There is absolutely no obligation to give credit to Fifa.
What must be recognized, though, is that the 2026 World Cup achieved every objective it set out to accomplish. The matches were intriguing, closely fought, and full of tension, even if the overall quality was often unremarkable – though that is rarely essential for a captivating sporting spectacle. Crowds turned up in colossal figures. There were memorable moments and myth-making; shocks from the underdogs; uplifting narratives that would have seemed clichéd in a novel. The whole enterprise generated enormous profits for its organizer. Profits that, by billions more, exceeded even Fifa’s own predictions, based on the publication’s investigations.
The competition even helped to normalize the divisive and forced cooling intervals, irrespective of actual necessity. This time, there were jeers; next time, indifference will set in. And while Fifa insists it earned no extra income from these dressed-up promotional pauses – at least in how Fox Sports handled them in the United States – it is absolutely guaranteed that the heightened value for television networks will feature prominently in future broadcasting deals.
The enlarged 48-nation format functioned adequately, since the weakest sides were, for the most part, not those making their first appearance. So smoothly, in truth, that an additional swelling to 64 participants is now, in an increasing number of circles occupied by sports administrators, apparently being discussed less as a radical proposal from outsiders and more as a sensible, almost inevitable progression.
Ultimately, everything fell into place. Everything played out according to plan.
This thoroughly American-influenced World Cup borrowed heavily from the United States – the ticking clocks; the interval spectacle; the winner’s rings; the extended breaks for adverts; the boxing announcer’s gravelly call to action; the failure to kick off either half of the final punctually; the surge pricing; and more.
But what did it offer in return? What enduring trace did it leave?
Not so very long ago, Fifa still maintained that the World Cup was a vehicle for growing the sport, venturing into fresh territories, preaching the game in developing regions. Will a drab and ill-tempered final generate enough lingering impact to sustain any real momentum? Will we even recall it in several years’ time? What state will soccer be in across North America now that everything has concluded?
This question has three facets. Mexico staged the event for a third time and can look back with broad contentment. El Tri at last reached the much-coveted fifth fixture, yet still found themselves stuck at the same hurdle – the round of 16 – that had halted them at every tournament between 1994 and 2018.
Canada, with the greatest stake as a first-time host, reached new competitive peaks even as they were emphatically beaten 3-0 by Morocco, and still came away proud of their performances. The nation had, after all, thrown a sequence of memorable celebrations that visitors will recount for years.
And what about the United States? The tournament’s lasting influence here may prove complex. The matches were elitist and out of reach for many. And Fifa designed the setup so that every cent of its vast earnings would first travel back to Switzerland. There will be no residual fund from the event for domestic organizers to plough back into the sport at various levels, as happened in 1994. The US Soccer Federation was largely sidelined, left to tinker on the periphery in the hope of achieving something truly lasting and significant at the grassroots.
Were new supporters created? Probably not too many within the stadiums, since it is hard to imagine large numbers of people spending thousands of dollars on a whim, simply to see if they might enjoy a pastime they are only just discovering. Television audience figures certainly imply that many fresh eyes were drawn in, but did they fall in love with the game? Only time will tell.
Sign up to Soccer Desk: World Cup Edition
Jonathan Wilson and a team of expert reporters deliver in-depth analysis and coverage of the biggest soccer stories.
World Cup 2026 in 90 seconds: a photo animation with audio
In any event, soccer was not, and is not, suffering from a popularity deficit in the United States. It was already climbing rapidly. Any newcomers would naturally be embraced. Yet the world’s game had already firmly woven itself into the fabric of American life.
What soccer in the US faces is an accessibility problem. Access to grassroots youth play that hasn’t been swallowed by the ultra-commercialized, pay-to-play travel circuit. Access, for those with actual ability and drive, to suitable coaching at the right ages, where growth is valued above results. Access to pitches, kit, open air, and the simple joy of a kickabout.
Will this World Cup do anything to address those problems?
From Fifa’s standpoint, this tournament delivered a validation. That it can enlarge without consequence. That it can impose extortionate ticket prices, and be lavishly rewarded for doing so. That it will face no repercussions for every extra contrivance, distortion, and gaudy addition it dreams up.
By the very same logic that allowed Gianni Infantino to orchestrate a 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, a return to American soil for 2038 looks highly plausible. There is chatter, too, about mounting the Fifa Club World Cup in the US once more in 2029, just as it will be in 2025. A co-hosted 2031 Women’s World Cup here is practically settled.
That, when all is assessed, might be what Fifa has constructed here: an outpost.
-
Leander Schaerlaeckens is the author of The Long Game: U.S. Men’s Soccer and Its Savage, Four-Decade Journey to the Top, or Thereabouts, which is out now. He teaches at Marist University.
