Some U.S. states still don't know if the World Cup will benefit them financially—just look at New Jersey
Key takeaways
- Millions of soccer fans celebrated the 2026 World Cup kicking off on Thursday, a first step toward the tournament's eventual final match on July 19 at Met Life Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
- The World Cup is expected to generate significant income for New Jersey and its businesses by drawing millions of tourists to the area.
- In short, some U.S. states still don't know if they'll benefit financially from hosting World Cup games.
Millions of soccer fans celebrated the 2026 World Cup kicking off on Thursday, a first step toward the tournament's eventual final match on July 19 at Met Life Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. But the state hosting the final is still squaring off with FIFA, soccer's global governing body, over ticket prices and the massive transportation costs associated with the highly-anticipated tournament.
The World Cup is expected to generate significant income for New Jersey and its businesses by drawing millions of tourists to the area. But state officials are balking at the mounting costs of hosting the tournament — costs that could ultimately be passed onto taxpayers and which are already making it more expensive for fans to travel to matches. The state isn't alone: Some other hosts, including Massachusetts and California, have experienced similar uncertainties in recent weeks and months.
In short, some U.S. states still don't know if they'll benefit financially from hosting World Cup games. "Our administration inherited an agreement where FIFA is providing $0 for transportation to the World Cup. Zero," New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill said in a statement provided to CNBC. "At the same time, FIFA is making $11 billion off of this World Cup and charging fans up to $10,000 for a single ticket for the final."