in Mexico – signing contracts where they bore most of the costs with limited access to the tournament’s revenue, but with the understanding it could be made up by the new program.
The aim was that each city would earn around $25–30 million from it through a total of 10 host city deals per city, but due to how restrictive FIFA’s own sponsorships are, most cities are currently no closer to that target.
The governing body has created three tiers, the first being primary partners – such as long-time sponsor Coca-Cola – the second being specific 2026 tournament sponsors, such as Bank of America, and the last being local sponsors.
Category limits ensure that host cities cannot deal with any entity that cuts FIFA’s own deals.
Since companies like Bank of America have signed mega-contracts to be tied to the World Cup, it means they would object to another financial institution receiving the same benefits. As an example, Philadelphia struck a $5 million deal with the local convenience store chain, Wawa, but FIFA’s own primary partnership with McDonald’s cut into the company’s food sales.
This closes cities to almost any sponsor of high value, as FIFA typically has a deal or plans to make a deal in such industries, forcing cities to narrow down their search further.
This has created big headaches for cities, as they have agreed to shoulder the burden of costs like security, transportation and even classic elements like fan festivals. It could cost between $100-250 million, with cities already finding that cost has increased as the requirements of the tournament have become clearer.
Although it is expected that the federal government will eventually give cities a collective $625 million in funding, that is still being lobbied for, and will not come close to covering the average $56.8 million cost.
The Independent understands that only two cities – Houston and Atlanta – have performed well in the program so far, with very few other cities announcing “Host City Supporter” deals so far.
This could mean that the federal government would have to pick up even more of the slack, forcing cities to rely on local and private interests, with the added possibility of indirectly increasing other supporting costs.
There is a widespread recognition FIFA could have done more to resolve thisGiven this, it is expected to be a record-breaking World Cup in terms of revenue. The expansion to 48 teams was already estimated to bring Qatar’s revenue from $7 billion to $11 billion, but some sources now believe it could reach $14 billion.
There is also disappointment because cities felt they had been indicated that FIFA’s primary partners and tournament sponsors would invest in host cities, but so far this has not happened.
It is felt that FIFA could have created a national package while sharing at least some of the revenue with the cities.
As one source says, “FIFA wasn’t willing to subsidize, so they created this second program, and strangled it once it got out there.”
Many people familiar with the arrangements surrounding the tournaments believe that the biggest weakness is the elimination of local organizing committees.
Such bodies were usually led by senior people with considerable experience from both the host countries and FIFA, who were constantly looking at how the World Cup could benefit both in the short and long term. Many have naturally cited the example of Alan Rothenberg for USA 94, who dealt with FIFA every day but also made sure the cities were collectively represented. Many hosts now feel like they don’t have a unified presence.
The Trump administration has handed over day-to-day responsibility to lead the government’s World Cup preparations to Andrew Giuliani, son of disgraced former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Giuliani was appointed to head the White House task force for FIFA world cup 2026 Last May, two months after Mr. Trump signed an executive order establishing the task force to “support preparedness through a coordinated government effort.”
The only member of the task force who has any experience in soccer matters is Infantino’s adviser Carlos Cordeiro, who was forced to resign as head of the US Soccer Federation in 2020 after the USSF argued in a court filing that the federation was justified in paying the four-time Women’s World Cup-winning US women’s national team much less than the comparatively unsuccessful men’s team because the men’s team player’s job “requires a higher level” of speed. And strength-based skills.”
Mr Giuliani and the White House declined to directly answer questions from The Independent about whether Mr Trump was aware of the host cities’ sponsorship difficulties and budget shortfalls – and whether he planned to take steps to address the problem.
Instead, a White House spokesman quoted Mr. Giuliani in a statement in which he focused solely on funding for security preparedness.
“To ensure that the biggest World Cup in human history will also be the safest, President Trump secured $625 million in the One Big Beautiful bill for host cities to strengthen safety and security, as well as an additional $250 million over the next two years to prevent unauthorized drones during the tournament and fan festivities,” he said.