As anticipation builds for the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, a storm of controversy is swirling around the world’s most popular sporting event. With just six months until kickoff, fans, city leaders, and advocacy groups are raising alarms about soaring ticket prices, burdensome host city agreements, and the future direction of global football’s crown jewel. The debate, which pits FIFA’s revenue ambitions against traditions of accessibility and community, is playing out in stadium offices and supporter groups across continents.
On December 12, 2025, Football Supporters Europe (FSE)—one of the sport’s most influential fan organizations—issued a blunt demand: FIFA must immediately halt ticket sales for the 2026 World Cup. Their reason? Ticket prices for the tournament have reached unprecedented heights, with premium seats for the July 19 final at MetLife Stadium in New York soaring to $8,680. According to FSE, these prices are up to seven times higher than those at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where equivalent final tickets cost around $1,600. The group called the pricing structure “extortionate” and a “monumental betrayal” of the World Cup’s traditions, warning that such costs will exclude the very supporters who give the event its unique atmosphere (as reported by CNN Sports and other outlets).
For many loyal fans, the numbers are staggering. Based on price lists circulated by football federations in Germany, England, and Croatia, a supporter hoping to attend every match from the group stage through to the championship game faces a minimum outlay of $6,900 through official supporter channels. This figure does not account for travel, lodging, and daily expenses—costs that Gary Al-Smith, a prominent African football journalist, described as making this “one helluva costly World Cup for fans.”
England’s opening match against Croatia is a case in point. The English Football Association informed its most dedicated fan groups that tickets behind the goal would be priced at $523. Should England reach the final, the cheapest ticket available to their supporters would cost $4,185, while the most expensive would match the $8,680 figure for premium seats. Fans are expected to pay for these tickets by early 2026, adding further financial strain.
As FIFA rolled out its third phase of ticket sales, it introduced a new system of variable pricing based on what it calls “fixture attractiveness.” Yet, the organization has not clarified how this attractiveness is determined. The result is an opaque, two-tier pricing system, with fans from different nations paying different prices for comparable matches. Scotland supporters, for example, will pay less than English fans for similar seats in their team’s opening match. Critics argue this undermines the World Cup’s spirit of universality and fairness.
Adding fuel to the fire, FIFA has excluded the cheapest ticket tier—known as category four seats—from supporter group allocations. Instead, these seats are reserved for public sale, with prices fluctuating based on demand. This move has left many of the tournament’s most loyal followers, who typically access tickets through their national associations, with no option but to pay higher prices.
The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), representing fans in England and Wales, was quick to voice its dismay. “Everything we feared about the direction in which FIFA wants to take the game was confirmed—(FIFA President) Gianni Infantino only sees supporter loyalty as something to be exploited for profit,” the FSA said in a statement. FSE echoed these concerns, declaring, “This is a monumental betrayal of the tradition of the World Cup, ignoring the contribution of supporters to the spectacle it is.”
The backlash extends beyond ticket prices. Human rights group FairSquare filed a formal complaint with FIFA’s ethics committee, alleging that the governing body’s conduct—especially its political overtures and recent peace prize award to US President Donald Trump—violates the organization’s commitment to neutrality and the broader interests of the global football community.
Meanwhile, city leaders across the United States are grappling with their own World Cup headaches. As more than two dozen American cities express interest in hosting matches for the joint U.S., Mexico, Jamaica, and Costa Rica bid for the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup, they have declined to sign FIFA’s long-form hosting agreements. Instead, these cities have opted for non-binding, one-page memorandums of understanding, signaling a desire to negotiate more favorable terms before making any binding commitments.
The hesitation stems from hard lessons learned during preparations for the 2026 Men’s World Cup. Under agreements signed in 2017, U.S. host cities have taken on costs ranging from $100 million to $200 million each, with limited opportunities to generate offsetting revenue. Although FIFA introduced a local sponsorship program as a potential fundraising mechanism, most cities have struggled to attract brands. With just six months to go before the tournament, the 16 host cities in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada have collectively secured only 35 supporter packages—an average of just 2.2 per city.
FIFA has made some concessions, such as removing requirements for free public transportation to matches and offering more flexibility for fan fests. But when prospective host cities for the 2031 Women’s World Cup received FIFA’s proposed terms in early November 2025, they found them largely unchanged from the 2026 agreements, with only a handful of side letters promising future negotiations on select issues. City leaders are pushing for broader discussions, especially regarding revenue sharing and financial risk, before agreeing to host.
U.S. Soccer, for its part, has tried to reassure cities that their concerns will be addressed. “We look forward to continued collaboration with local partners and FIFA as we prepare to deliver a tournament of unprecedented success and drive the women’s game forward,” the federation said in a statement. Still, uncertainty persists over whether U.S. Soccer will advocate for host cities in negotiations or prioritize securing FIFA’s approval at any cost.
The financial stakes are enormous. U.S. Soccer’s bid for the 2031 Women’s World Cup forecasts more than $4 billion in revenue—seven times the record set by the 2023 tournament in Australia and New Zealand, and four times the target for the 2027 event in Brazil. Yet, city leaders argue that without more equitable terms, the burden on local governments and taxpayers is simply too great.
As FIFA prepares to formally award hosting rights for the 2031 Women’s World Cup at its annual congress in Vancouver on April 30, 2026, the outcome of these negotiations will shape not only the future of football’s biggest events but also the relationship between the sport’s governing body, its most passionate supporters, and the cities that bring the World Cup to life. With so much on the line, the coming months will test whether FIFA can balance its commercial ambitions with the values and traditions that have made the World Cup a global phenomenon.
For now, the beautiful game finds itself at a crossroads—one where fans, cities, and the world’s football authorities must decide what kind of World Cup the future will hold.
