The Insight • June 26th, 2026

The Insight: Does the World Cup Matter?

The 2026 FIFA World Cup, our world's biggest sporting stage, has come to the United States. Unlikely examples of ethnic intermingling and more predictable geopolitical tensions have followed, as has the perpetual question of soccer's place in American sports.

The Insight provides you the full picture of facts and viewpoints on a top issue for Americans each week, powered by your questions and balanced answers from our multipartisan news team.

The Questions

How has America’s hosting of the FIFA 2026 World Cup gone so far, and what has made it unique?

The US, alongside its neighbors Canada and Mexico, has been preparing to host the 2026 World Cup since it secured the privilege in 2018.

Perhaps most notable, or at least most visible, have been some of the infrastructure improvements cities have made in preparation. While public transportation improvements – in some cases, to meet FIFA’s requirements – have long been in the works, in March, the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) doled out $100.3 million in public transit funding to host cities.

All 11 host cities – Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle – made improvements ahead of the games. These ranged from temporarily expanding services to full overhauls and the addition of new transit options.

But the improved public transit isn’t the only thing resembling Europe in the US during the competition. Packs of European and other international “football” fans have stormed the states to support their teams, bringing pieces of their own customs and culture.

Norwegians have made their presence loudly known with their synchronized rowing, dancing, and mimicking of a Pilates session.
Bosnian fans have filled the streets with deafening chants.
Scots reportedly drank all the beer at the Boston bars they serenaded.
Some English fans have cheekily asked women to take their clothes off.

Many have pointed out the novelties of American culture too, often sharing their appreciation and/or satirizations on social media.

An X user named “Freddy,” supposedly a German, has shared his appreciation for the states in past weeks, much to the delight of conservative media outlets like Fox News (Right) and Daily Caller (Right).

A South African man went viral on Instagram for praising Washington, DC for how safe and clean its streets felt to him, compared to his homeland.

Comedians and content creators have also had their fun: an Australian who gave the “fancy restaurant” Texas Roadhouse a rave review for its complimentary bread; an Italian who enjoyed endless fountain drink refills at dinner; and the Frenchman who described Buc-ee’s as a futuristic gas station paradise.

The World Cup in the US hasn’t gone off without controversy or criticism, though. The Trump administration’s immigration and border security efforts have created a few unsavory situations that media from the left have feasted on.

Just before the tournament began, a Somali FIFA referee was barred from entering the US.

The US also pulled the rug out from under the Iranian men’s team, enacting a last-minute decision that forced it to stay in Mexico until one night before its matches, all of which are in the US. Iran filed a complaint with FIFA, insisting it was being treated unfairly, and the US has since loosened its policy, allowing the team to stay in the US for two nights ahead of their matches.

Is the whole affair too expensive?

World Cup ticket prices have been a hot topic this year as costs have ranged from as low as $60 to over $2 million on resale sites, according to ESPN (Lean Left bias). It reported that FIFA has been accused of “monumental betrayal” by fans as many couldn’t afford to purchase tickets and attend games.

NBC News (Lean Left) analyzed the average price for one hotel room and one ticket for World Cup visitors and found they ranged from slightly over $600 in Miami to over $2,000 in New York and New Jersey. ESPN reported that in May, tickets for most FIFA World Cup group games ranged between $380 to $4,105. Tickets for the final originally peaked at $32,970, according to ESPN, while secondary resale platforms listed them between $9,000 and the low millions. Business Insider (Lean Left) reported that “a dedicated Argentina fan” could spend over $30,000 to follow their team all the way through the tournament.

The White House projected the World Cup could bring roughly $30 billion into the US economy, while FIFA estimated around $17.2 billion. But according to NC State University, local communities and host cities in the US are spending an estimated $100 million to over $250 million per city to host the World Cup, mostly through state funding. This number could be cut down by choosing places that already had a stadium, hotel and transportation infrastructure, according to economists in the San Diego Union Tribune (Lean Left bias). The Tribune also reported that FIFA gets to keep the majority of its revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships, parking, concessions and media rights. Overall total revenue for FIFA could end up around $8.9 billion for the World Cup while the 11 US hosting cities could face collective shortfalls of over $250 million, according to Fortune (Center bias).

Giving Back: While in New England, Scotland soccer fans donated nearly $30,000 to Providence charities as a way to repay their gratitude to the host city. One of their biggest donations was $10,000 to the Hasbro Children’s Hospital cancer unit, according to the Providence Journal (Center bias) and Bleacher Report (not rated). David Hood, a coordinator for the Tartan Army, told the Bleacher Report that other donations will be made to the Rhode Island Highlanders Pipe Band and a grassroots soccer program in Rhode Island.

