Overview
In January 2017 FIFA voted to expand the men’s World Cup from 32 to 48 teams starting in 2026, setting in motion the largest tournament in the competition’s history and a radical shift in its format and economics. In June 2018 the “United 2026” bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico beat Morocco to win hosting rights, promising record revenues and leveraging NFL-scale stadiums across 16 cities. On 5–6 December 2025, FIFA completed the Washington, D.C. draw and released the full 104‑match schedule: Mexico will open at Mexico City’s Azteca Stadium on June 11, 2026, defending champion Argentina will start against Algeria, the U.S. will open group play against Paraguay, and the final is set for 3 p.m. EDT on July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey to deliver prime-time viewing in Europe.
These decisions lock in the commercial and logistical architecture of a 39‑day, tri‑nation World Cup featuring 48 teams in 12 groups of four and an expanded knockout round of 32. FIFA is targeting roughly $11 billion in revenue for the 2023‑26 cycle, driven by more games, North American time zones and premium hospitality, while organizers and teams grapple with extreme heat, vast travel distances, strained club calendars and questions over public investment in stadium upgrades and infrastructure.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
FIFA is football’s global governing body, controlling the World Cup’s format, hosting rights, scheduling, and commercial exploitation.
The United 2026 bid was the joint proposal by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to host the first 48‑team World Cup, stressing financial guarantees, existing large stadiums and a promise of record profits for FIFA.
The New York/New Jersey host region and MetLife Stadium will stage the 2026 World Cup final, plus high‑profile group and knockout games involving several top‑ranked teams.
Timeline
-
Group allocations set: Argentina vs. Algeria opener; U.S. vs. Paraguay
SportingFollowing the draw, defending champion Argentina is slated to open its title defense against Algeria, while the United States is drawn with Paraguay in its group, shaping early‑round narratives and travel plans for fans and teams.
-
Full 2026 match schedule and kickoff times released
SchedulingFIFA publishes the 104‑match schedule: Mexico opens vs. South Africa at Azteca on June 11; the U.S. plays its group games on home soil; numerous top‑ranked teams are assigned to major media markets like New York and Dallas. The final is set for July 19 at MetLife Stadium with a 3 p.m. EDT kickoff aimed at European prime time.
-
Washington, D.C. draw allocates 48 teams into 12 groups
DrawAt the Kennedy Center, FIFA conducts the 2026 World Cup draw, placing co‑hosts USA, Mexico and Canada in separate groups and seeding top teams like Argentina, France and England to avoid early clashes; 12 groups of four are formed.
-
FIFA officials promote expanded format’s legacy
Public StatementFIFA’s Jill Ellis and Arsène Wenger argue that the 48‑team World Cup will broaden the fan base and reflect rising standards beyond Europe and South America, while reiterating confidence in the tournament’s competitiveness.
-
BBC criticized for remote World Cup coverage plans
BroadcastingThe BBC faces backlash for planning to call some 2026 matches remotely from the U.K. to save costs amid time‑zone, travel and scale challenges, underscoring broadcast logistics for the enlarged tournament.
-
Pre‑draw focus on debutants, heat and long travel
AnalysisAhead of the draw, coverage highlights debut nations like Cape Verde and Curacao, while emphasizing concerns over summer heat, player safety and logistical complexity across three vast host countries.
-
Heat risks for 2026 World Cup highlighted
Player WelfareClimate researchers and former players warn that 14 of 16 host cities could see dangerous heat, urging FIFA to avoid afternoon kickoffs, even as TV demands complicate scheduling.
-
FIFA awards 2026 final to MetLife Stadium
Hosting DecisionIn a televised announcement, FIFA confirms MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, will host the July 19, 2026 World Cup final, with Estadio Azteca getting the opener and Dallas and Atlanta awarded semifinals.
-
MetLife modifies stadium to meet FIFA specifications
InfrastructureReports detail that MetLife Stadium will remove around 1,740 seats in corner sections and undertake other structural changes, including converting turf to grass, as New York/New Jersey intensifies its push to host the final.
-
FIFA targets $11 billion for 2023–26 cycle
CommercialFIFA’s 2022 annual report and subsequent briefings project about $11 billion in revenue for 2023–26, citing expanded 2026 World Cup broadcasting, sponsorship and ticketing income.
-
Revised 2026 format: 12 groups of 4 and 104 matches
Format DecisionMeeting in Kigali, the FIFA Council abandons the 16×3 design and approves a 12×4 group stage, with 32 teams (top two plus eight best third‑place finishers) reaching a new Round of 32, bringing the tournament to 104 games over 39 days.
-
FIFA names 16 host cities across North America
Hosting DecisionFIFA announces 16 host cities in three countries, including Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey; Toronto and Vancouver; and 11 U.S. cities such as New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami and Seattle.
-
United 2026 wins hosting rights at 68th FIFA Congress
Hosting DecisionDelegates at the 68th FIFA Congress in Moscow vote 134–65 to award the 2026 World Cup to the joint bid from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, beating Morocco and promising record profits.
-
FIFA approves expansion to 48 teams from 2026
Format DecisionThe FIFA Council unanimously votes to expand the men’s World Cup to 48 teams starting in 2026, initially proposing 16 groups of three and a 32‑team knockout stage.
