Sign up for NPR's Up First newsletter — the stories you need to start your day, handpicked for you.
Driving home on a weekday afternoon, New Jersey state Sen. Declan O'Scanlon is mad — real mad.
The World Cup kicked off this week — and the state is set to host eight matches, including the all-important final on July 19. It should be an exciting time — but not for O'Scanlon.
Instead, the legislator, who represents the district around central New Jersey where he was born, is tallying up the money it will cost the state to host all these games. And he has one conclusion.
"My taxpayers are getting ripped off — and we are!" he says.
O'Scanlon is looking at one reality of the World Cup: Hosting the tournament is expensive.
Qatar spent an estimated $300 billion to stage it in 2022, including building shiny new stadiums and other big infrastructure projects to welcome millions of visitors.
By contrast, the 11 American cities hosting games are not spending anywhere near as much, in large part because they already have big and available NFL stadiums.
But with each host city or state having to pony up many of the costs on its own, flash points have emerged, including in Massachusetts, where a standoff over security costs threatened to derail matches that were set to take place at the New England Patriots stadium in Foxborough.
And with the World Cup upon us, many people in New Jersey and other states hosting games are wondering whether it will end up being worth the cost.
$100 million and counting
O'Scanlon estimates that New Jersey has spent at least $100 million to host the games, and some experts believe that's a conservative estimate.
Meanwhile, FIFA — the World Cup organizer — is set to earn at least $11 billion from the World Cup overall, with almost none of that money shared with New Jersey.
Under agreements signed with each of the 11 host cities across the U.S., the costs are lopsided. Host cities must pay for virtually everything, from security for the event to providing their NFL stadiums for FIFA to use almost rent free.
Meanwhile, FIFA is set to earn virtually all the revenue.
FIFA justifies the arrangement by saying the U.S. economy could earn $30 billion from hosting the World Cup, but economists widely pan the numbers as wishful thinking.
O'Scanlon is certain New Jersey will not end up benefiting from the tournament.
"We're not going to get any great economic windfall," O'Scanlon says. "There's not going to be a ton of people here spending a ton of money. It's just not going to happen."
Host cities can benefit from the World Cup if they attract a big influx of visitors. The problem for New Jersey is that many in the state believe visitors will spend the bulk of their time across the river in New York — attending a Broadway show or visiting Times Square.
Even FIFA's own marketing bills the venue as "New York New Jersey," even though the matches will actually take place at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
O'Scanlon says the billing — with New York's name first — stings.
"It's a double kick in the throat!" he says. "We're footing the bill for the most part! And it's in New Jersey!"
From excitement to deep apprehension
New Jersey fought hard to become a World Cup host in the lead-up to 2018, when FIFA awarded the tournament to the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
That was under then-Gov. Phil Murphy. Today, the new administration under Gov. Mikie Sherrill has to pay for the actual costs at an especially challenging time for state finances.
And even if the cost of hosting the tournament ends up being not more than $100 million, that's a lot of money that could have been used elsewhere.
Professor Danielle Zanzalari, who studies state finances at Seton Hall University, says money spent sprucing up train stations for the World Cup — or paying for extra hours for local police — is money that could be used for more important day-to-day matters such as education.
"My gosh, this could fund like all of the issues with education for our youth. But we're spending it so people can, you know, go to a football game," she says, using the other name for soccer.
FIFA says it's bringing the prestige of soccer
FIFA hadn't responded to NPR's request for comment by the time of publication, but it has long argued that host cities and countries benefit from staging one of the biggest sports tournaments in the world.
Qatar, for example, continues to face accusations that it used the 2022 World Cup to improve its image on controversies it has faced, including on human rights, in what's known as "sportswashing."
But Zanzalari questions whether those same benefits apply to New Jersey or New York.
"There's no one that is finding out about New York City because of the World Cup," she says. "There's no one finding that New Jersey is right next door to New York."
Yet New Jersey residents have had to face all the issues that come with hosting a tournament of this magnitude, including cuts to train services for renovations and to accommodate the increased number of visitors.
New Jersey is trying to reduce the costs
The fiscal pressures have spurred New Jersey's leaders to try to make up for some of the costs involved in hosting the tournament.
The state, for example, sparked a lot of controversy by initially saying it would charge $150 for train tickets to MetLife Stadium for World Cup visitors — a price it eventually lowered to $98.
But perhaps the biggest issue for the 11 American cities hosting World Cup games is that it's hard to know exactly how much it will really cost at the end of the day.
Money for the World Cup gets tucked across state budgets, as part of bigger bills for infrastructure projects and other projects, making it hard to track all the escalating costs.
That riles up O'Scanlon, the state senator.
"We'll never know exactly how much this event is costing the taxpayers of New Jersey," he says.
And that presents a big problem for hosts like New Jersey, because one day the World Cup will end — and FIFA will move on.
New Jerseyans, though, will likely still be tallying up the costs.
Copyright 2026 NPR
