World Cup 2026, one year to go: What still needs to be sorted?

The men’s World Cup is one year away and 13 nations — including its host countries the United States, Canada and Mexico — have secured their places in the expanded 48-team competition.

Some 75 percent of the matches will be played in the U.S., across 11 cities. Mexico will host the opening matchday in Mexico City and Guadalajara, but the involvement of Canada and Mexico will cease after the round of 16, with all games from the quarter-finals onwards to be played in the States, including the final at MetLife Stadium, in New Jersey, a short distance from New York City.

Speaking on a media call with U.S. broadcaster Fox Sports, former USMNT forward Landon Donovan said: “I don’t think there’s any doubt that this will be the biggest sporting event in the history of the planet.”

Alexi Lalas, who represented the U.S. when the country last hosted the men’s World Cup in 1994, describes the tournament “as both an opportunity and a responsibility”.

As the clock ticks down, The Athletic details just some of the most pressing challenges, reputational risks and supporter concerns about the United States’ portion of the competition, which will encompass 78 of the 104 games that will be played between June 11 and July 19 next year.

Political challenges: Visas and travel bans  

On the surface, the return of President Donald Trump to the White House in January for a second term represents positive news for FIFA. In his Oval Office, sandwiched between an ornament of Abraham Lincoln and below a U.S. flag, we often see his replica of the World Cup trophy taking pride of place during presidential news conferences.

He has also welcomed FIFA president Gianni Infantino into the White House and established a White House Task Force to organize the competition, entrusting Andrew Giuliani, son of former New York City mayor and Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, to direct the group.

Presidents Trump and Infantino with the World Cup trophy (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Inbound travel is crucial to the success of the competition for the 11 U.S. host cities, with the hope being that the local, state and federal tax dollars that have been invested into the competition can be recouped through foreign-visitor spending. Infantino claimed the Club World Cup, being staged solely by the United States over the next month, and men’s World Cup would bring almost a combined $50billion in economic impact.

However, the Trump administration has made deportations and a clampdown on illegal immigration key objectives. He signed executive orders banning travel by citizens from over a dozen countries — including Iran, which has qualified for the competition. While exemptions are made for major sporting competitions in the cases of athletes, support staff and immediate relatives, FIFA is coming to terms with the fact that these travel bans threaten to exclude supporters from nations such as Iran, but also Venezuela and Haiti, both of whom remain in contention to earn spots in the tournament.

On top of that, a long-standing issue for the U.S. government has been visa wait times for tourists.

This is particularly important in relation to the World Cup as many fans usually wait until after the group-stage draw — likely to be held in Las Vegas in early December — to make their travel and hotel bookings for the tournament, as only then they will know which cities their team are playing in.

In Colombia, the wait is currently 15 months for an appointment, while it is 10 months in Ecuador and nine and a half months in Costa Rica. Cuts to the size of the state and in embassies have also provoked fears within the U.S. government that wait times may worsen, while multiple sources within the U.S. Department of State previously told The Athletic there are also concerns a “non-insignificant” number of people who legitimately acquire tickets for the tournament will be refused visas. This is because the stringent vetting process for entry means possession of a World Cup ticket does not guarantee you are allowed into the country. Potential visitors must prove continuing ties with their home nation and convince consular officers they do not intend to overstay their tourist visa.

Alex Lasry, the CEO of the New York/New Jersey World Cup host committee, told The Athletic that foreign visitors are key for the tournament’s success: “The World Cup is not a domestic tournament. It is the World Cup. One of the most important elements is having the world coming to the United States. That leads not just to the economic impact over 40 days, but five, 10, 15 years afterwards.”

Speaking at an event co-hosted by the U.S. host cities on Monday, the Philadelphia host city executive Meg Kane said: “We recognize we’re planning within uncertainty. What we can say is that the current administration — while there are certain situations that we are watching, that we are certainly monitoring closely — has been extremely supportive of the World Cup.”

This week saw protests against the U.S. government following raids by immigration and customs enforcement officials, which then led to President Trump sending the National Guard into Los Angeles.

The National Guard was brought in after protests in Los Angeles (Benjamin Hanson/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Jason Krutzsch, vice president of marketing and communications for the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission, said: “We’re actively monitoring. It’s all unfolding in real time. Our markets will be prepared to welcome them with open arms and deliver an exceptional experience.”

New York executive Lasry insisted: “When it comes to World Cup planning, we haven’t seen any effects on tariff policy on World Cup.”

While both Infantino and the U.S. vice-president J.D. Vance have insisted fans will be welcome, the concern is whether the overall climate may impact the desire of travellers to spend their money in the tournament’s main host country.