There is absolutely no obligation to give credit to Fifa.
What must be recognized, though, is that the 2026 World Cup achieved every objective it set out to accomplish. The matches were intriguing, closely fought, and full of tension, even if the overall quality was often unremarkable – though that is rarely essential for a captivating sporting spectacle. Crowds turned up in colossal figures. There were memorable moments and myth-making; shocks from the underdogs; uplifting narratives that would have seemed clichéd in a novel. The whole enterprise generated enormous profits for its organizer. Profits that, by billions more, exceeded even Fifa’s own predictions, according to the publication’s investigations.
The competition even helped to normalize the divisive and forced cooling intervals, irrespective of actual necessity. This time, there were jeers; next time, indifference will set in. And while Fifa insists it earned no extra income from these dressed-up promotional pauses – at least in how Fox Sports handled them in the United States – it is absolutely guaranteed that the heightened value for television networks will feature prominently in future broadcasting deals.
The enlarged 48-nation format functioned adequately, since the weakest sides were, for the most part, not those making their first appearance. So smoothly, in truth, that an additional swelling to 64 participants is now, in an increasing number of circles occupied by sports administrators, apparently being discussed less as a radical proposal from outsiders and more as a sensible, almost inevitable progression.
Ultimately, everything fell into place. Everything played out according to plan.
This thoroughly American-influenced World Cup borrowed heavily from the United States – the ticking clocks; the interval spectacle; the winner’s rings; the extended breaks for adverts; the boxing announcer’s gravelly call to action; the failure to kick off either half of the final punctually; the surge pricing; and more.
But what did it offer in return? What enduring trace did it leave?
Not so very long ago, Fifa still maintained that the World Cup was a vehicle for growing the sport, venturing into fresh territories, preaching the game in developing regions. Will a drab and ill-tempered final generate enough lingering impact to sustain any real momentum? Will we even recall it in several years’ time? What state will soccer be in across North America now that everything has concluded?
This question has three facets. Mexico staged the event for a third time and can look back with broad contentment. El Tri at last reached the much-coveted fifth fixture, yet still found themselves stuck at the same hurdle – the round of 16 – that had halted them at every tournament between 1994 and 2018.
Canada, with the greatest stake as a first-time host, reached new competitive peaks even as they were emphatically beaten 3-0 by Morocco, and still came away proud of their performances. The nation had, after all, thrown a sequence of memorable celebrations that visitors will recount for years.
And what about the United States? The tournament’s lasting influence here may prove complex. The matches were elitist and out of reach for many. And Fifa designed the setup so that every cent of its vast earnings would first travel back to Switzerland. There will be no residual fund from the event for domestic organizers to plough back into the sport at various levels, as happened in 1994. The US Soccer Federation was largely sidelined, left to tinker on the periphery in the hope of achieving something truly lasting and significant at the grassroots.
Were new supporters created? Probably not too many within the stadiums, since it is hard to imagine large numbers of people spending thousands of dollars on a whim, simply to see if they might enjoy a pastime they are only just discovering. Television audience figures certainly imply that many fresh eyes were drawn in, but did they fall in love with the game? Only time will tell.
Sign up to Soccer Desk: World Cup Edition
Jonathan Wilson and a team of expert reporters deliver in-depth analysis and coverage of the biggest soccer stories.
World Cup 2026 in 90 seconds: a photo animation with audio
In any event, soccer was not, and is not, suffering from a popularity deficit in the United States. It was already climbing rapidly. Any newcomers would naturally be embraced. Yet the world’s game had already firmly woven itself into the fabric of American life.
What soccer in the US faces is an accessibility problem. Access to grassroots youth play that hasn’t been swallowed by the ultra-commercialized, pay-to-play travel circuit. Access, for those with actual ability and drive, to suitable coaching at the right ages, where growth is valued above results. Access to pitches, kit, open air, and the simple joy of a kickabout.
Will this World Cup do anything to address those problems?
From Fifa’s standpoint, this tournament delivered a validation. That it can enlarge without consequence. That it can impose extortionate ticket prices, and be lavishly rewarded for doing so. That it will face no repercussions for every extra contrivance, distortion, and gaudy addition it dreams up.
By the very same logic that allowed Gianni Infantino to orchestrate a 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, a return to American soil for 2038 looks highly plausible. There is chatter, too, about mounting the Fifa Club World Cup in the US once more in 2029, just as it will be in 2025. A co-hosted 2031 Women’s World Cup here is practically settled.
That, when all is assessed, might be what Fifa has constructed here: an outpost.
-
Leander Schaerlaeckens is the author of The Long Game: U.S. Men’s Soccer and Its Savage, Four-Decade Journey to the Top, or Thereabouts, which is out now. He teaches at Marist University.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
