Hosting the World Cup is a bad decision for Canada

Every year, countries around the world compete for the opportunity to host the World Cup: a competition that brings billions in revenue and millions of fans to wherever it takes place. It is the most coveted event within the sport. Millions of people travel from city to city in order support their country and watch the most quality and entertaining football on the planet. 

However, as great as the opportunity might seem, the lack in overall profits, unusable infrastructure and crushing debt the competition may bring is a problem for some.  

In 2026, Mexico, the USA, and Canada will share the responsibility of hosting the competition. Each region is given the task of meeting FIFA’s various requirements for the World Cup, meaning each country will be spending billions of dollars on renovations and upgrades.  

To the average person the world cup might be viewed as an impactful investment that brings value and complete economic growth.  

However, almost all the profits directly generated by the World Cup are obtained by FIFA, and the host country is left with various fees and budgeting costs. Which, in previous experiences like Qatar in 2022, can results in an economical deficit and impacts future tax increases which sometimes worsens the state of the economy as a whole.  

Despite the excitement and popularity, Vancouver and Toronto would be better off without it. 

When given the responsibility of hosting the World Cup, expectations are at all-time high. Ensuring the reputation of the country along with impressing viewers and tourists, is always a common priority. This results in billions of dollars being spent to not only meet FIFA’s requirements but also maintain a good public image. 

Typically, when a country has a good pre-existing infrastructure and professional level stadiums, they tend to spend significantly less money. This is because the majority of the countries budget tends to be spent towards these areas.  

Take the 1994 and 1998 World Cups. In 1994, the USA spent only about 500 million USD, utilizing their many NFL stadiums placed around the country. In 1998, France had a final budget of 2.3 billion USD, significantly more than America but still less than most others. They were able to utilise their strong transportation systems and infrastructure, but due to their low stadium count compared to the USA, their budget is almost five times as much.  

Few other countries have such well-developed infrastructure and stadiums for major sporting events and constructing them for this World Cup is hugely expensive. Out of the last eight World Cups, the average budget between them is an enormous $33 billion USD and has been slowly increasing after each one. In 2022, Qatar spent a record breaking $220 billion USD on the World Cup. Building brand new stadiums, roads, airports, and transportation, completely revolutionizing their whole country.    

This is a common occurrence for many hosting countries and continues to serve as a huge problem. In economically low to mid-tier countries, anywhere from $500 million to a few billion dollars may need to be spent to fully construct a new stadium. After the completion of the World Cup, these stadiums are typically left with no real purpose, leaving the country with millions of dollars in maintenance costs which can be devastating for some.  

In Brazil, the local governments budgeted around $300 million towards the construction of the Mane Garrincha Stadium. It ended up costing almost a billion dollars and is now used as a bus depot.  

In South Africa, nearly half of the country’s entire budget for the World Cup was spent towards stadiums and their general management. Millions a year were spent afterward on maintaining them and resulted in the government being forced to demolish two of the five stadiums built for the competition.   

Of course, there are upsides to hosting the World Cup. Firstly, tourist levels during the competition rise, which benefits the local economy and leads to greater cultural recognition and popularity. Furthermore, there are many jobs created while stadiums, roads, or other various structures require construction, and a lot of that infrastructure can improve the citizens’ quality of life. Beyond the pragmatic benefits, with only 18 out of the world’s 195 countries ever having hosted the games, it is considered a prestigious and an hour to have the opportunity. 

So, what will happen to Canada in 2026?  

Toronto and Vancouver will be the two Canadian cities hosting a combined 14 games for the event. This means that in and around those two regions, various upgrades and editions will be implemented. This includes a $146–million CAD renovation to the BMO stadium in Toronto along with multiple training grounds and facilities. This includes the National Soccer Development Centre at UBC and the temporary training facility at Killarney Park, along with other field upgrades across the two cities.  

Vancouver alone is projected to spend a staggering $624 million CAD in government expenses in 2026. Combined with Toronto’s $380 million CAD, that adds up to a total investment of just over a billion dollars. Furthermore, Toronto’s investment which uses taxpayer money, is increasing Ontario’s overall debt to around $461 billion, totaling up to around $28,000 per citizen.  

Due to Canada’s pre-existing infrastructure and utilities, the local governments have been able to keep their budget on the lower side compared to previous examples. However, due to the lack of games that are being hosted, along their low severity, tourism levels are likely to be below average. 

Still, despite these problems some people argue that the global media attention will promote B.C. as a tourist location, leading to return visits and long-term benefits. Additionally, a FIFA economic assessment predicts, high economic benefits, suggesting a $1.7 billion boost to the provincial economy and $980 million in GDP. The government also projects the event will bring over one million additional visitors between 2026 and 2031, with over $1 billion in general spending. 

However, some specialists argue that these predictions are false, and benefits from the event are likely to not meet these expectations. Economic critic, Professor Moshe Lander from Concordia University argues that during the summer, World Cup spectators and visitors will “displace existing tourists,” making the total tourist count during the summer period average out. “And then add to it, the amount of local population that is going to race out of town, much like during the winter Olympics, because they don’t want to be around all the chaos…” This further lessens the amount of people that will be located within Vancouver during the summer, resulting in even lower contributions to the overall economy.  

Additionally, looking at previous examples, only two out of the last 18 host countries have made net profit: Germany in 2006 and the USA in 1994. This presents an overall success rate of around 11% and given the fact that the few with profit only gained about a 20% or less increase in total revenue, proves that it is just not worth the effort.  

“Beautification” is also a big concern for many, especially from the Downtown East Side of Vancouver. Many advocates argue that the various “beautification” zones around BC place, will force unhoused people out of their current living areas. Similar to the 2010 Olympics, this has caused distress and has become extremely problematic in the past.  

The public doesn’t seem convinced of the benefits overall. A survey hosted by The Canadian Taxpayers Federation shows that 61% of Metro Vancouver residents believe that the event is not worth the cost.  

Despite the prestigiousness and massive global appeal, the World Cup in 2026 is digging a whole that Canada will struggle to climb out of. “The economic reality is it’s not 30 super bowls, it’s not even one or two super bowls,” Lander told Global News.  

“There is no way that there’s going to be a billion dollar’s worth of economic benefits.”  

Featured Image: Fauzan Saari – Unsplash