UNC Charlotte expert explains the economic impact of 2026 World Cup on North America

The eyes of the sporting world will turn to North America this June and July during the FIFA World Cup. The event is spread across 16 cities throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States – marking its return to the U.S. for the first time since 1994.

The largest and most-anticipated sporting event in the world is expected to draw millions of international visitors – and their money – to the host countries this summer. But does that mean that an economic boon is guaranteed in North America? Is it possible for a country to lose money while hosting a mega event? How close is Charlotte to being able to host an event of this scale? Craig Depken, department chair and professor of economics, and expert on the economic impact of sporting events, answered these questions and more.

How do economists measure the economic impact of a major event such as the FIFA World Cup?

We focus on the net impacts of the event above and beyond what would have happened in a location had it not hosted the major event. This is different from other analyses, which tend to focus on the total spending involved. Economists look at overall spending (often indirectly measured through sales tax revenues), hotel registrations, de-planings and short-term rentals, but also at jobs created, per capita income, and business startups and closures.

How does the economic impact of a global event such as the World Cup differ from that of a major domestic event such as the Super Bowl?

The main difference at the national level is the prolonged duration of the World Cup. The Super Bowl effect is localized in the host city for about two weeks. The net national economic impact of the World Cup — not counting the sponsorship costs spent by host cities — would be expected to be much larger than the World Cup. However, for a given match in a host city, the effect would be expected to be less than a Super Bowl in the same city.

What are the biggest economic benefits for a country that hosts a World Cup?

The greatest benefit is the spending by out-of-country visitors. For the most part, World Cup tourists add to regular tourism. While there might be some regular tourists who delay or cancel their original plans because of the World Cup, the tourism spend associated with the World Cup is a net positive.

What are the largest costs associated with hosting the event?

The largest cost, typically, is the infrastructure spending on new and renovated stadiums, new public transportation infrastructure and, perhaps, new hotel construction. For this World Cup, the infrastructure spending is much lower as there were no new stadiums built and the public transportation infrastructure spend is relatively low. Additional costs could be security and first-responder overtime costs, but those costs are generally localized.

Can hosting a major event such as the World Cup or the Olympics result in a net financial loss for a country? If so, under what circumstances?

Yes, and they often do. In many countries, the infrastructure build-out for stadiums and public transport is funded at the national level, which sometimes leads to overspending and politically motivated decisions about where to build facilities. As a result, often stadiums are placed in locations that do not have much of a future after the mega event concludes. In Greece, China, Russia, Brazil and other countries, the physical infrastructure dedicated to the event often falls into disrepair and disuse, despite spending totals that equal millions of U.S. dollars.

What industries or sectors tend to benefit the most when a country is hosting the World Cup?

The local hospitality sector, which includes hotels, local and intra national transportation, such as taxis, Uber and domestic airlines and trains, as well as dining and other local tourism industries – benefit the most from hosting a World Cup. There is little evidence that local services consumed by local residents, like dentistry, laundromats and oil-change services, receive much of a benefit from a mega event.

What infrastructure investments are typically made for host cities, and which of those tend to have lasting impact after the event?

Focus is typically on new and renovated stadiums, which often cost more than they otherwise would because of political influences. After that would be local transportation infrastructure, such as light rail and subways. Many stadiums, such as the Bird’s Nest in Beijing, fall into disrepair after the event because there is no domestic demand for the stadium. In the case of the U.S. and parts of Europe, where a strong domestic sporting culture includes existing stadiums, the lasting impact of the U.S. World Cup might appear less obvious along with less obvious loss as well.

How close is Charlotte to being able to host an event of this scale, and what additional infrastructure, capacity or planning would be needed?

Charlotte could clearly host a World Cup group-stage game. But hosting a Super Bowl or World Cup final is beyond Charlotte’s current capacity to meet the hotel and visitor demand associated with these events. While Charlotte has a world-class airport and a great road network that connects to all four points on the compass, Charlotte is likely 10 to 20 years from having the infrastructure and hotel capacity to host an event of Super Bowl or World Cup final scale.