Occupancy in U.S. hotel rooms was down around 1.6 percent during the week ending May 31 relative to the previous year, while the U.S Travel Association pointed The Athletic to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data from the 16 largest international airports across the three host nations (air travel only), which indicated inbound visits were down 4.7 percent in May 2025 versus May 2024.

Will the Trump administration provide the $625m host cities say they need for security costs?

U.S. cities are waiting to discover whether their costs for the World Cup will be offset by a combined $625million fund they have jointly requested from the federal government to go towards the security of a tournament that not only encompasses the 78 games in the country but also fan festivals relating to the finals.

The request was first made when Joe Biden was president but they have also paid lobbyists from Hogan Lovells US LLP six-figure sums to convince the Trump administration, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the White House, of the merits of their plea.

The funding is essential, due to the security risks. A letter signed by 48 members of Congress in December 2024 warned that the size of the tournament made it a “uniquely attractive target for malicious actors”. It also said intelligence from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center “confirms an increase in threats targeting stadiums and public events”.

President Trump has since said during a news conference that he supports “whatever it takes” to guarantee security and that any money spent will be returned “many-fold” in economic impact. Yet as of Monday, the cities were still to be told whether they would receive the full $625million.

Republican congressman Darin LaHood, who is the co-chair of the congressional soccer caucus, told The Athletic on Wednesday afternoon that he is hopeful it will be passed through congress as part of President Trump’s fiscal year budget for 2026 before October 1 — subject to being passed through the senate and signed into law by the President.

Dan Corso, an executive at the Atlanta host committee, said he was confident “based on the rhetoric, the discussion, and just having optimism that we believe it’s going to come”.

The importance of federal security funding is widespread, as host cities are eager to share the burden that is being placed on state and city taxpayers. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has previously explained that MetLife Stadium has already spent $37million on upgrades to enable it to host the final and that his state will take on “$65m in costs for things like transit security for all hubs, bridges, tunnels, and airports”. He says New Jersey requires a $65m share of the requested $625m.

Miami-Dade County, meanwhile, is forecasting costs of $46million between cash subsidies, police services and expenses associated with the cost of hosting seven World Cup matches at Hard Rock Stadium, according to publicly available documents. Miami was stunned last summer when poor organization, insufficient security personnel and ticketless fans at the Copa America final led to frightening scenes for supporters in attendance at that same venue.

There were distressing scenes at the Copa America final in Miami last year (Maddie Meyer/Getty Images)

While that tournament was managed by Conmebol, the South American football federation, FIFA’s security measures are more stringent. Alina Hudak, president of the Miami host committee, said: “We’re very cognizant. It’s something that we want to make sure never happens again. We’re in a really good place.”

The host city contracts are particularly onerous for the places involved. They are responsible “for safety, security and protection, including all related safety and security measures, for all individuals and entities attending, or being involved in the organization of, the competition”. This includes public areas, FIFA fan-festival locations, airports, other transport hubs and vehicles used in competition, as well as fire protection and medical service measures, which must be provided free of charge to FIFA.

FIFA also sets the prices and takes the revenue for ticketing and parking at World Cup venues, although it does pay the stadium a rental fee. Host cities are able to sell sponsorships and take revenues around fan festivals and other activations held across their cities, but not at the stadium.

These challenges leave host cities requiring funding from the federal taxpayer, state and city subsidies, private partners and sponsorships. The situation is acute in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom did not include any fresh state funding for the World Cup in his budget earlier this year.

The governor’s spokesperson Robert Salladay told Front Office Sports this was due to “pressure on the budget from Trump administration chaos, and the need to protect critical state programs”. He added the state “expects to assist the Host Committee and local authorities with appropriate existing resources”.

There may also be jeopardy for California’s Bay Area, where the NFL’s San Francisco 49ers have agreed to reimburse the costs of the matches being held at their Levi’s Stadium home in Santa Clara for approved expenses that are not recouped by the host committee through private investment or sponsorships. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported there may be as much as $37million at risk but some of this has already been offset by host-city partnerships with EA Sports, Kaiser, PNC Bank and Levi’s.

What about costs for fans going to the World Cup?

Supporters travelling to attend games at this World Cup will be at the mercy of FIFA’s dynamic pricing, under current plans by the competition organizers, which means the prices will fluctuate based on demand. This can sometimes work to the advantage of the consumer — such as the tumbling prices for certain matches during the Club World Cup this summer — but demand for the World Cup, a competition that is more familiar to people and more popular with both a domestic and international audience, is expected to be much higher.

