The Economics of Hosting the FIFA World Cup: Winners and Losers

Rahmani Khoshnaw
May 2
2 min read

Khoshnaw Rahmani, JadeTimes Staff

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Sports.

Billions of eyes glued to the pitch, cheers erupting as the world’s best battle it out for glory—hosting the FIFA World Cup sounds like the ultimate dream, right? But peel back the glitz and glamour, and you’ll find a deeper story.

Behind the sold-out stadiums and dazzling ceremonies lies a harsh reality: hosting isn’t just a party; it’s a gamble. Some countries cash in, riding the wave of booming tourism and global recognition. Others? They’re left with crippling debt, abandoned stadiums, and broken promises.

This article dives into the winners, the losers, and the real price tag of staging football’s greatest spectacle.

Winners: Short-Term Economic Boost

When done right, hosting the World Cup can deliver substantial benefits:

1. A Surge in Tourism Revenue

Tourism booms during the World Cup. South Africa 2010 welcomed over 309,000 foreign visitors, generating approximately R3.6 billion in tourism spending.

2. Job Creation in Key Sectors

Major infrastructure projects during Qatar 2022 provided employment for hundreds of thousands of migrant workers, though labor exploitation concerns were raised3.

3. Enhanced Global Visibility

The Germany 2006 World Cup boosted the nation’s image, branding it as a welcoming and efficient host while attracting millions of visitors5.

Losers: The Financial Burden of Hosting

The reality of hosting isn’t always rosy—some hosts pay the price long after the final whistle:

1. Unsustainable Infrastructure Costs

Stadiums built for World Cup matches often become financial burdens. In Brazil 2014, the Arena da Amazonia cost R$669.5 million but remains mostly unused, draining public resources7.

2. Social and Environmental Costs

Large-scale preparations often lead to displacement. Rio de Janeiro saw thousands of families forcibly removed from favelas to make way for World Cup infrastructure.

3. Debt That Lingers for Decades

South Africa spent over R3.6 billion on hosting the 2010 World Cup, which contributed to long-term economic challenges as the projected benefits fell short of expectations9.

Lessons from Past Hosts

1. Success Stories

• United States 1994: Leveraged existing stadiums, making it the most financially successful World Cup in history, with over $1.45 billion in profits11.

• Germany 2006: Minimal new infrastructure investment, combined with record-breaking tourism, left a positive financial and cultural legacy5.

2. Financial Struggles

• Brazil 2014: Over $3 billion spent on stadium construction resulted in empty facilities, sparking debates on wasteful spending7.

• South Africa 2010: Despite a tourism boost, the long-term economic impact failed to balance out the high costs9.

Hosting the FIFA World Cup is a gamble—a spectacle where nations bet on glory and success but risk financial loss and social upheaval. For countries like Germany and the United States, careful planning and realistic budgets turned their gambles into triumphs. For others, like Brazil and South Africa, the aftermath tells a story of caution.

The lesson is clear: staging the World Cup isn’t just about the cheers and the goals—it’s about ensuring the legacy uplifts the nation rather than drains it. Because in the end, the real winners are those who played the long game, building success not only for the event but for the years that follow.