The rest of the Insight is for Sustaining Members only.

Become a Sustaining Member

Is soccer becoming more relevant in the US?

Leading into and throughout the tournament so far, there has been some chatter about soccer’s popularity in the US. While it has often been more popular abroad, particularly in Europe and South America, it appears to be on the rise in the states.

A May report from The Economist (Lean Left) highlighted a 2024 analysis from British firm Ampere Analysis that found soccer to be the self-declared third-most popular sport of Americans, well behind American football and basketball, but just edging out baseball.

A news article published by Lisa Intrabartola of Rutgers University attributed the rise in popularity to the growth of corporate leagues like Major League Soccer (MLS) in the US, and effective marketing that engages younger generations on social media.

In an opinion for The Wall Street Journal Opinion (Lean Right), British-American soccer broadcaster Roger Bennett said he has personally witnessed soccer’s “slow rise to the mainstream” in the US. He emphasized that it’s not just because of the 2026 World Cup either, and shared a personal observation that Friday night flights from the US to London often feel “like a party bus—filled with Americans traveling to watch their Premier League favorites in the flesh.”

Looking ahead, Bennett noted that the US only has one World Cup knockout stage win in its entire history and argued that a serious uptick in interest could be right around the corner. “One incredible moment off a U.S. foot could change all that, making sports bars explode and then dominate TikTok,” he wrote.

Should countries with a problematic track record on human rights or labor be allowed to participate?

Since Qatar’s 2022 World Cup and Beijing’s Winter Olympics, the question over whether countries with troubling human rights or labor records should be allowed to host or participate in global events like the World Cup has become a point of contention – though, the debate can be traced back to as early as the 1936 Summer Olympics in Nazi-controlled Germany.

Several human rights organizations have argued against these countries hosting global sporting events unless they can ensure protection, inclusion and safety for those involved. Amnesty International argued that global sporting bodies haven’t adhered to their own human rights criteria for tournaments, and that they should comply with the 53% of the public that believe human rights should be a critical consideration in deciding who hosts major international sporting events.

Human Rights Watch demanded that FIFA “stand up to demand protections for everyone” involved in working or attending the World Cup as it has "leverage" and “has signed contracts with host countries.” Similarly, the Harvard Political Review said that transnational sporting organizations should “condemn human rights violations” and “wield” their contractual agreements to “bind host nations to this humane and responsible approach.”

On the other hand, some news outlets and commentators have argued that these events offer a bridge for participation and engagement in the face of isolation. In an opinion for The Free Press (Lean Right), Jillian Lederman argued that events like the World Cup are an opportunity to “discover community, competition, ambition” and form relationships with people outside US borders.

Public opinion is split. A recent YouGov survey found that 29% of Americans believe countries with poor human-rights records should be allowed to compete in international sporting events, while 26% say they shouldn't. Forty-six percent of respondents were unsure. About 58% of Americans said global sporting bodies should consider a country’s human rights records when making host selections. This could suggest more general support for accountability for hosts, specifically, rather than fully excluding teams from participating.

Has the World Cup been unifying or not?

Dan Schnur (Center), a professor at the University of California – Berkeley, Pepperdine University, and the University of Southern California, and AllSides Social Media and News Editor Jessica Carpenter (Center) shared contrasting opinions on the AllSides perspectives blog.

Schnur argued that rather than transcending political divisions – similar to the Olympics – the World Cup has been “appropriated by authoritarian governments, used to distract from or hide human rights abuses, and…used as the staging ground for terrorist attacks.”

He focused on the implications that Trump’s presidency, the upcoming midterms and the ongoing war with Iran have had on public sentiment and visa restrictions taking place during the tournament, also noting that this was the first time in World Cup history that a host nation has been at war with another participant. Schnur also argued that ongoing immigration legislation and “anti-immigrant sentiment” from the Trump administration means the World Cup is “taking place in a country where the rest of the world no longer feels welcome.”

Conversely, Carpenter argued that unity is happening on the ground in host cities, but is being largely overlooked by mainstream media in favor of a more controversial narrative focused on political tension and global conflict.

Carpenter cited examples shared on social media of foreign tourists and US locals singing, dancing, sharing food and playing soccer together from places like San Francisco and Boston to Lawrence, Kansas. She argued that contrary to the hostile and unwelcoming portrayal of the US on the global stage, foreigners were experiencing an America “of connectivity and openness.” Carpenter also said that while the World Cup won’t solve geopolitics, it’s been a reminder “that most people are far more interested in connection than conflict” as individuals “from completely different backgrounds and cultures come together in celebration of something they love.”

Sports,World Cup,Polarization,World