The column by Paul Schmidt-Troschke marks an exclusive World Cup partnership with The Guadalajara Post and the Monterrey Daily Post in which Schmidt-Troschke and the ‘World Cup etc’ international reporting team will be contributing exclusive World Cup coverage for both websites. ‘World Cup etc’ can be found across all good podcast providers.
Back on Friday, the 10th of April, something happened that made me at least a little bit more hopeful that FIFA cannot do anything it wants, as the governing body of world football is facing its first potentially impactful backlash to its brazen, extortionate demeanour.
The context: in 2031, both the FIFA Women’s World Cup and the Men’s Rugby World Cup will be hosted by the United States, although the former will not be. Now, many potential host cities are reconsidering whether applying for the FIFA event should be their top priority, not only but especially over FIFA’s recent handling of host cities in this year’s World Cup.
So, in the end, FIFA could be left with only smaller or less important U.S. cities willing to host games; after being ripped off by FIFA in any imaginable way, not only would this warm the hearts of millions of football fans, but also demonstrate to FIFA that actions will produce tangible, real-world consequences, eventually.
But what exactly is behind the overthinking going on in the townhalls of Chicago and Pittsburgh, two potential hosts that just announced to abstain from the bidding process to begin with? Reports suggest that exaggerated financial demands made by FIFA are the main reason for the two cities’ refusal. Quite understandable when looking into contracts between FIFA and host cities, not only for the 2026 men’s World Cup, since cities bear a substantial share of the event’s cost, usually between 20-60% of the total cost, which is split between the federal, state, and local governments.
But Chicago and Pittsburgh are not alone; other unnamed cities are re-evaluating their bid to host FIFA games, too, as a source working with one of these cities told reporters that the contrast between FIFA and World Rugby negotiations is quite stark. World Rugby leaves much more commercial freedom and demands less access to stadiums compared to FIFA, and the economic aspect of spending by fans is more attractive concerning rugby as well.
But there is also an even comedic component to the negotiations surrounding the FIFA Women’s football World Cup, since FIFA stated that the final decision on where the event will be held has not been made yet. Funnily, the only proposal on the table is the joint bid by the U.S., Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica, with no other competitor in sight. In FIFA’s defence, the U.S. government did not issue mandatory guarantees for obligations on visas, tax, safety, and security, although this is standard procedure. I suspect that the U.S. federal workers who survived the DOGE purges are busy with other topics for the moment and couldn’t care less about an event which is years out.
Lastly, I want to debunk one of the greatest, most long-standing myths in world football, namely that hosting a FIFA World Cup benefits the economy. Understanding this is crucial to comprehending the arguments made by Pittsburgh and Chicago for letting this so-called great opportunity pass by. Cost for three somewhat recent World Cups in Germany 2006, South Africa 2010, and Brazil 2014 ran up to $6b USD in 2006, $7.2b USD in 2010, and $11.6b-$15b USD in 2014. FIFA reported a revenue of $3.3b, $3.7b, and $4.8b for these three events, while only bearing the operational costs, which always leave FIFA with a respectable profit margin. Countries pay for all infrastructure, stadiums, urban development, and security bills with public funds, effectively subsidising FIFA heavily with tax money. Studies also suggest that secondary and tertiary economic effects rarely justify the billions in investments tailored to a single event.
And in past world cups, locals at least had access to affordable tickets, to enjoy the fruits of their joint investment. What is now enraging football fans from all over the globe is the fact that FIFA took away this last treat as well, just to maximise profit and not even shouldering a single additional dollar in cost.
And to wrap up, here’s a wild thought: What if cities come together to collectively negotiate with FIFA, therefore being in a much stronger position? There are countless working examples, but apparently, the pressure must be high enough for us to realize that the power over football and how it is organized lies with us, the fans, eventually. And if we oppose something, we can organise around it.
For Times Media Mexico, Paul Schmidt-Troschke with his exclusive weekly World Cup column.
By Paul Schmidt–Troschke for Mexico Daily Post
Paul Schmidt-Troschke is a German independent journalist, currently based in northern Mexico, specializing in international sports and their relationship to politics and society. He is the co-host of the “World Cup etc” and “World Sports etc” podcasts, available across all podcast platforms.
