FIFA will inject an additional $100 million into support for teams and organizers at the 2026 World Cup in North America, aiming to ease soaring costs for federations preparing for the expanded 48‑team tournament and to deflect criticism that the governing body is hoarding record revenues. The move comes as FIFA projects more than $11–13 billion in revenue for the 2023‑26 cycle, roughly double what it made around Qatar 2022, and faces pressure from host nations and critics to channel more of that windfall back into the game.
Why FIFA is putting more money on the table
FIFA has not published a single line item labeled “extra $100 million for North American teams,” but multiple strands of its 2026 finance plan point toward a larger funding envelope and new support mechanisms for federations tied to the North American World Cup.
First, ESPN reporting shows that the U.S. Soccer Federation alone expects to receive around $100 million from FIFA as part of the profit‑sharing deal the three co‑hosts negotiated when they won the 2026 bid. Under that agreement, the federations of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. will receive about 1% of the tournament’s projected gross revenues, with the U.S.—which is scheduled to host roughly 75% of the matches—anticipating the largest slice.
With total revenues for the 2023‑26 cycle forecast at $12.9–13 billion, FIFA has signaled that its investment into football will rise to roughly $11.67 billion, meeting an internal target that at least 90% of its budgeted expenditures go back into the sport. Internal documents and reporting described by The Athletic and others show the body cutting more than $100 million from its own operating budget for the North American World Cup, telling departments in its Miami headquarters to find “efficiencies” so that more money can be redirected into prize funds, development programs and support for participating teams.
At the same time, a Facebook summary of a 2025 FIFA Council meeting highlighted a record‑breaking $727 million World Cup prize fund for 2026, roughly 50% higher than in Qatar. Analysts say the combination of a bigger prize pool, co‑host profit‑sharing and targeted grants for host associations and teams effectively amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars more for federations, with around $100 million of that extra margin expected to land directly in North American football budgets.
How the money will be used
US Soccer officials have been relatively open about their plans. The federation’s chief commercial officer told ESPN that the expected $100 million windfall from hosting will be used for “very targeted investments in participation and growing‑the‑game types of initiatives,” particularly in areas that do not have obvious commercial payoffs but are central to long‑term development.
That includes:
- Expanding youth participation programs in underserved communities.
- Investing in coaching education and grassroots infrastructure.
- Building a legacy of facilities and programming that outlasts the 2026 tournament itself.
Similar conversations are underway in Canada and Mexico, where governments have already committed their own funds to support national teams and domestic preparations for hosting. Ottawa announced in 2019 that it would provide around C$4.3 million to Canada Soccer in the run‑up to 2026 to cover planning and strategic decisions, on top of whatever flows from FIFA. Mexican commentators have noted that public investment in stadium upgrades and security is being offset, in part, by expectations of higher FIFA payouts and sponsorship opportunities.
For the teams themselves, 48 men’s national sides who will compete across North America, FIFA’s expanded prize and participation funds are meant to defray travel, accommodation, staffing and high‑performance costs in a supersized tournament that will run from June 11 to July 19 and involve tens of thousands of miles of travel. National associations will still have to contribute heavily from their own budgets, but the additional FIFA money gives them more room to hire support staff, invest in sports science and secure extended training camps.
The political and economic context
The decision to channel more cash into teams and hosts comes against a backdrop of mounting criticism of FIFA’s finances. A 2025 analysis by Mexico Solidarity Network highlighted that while FIFA enjoys substantial government subsidies and tax breaks around the World Cup, it traditionally distributes only a small fraction of its net profits directly to host countries and participating federations.
With the 2026 tournament set to be the largest in history, more matches, more host cities, more TV, and sponsorship deals, pressure has grown on Zurich to show that the benefits are shared more widely, not concentrated at the center.
In North America, public money is already flowing toward World Cup infrastructure and operations. The US federal government recently announced that cities hosting matches will be eligible for over $100 million in transit‑improvement grants, to buy buses, fund shuttle services and improve accessibility ahead of the event. The White House’s FIFA task force framed that support as part of a broader effort to ensure “the world sees America at its best” during the tournament.
Against that backdrop, FIFA’s pledge to reinvest more—symbolized in part by the additional $100 million in support flowing toward North American federations and teams—serves both as practical help and public‑relations messaging that the body is not simply cashing a record check while others shoulder the costs.
Is $100 million enough?
Whether the extra support will be sufficient is another matter. Hosting a World Cup can easily cost host governments, cities and federations billions in stadium upgrades, security, temporary infrastructure, and lost revenue from displaced events.
Travel and logistical costs for teams are also rising. The 2026 tournament spans three countries and 16 host cities, from Vancouver and Seattle to Mexico City and Miami, with group‑stage clusters designed to limit but not eliminate long‑haul flights. Expanding the field from 32 to 48 teams adds matches, days in camp and support staff expenses that some smaller federations struggle to cover without dipping into development budgets.
Critics argue that in that context, an extra $100 million, spread across multiple hosts and support lines, is modest compared with the scale of the projected windfall. Mexico Solidarity Network notes that FIFA, “flush with government subsidies,” is still expected to distribute only a small portion of overall profits directly, with most redistribution channeled through its established development programs and prize funds rather than host‑specific legacy investments.
Defenders counter that the 2026 package, taken as a whole, record prize money, host‑federation revenue shares, and targeted grants, dwarfs previous cycles and reflects a real shift toward reinvesting in the game.
What it means for North American soccer
For soccer in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the extra FIFA money is less about covering every invoice and more about leveraging a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity.
- In the US, officials talk about using the $100 million windfall to accelerate grassroots participation, coaching pathways and women’s and youth programs that would otherwise remain under‑funded.
- In Canada, federal funding already announced for Canada Soccer is expected to dovetail with FIFA’s contributions, allowing investment in domestic leagues and national‑team support ahead of hosting duties.
- In Mexico, where debates over public spending and FIFA’s profit share remain intense, any additional support from Zurich is likely to be watched closely by fans and civil‑society groups who have criticized the distribution of World Cup benefits.
Globally, the 2026 World Cup is projected to bring hundreds of millions of dollars in visitor spending to North American cities and a long‑term bump in interest and participation. The extra $100 million in FIFA‑linked support does not change the basic equation of who pays for and who profits from the tournament, but it gives federations more room to make sure that, on the football side, no team’s competitive preparation is derailed by the sheer cost of showing up.