Frequently Asked Question: Can Hosting the World Cup Move the Economic Needle?

The 2026 men’s FIFA World Cup will take place across Canada, Mexico and the US from June 11 to July 19, with 48 national teams competing in 16 host cities—two in Canada, three in Mexico and 11 in the US. As attention turns to the tournament’s economic implications, the key question is whether an event of this scale can meaningfully shift activity in two large, diversified North American economies.

Our assessment is that while the tournament will generate a burst of local activity, it is unlikely to produce a measurable effect in the national or regional data we forecast for either the US or Canada.

That conclusion may seem at odds with headline-grabbing projections, but it is consistent with both economic theory and historical evidence. Large sporting events often underdeliver on broad economic promises for four reasons:

• Substitution effects, as attendees reallocate existing budgets rather than create wholly new spending; 
• Crowding out, as some non-attendees avoid host cities; 
• Economic leakages, as part of the spending leaves the local economy; 
• Scale, because even a large temporary boost is small relative to the size of a national economy.

The 1996 Atlanta Olympics provide a useful US benchmark. That event had a measurable effect, but largely because it was preceded by substantial multiyear investment in public infrastructure and venues. A Government Accountability Office report found that about $4.1 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars was spent to host the 1996 Games, with roughly half directed toward infrastructure projects.

The 2026 World Cup differs in important ways. Most stadiums are already in place, and preparation spending is much smaller. While comprehensive single-source estimates are not available, reported renovations at AT&T Stadium in Dallas and Levi’s Stadium in the San Francisco Bay Area are estimated at $295 million and $200 million, respectively, and even some of those upgrades would likely have happened anyway.

The distribution of activity also matters. Unlike the Atlanta Olympics, which concentrated spending in a single metropolitan area, the 2026 World Cup will be spread across 11 US host cities. Those metros collectively account for more than 30% of US GDP, making any temporary lift in tourism, hospitality or transportation difficult to distinguish from normal variation in the data.

Taken together, these factors suggest that for the US the World Cup is more likely to be a significant cultural event than a national economic game changer.

A similar conclusion applies to Canada. The country will co-host the men’s World Cup for the first time, with matches in Toronto and Vancouver, and while the event should support localized gains in tourism and services activity, we do not expect it to have a material effect on the national economy.

Investment spending tied to the World Cup in Canada is estimated at about C$1.1 billion, including nearly C$500 million from the federal government and roughly C$600 million from provincial and municipal governments for stadium and transportation upgrades. That is modest relative to past Canadian mega-events: in today’s dollars, total spending for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics was about C$10 billion, compared with roughly C$9.0 billion for the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics and approximately C$4.0 billion for the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics.

As in the US, the benefits are likely to be concentrated in host cities and in sectors such as accommodation, food services, travel and transportation rather than spread broadly across the economy. Historical evidence points to some support for tourism-related spending: Statistics Canada reported that tourism spending in Canada rose 1.3% in real terms in the first quarter of 2010, with spending by international visitors up 5.9%, helped by the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. 

At the same time, current anecdotal signals suggest a limited near-term surge. Destination Toronto reports hotel occupancy in June and July at about 80%, roughly in line with previous years, while Destination Vancouver reports that June bookings are down 20% from June 2025.

Past Canadian mega-events offer mixed evidence on labor market effects. Regional unemployment fell sharply during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and Calgary, while Quebec’s unemployment rate rose during the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics.

More recent live-event experience also points to uneven local effects rather than a lasting national trend. During Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour stops in Toronto in November 2024, Ontario employment in trade, information, culture and recreation, as well as accommodation and food services, rose by 26,000 positions. By contrast, British Columbia recorded a combined loss of 5,900 positions in those sectors during the following month when the tour moved to Vancouver. Nationally, however, Canada’s employment still increased by 129,800 positions over the same period.

Given that final World Cup-related costs have not yet been settled, and that Canada’s economy is also contending with broader structural and macroeconomic pressures, it will be difficult to isolate the tournament’s effect on overall activity. As in the US, our expectation is that any boost to Canadian growth will be temporary, localized and modest relative to the size of the national economy.

The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar offers a useful recent comparison. According to preliminary data from Qatar’s Planning and Statistics Authority, real GDP rose 8.0% year over year in the fourth quarter of 2022 and 2.7% quarter over quarter, supported by stronger non-mining activity during the November–December event.

Even so, Qatar’s experience is not directly comparable to that of the US and Canada. The tournament was concentrated in a much smaller host economy, making the effect easier to detect in national data. In North America, by contrast, activity will be spread across multiple large metropolitan areas and embedded within two far larger economies, making any aggregate boost harder to identify. Taken together, the evidence suggests that while the World Cup can generate visible gains in tourism, services and local employment, those effects are typically temporary and unevenly distributed.

—With contributions from Jamil Naayem