The 2026 World Cup concludes Sunday with the final in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The United States, as lead host of the North American trio, staged 78 matches across 11 cities. Two games remain: the third-place match in Miami and the championship. Before attention shifts to the 2030 centennial, here is how the US fared in its second men's World Cup hosting.
Stadiums: B+
Most venues were NFL stadiums designed to retain sound, creating strong atmosphere. However, concourse congestion remained a problem, with corridors not expanded enough for the crowds.
Transport: D+
US car-centric infrastructure was a drawback. Some cities added ad-hoc buses, but hours-long travel to and from venues was common and costly.
Affordability: F
Ticket prices far exceeded bid-book projections, making the tournament an outlier in event pricing. FIFA admitted it was a rare opportunity to generate revenue, but the high costs were unsustainable for future events. Vendors across transport, food, and parking followed suit, pricing out many fans.
Hospitality: Mixed
Community spirit among fans was high, with traveling supporters gathering despite high prices. FIFA volunteers were praised. However, Trump administration policies turned away referees, team staff, and fans from certain nations, including Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti, Iran, and Senegal. FIFA supported these restrictions, contrasting with the 1994 World Cup's accessibility.
Atmosphere in host cities: B-
Cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, and Kansas City excelled with organic soccer culture, public watch parties, and vibrant streets. Boston and the Bay Area also embraced visitors. But cities with stadiums far from city centers, especially in Texas, struggled to generate excitement. Many locals barely noticed the tournament.
