It looks like KC will be a announced as a Host City for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
I am having a hard time finding what FIFA’s “requirements” are, but I am highly skeptical that this is going to be as much of fiscal windfall that is being touted.
As long as the facilities are already there, I don’t see any big downside to it. You could have a lot of visitors attending to see their home country play.
I agree with this, which is maybe why there was no real push back.
But, TBH, I really don’t trust FIFA.
I think you’ll be surprised. Atlanta routinely hosts Central American tournaments (liga???, forget what it’s called) and the stadium sells out and you can’t get a room downtown.
Oh, I know it will be busy.
I have several friends from Africa, and there is a pretty big contingency of African immigrants here.
I am just concerned about who from FIFA we had to grease the pockets of and if it will be more than we make.
As wmj mentioned, we already have a stadium so there is no real infrastructure cost.
Just announced.
KC is a site for 2026.
I hope I am not being a negative nancy.
This is HUGE.
This is what I am worried about.
From the link;
" Minneapolis also withdrew due to FIFA’s demands, which include tax breaks and various local government guarantees. Host cities essentially pay to stage 3-7 games, a “Fan Fest” and other events. They welcome thousands of tourists, but FIFA collects the vast majority of revenue from the games themselves and makes a multi-billion-dollar profit."
As i recall, their requirements involve a bit of grease.
To be fair, the Mayor of KC took the lead on this (it was a compact of several entities), and for the first time in a long time, I trust that he knew what he was doing.
1 Like
A real economists take.
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article262720347.html
I don’t follow closely, but this doesn’t surprise me. And my earlier comment was partly about the corruption of FIFA. Things like Quatar getting games.
I read that and the opening paragraph made me immediately skeptical. The comparison to Japan and South Korea is not valid, since both countries had to build many new stadiums for the World Cup. That he does not say this says he has his own agenda.
Edit: The article is big on fluff and light on hard examples to back it up.
That’s why the one US city that i think could conceivably host the summer Olympics without a huge loss is LA. Lots of existing facilities.
True enough, but in the body of the article, it mentions $50 million in renovations for Arrowhead.
That is a fair enough critique. But the promoters of the World Cup are full of fluff with zero substance.
Now, to be fair, and to his credit, the Mayor of KC has been pretty transparent.
Those renovations are to an existing stadium which was being used prior to the World Cup and will continue to be used after the World Cup is gone. They should benefit the stadium in the future as well. There is no issue of that $50 million going to a white elephant.
On a related note, I read that SoFi Stadium was not built to accommodate soccer and that Kroenke will now have to pay for a renovation to make it compliant. You would have thought he would have considered this when the stadium was first designed. At the same time, that renovation will benefit the stadium going forward.
That is true, and there is talk of at least part of that $50 mil being privately funded.
I am not trying to piss on the parade, but I am being realistic.
IMO, if the KC area breaks even financially it will be a net positive.
Atlanta has some games and they have to add grass to the field
However, the subject of this post is the article, and the author did not give any specific examples of where any forecasts from FIFA or otherwise are dubious. The author did give a link to a study that touted the wonderful benefits of hosting the World Cup. He certainly could have pulled a few questionable snippets out of that and highlighted them.
As an example from many years ago which I discussed on the CHB, I remember reading an article that discussed a study which had touted the economic benefits of a new football stadium for Baltimore. As one point, the study had talked about how many fans attending football games would be staying in hotels and how all of that spending would boost the economy. The article pointed out that most of the Baltimore fan base lived within a twenty-five mile radius of the city and would not be spending money on hotels.
And, as another example of a publication having an agenda, I discussed earlier about how the New York Post had an agenda against the new football stadium in Buffalo. With that stadium there are legitimate points to argue against it, but the Post took it further by misrepresenting several statements and making absurd statements such as how Buffalo could have used the St Louis strategy to get a big payday out of the NFL instead of spending money on the stadium.
When the US hosted the World Cup in 1994 they had to use grass on the old Silverdome in Pontiac, MI. They will have to do the same thing at SoFi stadium in Los Angeles too, among other places that have artificial turf surfaces.