The 2026 World Cup is nearing its end, with only the third-place match in Miami and the final in East Rutherford remaining.
The United States, as the primary co-host, held 78 of the tournament's 104 matches across 11 cities.
>>> Christopher Nolan Brings The Odyssey Tour to Mumbai, Fulfilling Long-Held Plans
As the dust settles, how did the US perform in its second men's World Cup hosting?
Stadiums and Atmosphere
Most venues were well-received. The sprawling NFL stadiums, designed to retain sound, created a vibrant atmosphere.
However, concourse congestion remained an issue, as corridors were not expanded enough to handle the crowds.
The atmosphere beyond the grounds varied widely. Cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, and Kansas City embraced the tournament with public watch parties and festive decorations.
Others, such as Dallas and Houston, seemed less engaged, with the event leaving little lasting impression.
Transport and Affordability
Transport was a major drawback. The US's car-centric infrastructure led to long, costly commutes to and from venues.
>>> Kalshi Offers World Cup Prediction Market Bonuses with New User Promotion
Some cities added ad-hoc buses, but overall, the experience was rated poorly.
Affordability was a significant issue.
Ticket prices far exceeded initial projections, making the 2026 World Cup one of the most expensive events globally.
FIFA acknowledged the pricing was unsustainable for future tournaments. This set a precedent that drove up costs for transport, food, and merchandise.
Hospitality received mixed reviews.
While volunteers were welcoming and fans from different nations mingled, the Trump administration's travel bans prevented fans from several countries, including Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti, Iran, and Senegal, from attending.
>>> Aramco Taps Worley for Five-Year Project Management Deal
FIFA's alignment with these policies drew criticism.
