USA's Last World Cup?

There's a month to go until the World Cup kicks off.  Soccer's grand event returns to the United States for the first time in 32 years, and it's the biggest World Cup ever with 104 games (double the amount in 1994).  It's also the most expensive World Cup in history.  Which is enough to make you wonder if it's even worth the headache.  So, is it possible that this will also be the last time the United States hosts the World Cup?

The entire thing has been running the risk of being a massive debacle.  FIFA's greed and corruption have been brought front-and-center for all the world to see.  The ticket situation has been a mess, with fans who wanted to attend games priced out and opting to watch on TV instead.  And the corresponding travel costs will be nearly just as bad in some places.  FIFA is expected to receive a massive financial windfall, but how much of that will they actually share with the host cities?

Let's start with the tickets, the most obvious point of contention.  FIFA President Gianni Infantino has beamed that all 104 games will be sold out and bragged about the number of ticket applications that FIFA received.  Yet, despite that, they opened up a second "last-minute sales phase" a few weeks ago, and they keep releasing new batches of more-expensive tickets in new categories that didn't exist prior to this.  Meanwhile, their sales for a number of games, including the USA's opener against Paraguay, are lagging...almost entirely because of the price, bringing their "104 sellouts" seem more like an optimistic goal than a realistic claim.

And the word that most accurately describes FIFA's ticketing policy, especially the pricing, would be "deceptive."  They advertised affordable tickets as low as $60.  The reality was that the $60 tickets were few and far between, and long gone by the time public on-sale started.  It was so bad and they got so many complaints that they had to make $60 tickets available to the supporters' groups for the participating countries...with demand still far outpacing supply!

Infantino's defense of the ticket prices and FIFA's decision to use dynamic pricing (which it didn't seem equipped to handle) has only made things worse, too.  He compared it to the NFL or college football, where fans normally pay hundreds of dollars for tickets.  That may be true, but European soccer fans don't!  Same thing with the resale market.  Americans are used to it.  Europeans aren't.  And using the fact that tickets are reselling for higher than the already high price FIFA set doesn't exactly help your argument.  Especially not when FIFA is getting 30 percent of the sale price on its resale platform.

Reselling tickets for more than face value is illegal in Europe, as a matter of fact.  That's also the case in Mexico, so those tickets have to be resold at face value.  Ontario just passed a law prohibiting it, as well, so all of the games in Toronto had to be reposted.  And, because of the associated fees, the sellers will end up losing money if they do post their tickets in those places.

It's very obvious why they're having trouble selling tickets to certain games.  The prices are too high, and it turned people off.  If prices rise on the resale market because of the demand, that makes complete sense.  To charge $300 for seats in the upper deck for every game and expect people to just pay it is something else entirely.  If the initial prices were lower, they wouldn't have had a problem selling out every game.  But the high prices, combined with the deception and the bad PR have turned people off.  And, as a result, they've decided it's not worth it.  Which has a trickle-down effect on everything else.

Hotels were expecting a World Cup boon.  They were under the impression that they'd be sold out for the entire month, filled with fans coming in from all over the world for the tournament.  That hasn't been the case.  Because people either don't want tickets or can't get them, hotels in multiple World Cup host cities haven't seen those reservations that they were promised.  As a result, they've had to lower prices and/or make rooms that had been blocked available.  They stand to lose money because of those empty promises.

Transportation has been another big issue.  When the United bid was first awarded the World Cup, it was part of the contract that free transportation be made available to the games.  FIFA eventually amended that to allow the host cities to charge for transportation, with the expectation that it would be at the normal cost.  That obviously wasn't the case.  Citing the extra cost associated with getting so many people to the games and the lack of financial assistance from FIFA, the price of public transportation has been jacked up in so many host cities...where it'll be the only option and people will have no choice but to pay it.

What's scary about all this, too, is that nobody knows what the in-stadium prices for food, merchandise, etc., will be.  People are (probably rightly) assuming they'll be just as high.  It's gotten so bad that Falcons owner Arthur Blank had to publicly declare that concession prices wouldn't be higher for World Cup games in Atlanta than they are for any other event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.  Frankly, it's sad that he had to do that.  And it certainly earned Blank some goodwill.  But it's really more a condemnation of the prices that have been charged for everything World Cup so far.

On paper, bringing the World Cup back to North America made complete sense all around.  In 1994, soccer was a curiosity in the United States.  That's most certainly not the case in 2026.  Why wouldn't FIFA want to take advantage of that fact?  The 1994 World Cup set an attendance record.  With more games and 70,000-seat NFL stadiums, why wouldn't the 2026 World Cup set another?  And the U.S. is one of the few countries that can take on the logistical and organizational challenge of a 48-team, 104-game tournament.  Plus, the celebrational aspect of this being the 250th year since American independence.

Maybe all of these problems during the leadup will fade away once the World Cup actually starts.  And maybe it will be as spectacular as some are predicting/hosting.  Everyone knows the U.S. is fully capable, too, so it wouldn't come as a complete surprise.  It would be a pleasant change of pace from what's been going on over the past few months, though.  And it's those last few months that have to leave you wondering if the U.S. and FIFA will even think it's worth it to do it again.

This is something that nobody will have to think about for quite a while once the World Cup concludes.  And it's certainly possible that public opinion will change when the time comes.  But, if the United States were given another opportunity to host the World Cup again in 2038 (the next World Cup available), would a bid be forthcoming?  That's not likely, but that's not my point.  My point is, with all the negative memories still front of mind, would US Soccer even want to host the World Cup unless some significant changes were made?

Don't get me wrong.  I highly doubt that the United States will never host another World Cup at any point.  What I am saying is that right now, it sure seems like hosting the World Cup is a lot more hassle than it's worth.  And there doesn't seem to be much benefit.  Just angry and annoyed fans who'd rather stay at home and watch the games on TV than in the stadium.