|
International Trade Administration, International Visitor Arrivals Program
The World Cup’s beloved preliminary rituals reach their close this afternoon: the local pols and FIFA eminences denouncing one another as cheapskates and money-grabbers, the irate fans yelling about $1,000-and-up tickets for even the earliest group-stage matches, the confusing and arbitrary stadium name-changes, etc. The first match, Mexico v. South Africa, kicks off tomorrow afternoon on Mexico City’s hybrid-turf pitch, and from then until the July 19th final at “New York-New Jersey Stadium,” the 48 qualifiers play 104 matches — 78 in the U.S., 13 apiece in Canada and Mexico. Administration economists predict the Cup will bring a mini-boom. As you wait for the kickoff, some background on the clash between their hopes and other policies –
Background: The World Bank says tourism supports about $10 trillion in output worldwide — about 9% of global GDP — as travelers take 2 billion annual trips across borders. For the U.S. specifically, the Commerce Department reported about 76 million foreign visitors a year in the 2010s, including two to four million coming for sports events, and calculated the impact at ~3% of U.S. GDP.
If this is still correct, tourism and travel would account for about $900 billion of the $30 trillion U.S. economy, and in principle the Cup matches might add a lot this summer. Few sports events other than the Olympics match the Cup’s blend of global reach and commercial appeal, and both the U.S. government and FIFA expect it will attract 5 to 7 million extra visitors. This spring, the State Department estimated a $17.2 billion GDP boost — like temporarily adding a small island economy like the Bahamas or Jamaica to the U.S. — and 185,000 extra jobs. FIFA’s more cautious estimate assumes (a) international fans will make up 40 percent of match attendees, (b) most will attend multiple matches, and (c) they will stay roughly 12 days while spending about $416 per day. With all this, they get $9.6 billion in extra U.S. GDP and $7.6 billion in tourism-related activity. So in normal times, a noticeable jolt to an economy that needs it. But these times aren’t very normal, and the American tourist economy may need more help than the Cup can give. Three points:
1. Tourism depressed and falling: During the COVID-19 pandemic the U.S’s count of international visitors shriveled, hitting a low of 19 million in 2020 and not getting back above 60 million until 2023. It had mostly rebounded by 2024 — though even then still 5 million below a typical 2010s count — but fell back last year as potential visitors, especially Canadians, reacted against Trump administration tariffs, visa fees, travel bans, and general rhetoric by staying home or going somewhere else. The 2025 count was only 68 million, and the early months of 2026 are about the same. So even if the U.S. government or FIFA predictions pan out, the overall result would not be a boom, but rather a tourism level like that of 2024.
2. Cup trips are getting very expensive. Meanwhile, the early predictions may have been a bit optimistic, as Cup costs started high and have been rising all year. Match tickets are pricy — at the extreme end, a “Category 1” price for the final match hit $10,000 by April and reached $16,000 by May (Disgruntled fan group Football Supporters Europe: “A monumental betrayal of the tradition of the World Cup, ignoring the contribution of supporters to the spectacle it is,” amplified by FIFA “bait advertising” and “pressure-selling tactics”.) Travel costs then spiked in spring, as the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz closure drove up fuel prices. Three Lions fans hoping to see England’s first Cup win since 1966 would have paid $285 for a standard Heathrow-to-JFK economy fare if they booked in February; by April, prices were at $628, plus extra new $10-to-$50 bag charges. As to lodging, hotels around the NY/NJ final venue have lots of rooms but are expensive, and even the special Manhattan-to-stadium train costs over $100. Other venues are squeezed for space — Kansas City, host to Argentina’s group-round matches, has a stadium seating more than 76,000 spectators, but only around 36,000 metro-area hotel rooms.
3. And policy is making travel more difficult. Meanwhile, new visa fees and country-by-country rules make travel to the U.S. more expensive, and often harder, than it was a year ago. Brazilians hoping for the sixth Cup and Argentines confidently expecting a repeat of their overtime 2022 win; excited fans of first-time entry Uzbekistan traveling from Samarkand; Paraguayans checking in for tomorrow’s 15-hour flight from Asuncion for the Albirroja’s Friday match v. the USMNT in Los Angeles — all must navigate the “B-2” tourist visa labyrinth. The initial DS-160 form expressing interest in such a visa costs a nonrefundable $185. Then comes the real work: securing an in-person interview, often requiring months in high-demand countries; then more paperwork on the purpose of travel, financial capacity, intent to return home, etc.; and finally, if the Consulate says yes, another $250 tacked on as of late 2025 under the grim title “visa integrity fee”. On top of this, fans from Algeria, Cabo Verde, Cote D’Ivoire, Senegal, and Tunisia must now post new “visa bonds” of $5,000 to $15,000, and citizens of two qualified World Cup teams — Haiti and Iran — usually can’t get visas at all.
Even with all the expense and paperwork, the Cup will attract visitors and provide a bump. Maybe less, though, than the administration and FIFA guessed a few months back. For lots of fans, TV and streaming video may be looking like a reasonable second-best.
Special Note: Research and drafting for this week’s Trade Fact by PPI Spring Fellow Madeline Tong. Ms. Tong is a graduating senior at Georgetown University, concentrating in philosophy and economics.
PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:
World Cup:
From FIFA, World Cup central.
… the U.S. National Team and its first “Group D” rival Paraguay.
… top-seed France.
… and defending champ Argentina.
Pre-Cup friendlies:
FIFA makes stadiums change their names.
Euro-fans complain about ticket prices.
New York pols blast the New Jersey transit authority, jawbone the ticket price for the 35-minute Manhattan-to-stadium train down from $150 to $98.
Elimination rounds:
The World Bank assesses tourism in the global economy.
The Commerce Department’s Inbound International Tourists Arrival site has arrival counts by country since 2013.
Politico on last year’s sharp drop in Canadian tourism, the heavy economic impact on Las Vegas, and the political implications for mid-term U.S. elections.
The Trump admin. predicts a Cup-related mini-boom.
… and FIFA is a bit more cautious.
Finals:
Which is the real “football”? Trick question, there are five, and they’re all “real.” The name itself comes from an 18th and early 19th-century British game expressively termed “mob football”. This was apparently a highly informal, few-rules version of “capture the flag” with hundreds of players, with the “footwork” much more about “putting the boot in” than flashy shooting and dribbling. Modern “football” games all descend from high-minded Victorian efforts to develop lower-casualty alternatives:
* “Soccer”: As the “FIFA” acronym (“Federation Internationale de Football Association”) reminds everyone, World Cup matches are technically “Association Football” games. The quasi-acronym “soccer” is not a provincial Americanism, but the short form of “association.” Top sport for Europe, the U.K., and Latin America.
* “Rugby football”: Invented around the same time as soccer at the school of the same name, “rugby” is the top or near-top sport in South Africa, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.
* “Gridiron football”: The U.S. and Canadian game, named for the field’s yard-line layout, with rules standardized during Theodore Roosevelt’s early 20th-century presidency. TR wanted to reduce arbitrary violence and encourage respect for rules in college sports. Careful what you wish for.
* “Aussie rules football”: Somewhere between the rugby and gridiron versions, Australia only, invented in Melbourne in the 1850s.
* “Gaelic football”: The Irish version, apparently close to Aussie rules except for requiring some basketball-like hand dribbling.
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
