News: Chicago Fire Fanaddict NEWS: November 6, 2025

From The Athletic's newsletter today:

Chicago No Show


Daniel Bartel/Premier League/Getty Images

Why city did not want to be a World Cup host

No bid to host the World Cup is worth its salt without promising to lavish riches on a country domestically. Every tournament, without fail, will be ‘worth X to the local economy’ (insert a satisfying number of millions or billions), heading off financial sceptics at the pass.



The book Soccernomics devoted a chapter to this subject and, through a fair amount of research, deduced that projections of how much a nation earns from a World Cup — i.e. the amount of cash which benefits ordinary people like you and me — are often optimistic at best. Some are pulled from fantasy land. If you’re in the United States, Mexico or Canada, I’d recommend reading it.



And when you see it said, as it does in two FIFA-backed reports, that the 2026 edition and the 2025 Club World Cup could generate a combined $47bn (£36bn) for the U.S. alone, I’d suggest applying your hogwash filter. It’s possible that the impact will be felt to that extent. Just don’t take the figures at face value.



Chicago certainly didn’t, hence why the third-biggest city by population in the States won’t be hosting any of the matches at the 2026 finals. It’s odd when you think about it. Soldier Field, above, the home of the Chicago Bears and Chicago Fire, is every bit as large and modern as the average venue set aside for next summer. I’d have had it on my bingo list as readily as Boston, San Francisco or Philadelphia.



But as Adam Crafton illustrates in his World Cup column today, the authorities in Chicago were far from convinced that pitching to be a host was in the best interests of the city’s public purse. On the contrary, they feared it might merely incur debt. So Chicago was out. And others who got in on the act are apparently wondering if the Windy City called it right.

Cost-benefit equation

Adam spoke to Kara Bachman, the executive director for the Chicago Sport Commission (a body which supports major events there). Her concerns were numerous, starting with the question of whether Chicago would post a significant profit from hosting World Cup games.



Beyond that, she described the terms put forward by world governing body FIFA as “demands”, not requests, and claimed Chicago had no power to alter the contract it would be told to sign. She says she was unable to speak to anybody at FIFA in person, calling this “a red flag”. FIFA sources contacted by Adam insist they were cooperative but according to Bachman, officials in certain host cities — having encountered the reality — quietly wish they had taken Chicago’s stance.



The costs incurred through hosting are not minor. Take, for instance, the $37m spent upgrading MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, the stage for the World Cup final, or the $65m that state will spend on travel security. It falls to individual locations to manage “safety, security and protection”, none of which is simple or cheap for a competition so big. Adam also reports U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent threats to relocate fixtures are running the risk of spooking prospective sponsors.



The counter-argument is that the World Cup can turn host cities into jamborees. People in and around group-stage and knockout-phase matches are having the door opened to experiences they might remember forever (assuming they can afford to attend). But on the matter of who stands to earn what from the 2026 finals, all we can say is that FIFA will make hay. The various host cities would be well advised not to spend their mooted royalties in advance.