The economic and political impact of the World Cup

The 2026 FIFA World Cup concluded with a financial outcome that highlighted both the economic potential and political influence of the tournament. The event, hosted jointly by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, generated substantial revenue for the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA). According to reports, the World Cup was projected to contribute up to $40.9 billion to global gross domestic product (GDP), along with $8.28 billion in social benefits and approximately 824,000 full-time equivalent jobs. For the United States alone, the estimated GDP boost reached $30.5 billion, with $17.2 billion in direct economic output and 185,000 jobs created. These figures were derived from a model commissioned by FIFA and developed by OpenEconomics. The study accounted for tourism spending, operations, supplier activities, post-event consumption, investment, and monetized social benefits. Economists noted that these numbers reflect a broad economic chain, allowing FIFA to showcase the tournament's ripple effects through multiple sectors involving businesses, workers, and consumers. Maria Díaz, an economist, explained that the data illustrates how each dollar spent during the event circulated repeatedly among different stakeholders, amplifying its overall impact. In contrast, Allianz Trade, an international insurance company, offered a more conservative estimate. Its analysis suggested a smaller economic impact, closer to the additional money generated during June and July. According to this assessment, the World Cup contributed around $9.1 billion to North American GDP, with $6.1 billion attributed to the U.S., $1.7 billion to Mexico, and $1.3 billion to Canada. The firm calculated nearly $8 billion in net tourist spending, adjusting for factors such as displaced regular visitors due to high prices and reduced consumer spending in other areas. It concluded that while the tournament accelerated spending over six weeks, its overall effect remained relatively modest compared to the size of the three economies involved. The United States hosted 78 of the 104 matches, receiving the majority of commercial activity. Data from the Bank of America revealed a 5.4% increase in cash-based spending using credit and debit cards during the group stage in host cities. Spending by visitors from other metropolitan regions rose by 17.4%. Between June 11 and June 27, room occupancy revenue increased by over 20% compared to the previous year, and during the week of June 28 to July 4, it surged by 23%, driven largely by a 21% rise in daily rates despite only a 1.1% increase in occupancy levels. Mexico’s contribution to the economic impact was also notable. The Confederation of National Chambers of Commerce, Services, and Tourism had initially projected a contribution of 65 billion pesos. By July 6, the figure had narrowed to between 45 and 50 billion pesos, with estimates suggesting a maximum of 60 billion pesos. Of this, 35 billion pesos were attributed to tourism spending in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, while 15 billion pesos came from additional household consumption. An additional 5 billion pesos were allocated to ticket sales, a category separately tracked and controlled by FIFA. This represented between 0.1% and 0.2% of Mexico’s national GDP. Maria Díaz confirmed that Mexico’s actual performance fell short of initial projections. Allianz estimated a $1.7 billion increase in GDP, composed of $1.4 billion in net tourist spending and $300 million in security and administrative costs. The Mexican government and local authorities will likely continue evaluating the long-term economic implications of hosting the World Cup, particularly in light of the disparity between initial forecasts and actual outcomes.