The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to redefine the scale and commercial geography of global football tournaments, with matches scheduled across 16 cities in the United States, Mexico and Canada, the widest spread ever for the competition. While organisers have emphasised the economic opportunities tied to tourism, infrastructure investment and global branding, emerging cost data indicates that the financial experience for travelling fans will vary depending on where matches are played.
As international supporters begin early planning for the tournament, attention is increasingly turning to the full economics of attending games rather than ticket prices alone. Accommodation, local transport, food and beverage costs, traditionally secondary considerations, are now central to travel budgeting, particularly amid persistent global inflation and rising hospitality sector prices.
A recent cost analysis by US-based consumer data platform Sweepstakes Table offers one of the clearest early snapshots of how matchday affordability may differ across host cities. Drawing on hotel pricing data from travel aggregator Kayak, cost-of-living benchmarks from Numbeo, and published stadium concession prices, the study assessed likely total expenses associated with attending matches in each host location.
Each city was assigned a “Matchday Index” score out of 100, with accommodation weighted most heavily at 40 per cent and transport, food and drinks each contributing 20 per cent.
Houston leads affordability rankings
Houston, Texas, emerged as the most cost-effective host city, achieving a Matchday Index score of 94.66. Average hotel prices were estimated at $173 per night, significantly below many other US host cities, while public transport costs averaged just $1.25 per journey. Concession prices also appeared comparatively modest, with beer priced at $2.79 and fast-food meals just above $10.
Tourism economists say such mid-tier US metropolitan areas may benefit disproportionately from the World Cup. These cities generally combine modern stadium infrastructure with lower property and labour costs than traditional global tourism hubs such as New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco.
Mexico positioned as value destination
Mexico’s three host cities (Monterrey, Guadalajara and Mexico City) ranked second, third and fourth respectively in affordability. Their strong performance reflects structural cost advantages in public transport, food pricing and certain hospitality services.
Transport costs in Mexican host cities were particularly low, ranging from $0.35 in Mexico City to $0.87 in Monterrey. Food prices were also relatively affordable, with some stadium beer prices among the cheapest recorded in the study.
US cities show mixed affordability
Among US venues outside Texas, affordability varied widely. Atlanta and Dallas ranked mid-table, benefiting from moderate hotel pricing but facing higher food, drink and transport costs than Mexican cities. Kansas City similarly offered reasonable accommodation costs but slightly elevated matchday expenses overall.
Meanwhile, coastal US cities clustered toward the lower end of affordability rankings. Accommodation costs in Boston, New York and Los Angeles were significantly higher than the tournament average, reflecting broader real estate pressures and strong international tourism demand.
Canada’s host cities (Toronto and Vancouver), ranked among the least affordable in the study. Vancouver recorded the highest average hotel cost at $404 per night, while Toronto combined relatively high accommodation costs with the most expensive fast-food meal prices in the survey.
Tourism officials in Canada nonetheless expect strong demand during the World Cup, particularly from corporate travellers and higher-spending international visitors. However, affordability constraints could influence length of stay and discretionary spending patterns.
San Francisco area emerges as costliest venue
At the bottom of the affordability rankings was the San Francisco Bay Area host venue in Santa Clara, which scored just 14.66 on the Matchday Index. Although hotel costs were high at around $343 per night, stadium concession prices, including beer costing over $14, were a major contributor to the city’s low affordability score.
The Bay Area’s broader cost-of-living dynamics, shaped by its technology-driven economy and constrained housing supply, appear to be translating directly into projected World Cup visitor expenses.
Similar trends were observed, though less extreme, in Los Angeles and the New York metropolitan area. Analysts describe this as a coastal premium phenomenon common in global tourism markets, where strong international demand, limited space and higher wage structures combine to elevate prices.
Economic stakes for host cities
Beyond fan travel budgets, affordability carries economic implications. Cities that offer competitive pricing may attract longer visitor stays, boosting local retail, hospitality and transport sectors. Conversely, higher-cost destinations may rely more heavily on premium travellers or shorter-duration visits.
For FIFA and commercial partners, fan spending behaviour directly affects sponsorship returns, merchandising sales and the overall economic footprint of the tournament. Accessible pricing can enhance stadium atmosphere, brand engagement and global viewership perceptions.
The tri-nation hosting model also introduces logistical complexity for tourism operators. Airlines, hotel chains and travel agencies are already assessing how price disparities may influence demand across routes and cities.
Inflation and currency factors still in play
Several variables could reshape the affordability landscape before kickoff in 2026. Currency fluctuations between the US dollar, Canadian dollar and Mexican peso will affect relative purchasing power for international visitors. Inflation trends in hospitality, energy and labour markets could also alter pricing significantly.
Additionally, short-term rental platforms, hotel construction pipelines and infrastructure upgrades may expand accommodation supply in some cities, potentially moderating prices.
Security arrangements, visa policies and transport connectivity will further influence perceived value for travellers.