FIFA has not announced pricing for 2026 but initially set prices very high for the Club World Cup following that group-stage draw last December. Exceptions will be made for a small amount of fixed pricing for the per-game allocation provided to football federations around the world whose teams will be competing in the tournament, but general-sale tickets will be at the mercy of market forces.

For now, the only ticket packages available for the World Cup have been limited to hospitality offerings that feature multiple games. Prices for those start at $3,500 (around £2,500) per person, soaring to $73,200. For the previous men’s World Cup in the U.S. in 1994, ticket prices ranged from $25 to $475 and drew over 3.5 million fans to what was a 24-team tournament — half the size of what’s coming in 12 months’ time.

Tickets for matches at the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. ranged from $25 to $475 (Simon Bruty/Allsport via Getty Images)

The Athletic has reported that, in the ‘United’ bid for the U.S., Canada and Mexico to co-host this World Cup, the countries submitted “a ticketing revenue estimate of $1.8 billion”, and claimed that was a “conservative” figure. FIFA announced in March that it has a revenue target of $13billion for the four-year cycle culminating in 2026, up from $7.6bn between 2019 and the previous men’s World Cup in Qatar in 2022. This underlines how FIFA sees the scale of its money-making opportunity in the North American market.

Chris Canetti, the president of Houston’s World Cup bid for 2026, told The Athletic: “Every single game is going to sell out. My analogy would be how, in America, we go to the Super Bowl no matter who’s playing in it. It’s such a big event. It’s not about who the teams are that are in the Super Bowl or the Final Four (in college basketball). The World Cup is bigger than all of them.”

Former USMNT forward Donovan told The Athletic: “Sporting events are expensive, man. I live in San Diego and to go to a Padres (Major League Baseball) game and sit in good seats, it’s hundreds and hundreds of dollars — plus parking. That’s just an American thing. I can’t control that. Would I like to see it more accessible? Of course. We all would. But the market dictates what prices are gonna be.”

Tim Zulawski is the president of AMB Sports & Entertainment, which is the ownership group of Atlanta’s host site, the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. He told The Athletic they do not have any input into the ticket prices of the World Cup. They have, however, insisted upon fair pricing for food and drink for supporters. “A non-negotiable for any promoter, including FIFA, is that our concession pricing stays as it is,” Zulawski said.

Ticketing will not be the only sector which works dynamically, with ride-share apps, airlines and hotels likely to work similarly.

Will cities help with transit costs to and from stadiums?

At previous World Cups, such as in Qatar three years ago, free public transport was available if supporters had a valid match ticket. Such subsidies are easier to secure in a state where policy is largely decided by the Qatari Emir, and much harder for FIFA to get over the line when negotiating with multiple host venues.

Some of America’s World Cup venues are not easily accessible via public transport, such as Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. Levi’s Stadium in California, is around 43 miles from San Francisco, AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, is around 18 miles from Dallas and Gillette Stadium is 25 miles outside Boston.

Car parking costs for sports events in the U.S. can be hugely expensive, with fees for games at the Copa America last summer as high as $132.

Levi’s Stadium is home to the San Francisco 49ers, but is 43 miles away from that city (Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)

On Monday, The Athletic asked several host cities whether transport will be made freely available for fans to and from their World Cup venues, and very different answers emerged.

In Dallas, host city executive Monica Paul confirmed buses and rail systems would be free to fans, with 100 complimentary buses being laid on. Paul said: “We feel like it’s important to provide that experience to our visitors.”

However, Texas neighbor Houston does not have plans to provide free transport, with its executive Canetti saying any surplus profits will be invested in legacy projects. Cities with downtown stadium locations, including Atlanta and Seattle, are not committing to making their transit free. Seattle, where options will include water taxi, ferry, monorail, light rail, buses and scooters, says it is creating a multi-day transit pass for fans, but the fares are yet to be decided.

The team in Atlanta are of the view that their city’s transit systems and walkability mean it is not necessary to cover the costs. New York and New Jersey also do not intend to cover transport costs for fans heading to and from MetLife Stadium.

One argument against covering transit costs is that it would be unreasonable to cover costs for individuals capable of affording expensive World Cup tickets, when the ordinary person living in these host cities pays a full fare to go about their daily life.

The New York host committee executive Lasry says his focus is on preparedness: “What’s gonna keep me up at night is, ‘How do you just make sure that you’re prepared for the unknown? How do we make sure, over the course of 40 days, that we are ready?’. We’re not arrogant enough to think that a bus won’t ever break down, but how are you prepared for that contingency? How are you going to make sure that your response is quick, transparent and seamless?”.

Additional reporting: Asli Pelit, Melanie Anzidei

(Top photos: Getty Images; design: Eamonn Dalton)