Scenarios
Blockbuster, mostly smooth tournament sets a new World Cup template
Discussed by: FIFA leadership, commercial analysts, host officials and many mainstream sports outlets
In this scenario, logistical challenges are largely contained: stadium retrofits finish on time, transport systems in host cities cope with surges, and scheduling—while demanding—avoids major player‑safety controversies. Record TV audiences and sell‑out crowds validate FIFA’s 48‑team expansion and tri‑nation model, driving or exceeding the projected $11 billion in 2023–26 revenue. A successful World Cup in North America becomes the default blueprint for future ‘mega‑editions’, including the centenary 2030 tournament.
Commercial success overshadowed by heat, travel and player‑welfare backlash
Discussed by: Player unions, climate researchers, some European clubs and critical media commentary
Here, rising summer temperatures and long‑haul travel across North America create visible strain: multiple matches require cooling breaks, injury rates climb, and high‑profile players or coaches criticize afternoon kickoffs set to satisfy European TV schedules. Clubs and unions use the experience to push back against further expansion and demand stronger safeguards in the international match calendar, even as FIFA points to record revenues and global reach.
Operational or political disruptions dent North America’s showcase
Discussed by: Security analysts, some political commentators and risk consultancies
This scenario envisions more serious disruptions: visa or entry‑policy disputes limit access for certain national teams’ fans, protests erupt over public spending on stadium upgrades or broader domestic politics, or an infrastructure failure (transport outage, pitch collapse, severe weather) affects a marquee match. Pre‑draw reporting has already flagged political tensions and visa concerns affecting participation in events surrounding the tournament. While such issues may not derail the competition, they could tarnish the perceived competence of hosts and fuel skepticism about mega‑events.
Mixed legacy for North American soccer despite record revenues
Discussed by: Football development experts, North American media and academic studies on mega‑event legacies
In this outcome, 2026 delivers financial and broadcast highs but leaves a patchy long‑term legacy. Some NFL venues easily revert to profitable use, but grassroots investment and local league benefits are uneven. The tournament boosts short‑term interest yet does not replicate the structural impact that USA 1994 had in seeding Major League Soccer and broader participation. This could prompt future bidders and the public to re‑evaluate whether mega‑tournaments justify their opportunity costs.
Historical Context
1994 FIFA World Cup in the United States
1994-06-17 to 1994-07-17What Happened
The 1994 World Cup, hosted solely by the United States, was then the largest and most commercially successful edition, drawing a record 3.59 million spectators with average crowds near 69,000 across nine stadiums, many of them NFL venues. Matches were often scheduled at midday to suit European broadcasters, contributing to intense heat conditions that have become a reference point in current debates about 2026 summer kickoffs.
Outcome
Short term: The tournament set global attendance records and produced strong U.S. TV audiences, convincing FIFA that the American market could sustain football commercially despite the sport’s then‑limited domestic profile.
Long term: USA 1994 paved the way for MLS’s launch and is widely credited with embedding soccer more deeply in U.S. sports culture, a precedent that FIFA hopes 2026’s larger footprint will amplify across North America.
Why It's Relevant
The 1994 tournament illustrates both the commercial upside of using large U.S. stadiums and the risks of scheduling games in summer heat for TV reasons—issues now resurfacing around the 3 p.m. East Coast final and other afternoon fixtures in 2026.
2002 World Cup Co‑Hosted by South Korea and Japan
2002-05-31 to 2002-06-30What Happened
The 2002 World Cup was the first jointly hosted tournament, split between Japan and South Korea. Organizers had to coordinate across two sovereign states with separate languages, visa regimes and infrastructure plans, while also adjusting the schedule to avoid the East Asian rainy season and accommodate global TV audiences.
Outcome
Short term: Despite pre‑tournament concerns, the event was delivered successfully, though fans and broadcasters—especially in Europe—contended with awkward match times and travel challenges.
Long term: The co‑hosting experiment helped normalize multi‑country World Cups but also highlighted the governance and logistical complexity such arrangements entail, informing how FIFA structures responsibilities and revenues for 2026’s tri‑nation model.
Why It's Relevant
The 2002 experience foreshadows 2026’s coordination issues across the U.S., Canada and Mexico—from ticketing and visa policies to travel distances and broadcast windows—on a significantly larger geographic and commercial scale.
Brazil 2014: Protests and ‘White Elephant’ Stadiums
2013-2014What Happened
In the run‑up to and during the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, millions protested against government spending on stadiums and infrastructure amid underfunded public services, while audits exposed cost overruns and corruption in several venues, including Brasília’s stadium whose price nearly tripled. Multiple new or refurbished arenas in smaller cities later struggled to find sustainable uses, becoming symbols of ‘white elephant’ mega‑event investments.
Outcome
Short term: The tournament itself was widely viewed as entertaining and successful on the field, but public anger over costs, corruption and forced evictions tarnished Brazil’s reputation and the event’s domestic legitimacy.
Long term: Brazil 2014 became a cautionary tale in debates over mega‑event economics, fueling pressure on hosts and FIFA to limit unnecessary construction and demonstrate clearer social benefits—pressures that now inform the largely existing‑stadium model for 2026 in North America.
Why It's Relevant
Brazil’s experience underscores the political risk that World Cup‑related spending can become a lightning rod for broader discontent, a dynamic that North American hosts must consider as they fund stadium retrofits, transport upgrades and security for 2026.