Record prices, costly travel and resale fees turn football’s showpiece into a financial ordeal

The 2026 World Cup has opened as the largest tournament in football history, but its most dramatic contest may be taking place away from the pitch.

Across the United States, Canada and Mexico, supporters are confronting ticket prices, transport charges and resale fees that have transformed the competition into a vast economic experiment. At the same time, the three co-hosts are reviewing the USMCA trade agreement while managing serious political tensions of their own.

The geopolitical backdrop is extraordinary. The United States remains in conflict with Iran, whose national team is based in Mexico and must travel to America for its matches. President Donald Trump has pushed for an end to renewed attacks involving Iran and Israel, while the tournament unfolds under the shadow of a wider energy and economic shock.

Yet the pressure facing ordinary fans is more immediate.

The expanded World Cup features 48 teams and 104 matches across 16 host locations. Most United States fixtures are taking place in existing NFL stadiums, allowing organisers to avoid the enormous construction programmes associated with previous tournaments.

That asset-light approach does not mean the event is cheap. Instead of taxpayers carrying the main burden of building new stadiums, many costs are falling directly on attendees.

Tickets for attractive group matches have climbed towards $1,000, while seats for the final have reached five-figure sums on official sales and resale channels. Even lower-demand matches can cost several hundred dollars.

Transport has added another shock. A return train journey from New York to the New Jersey stadium, normally priced at $12.90, rose to $98 after an earlier proposal of $150. The Boston match-day train costs $80, while official parking charges at some venues have reached as much as $225.

FIFA’s ticketing system has intensified the controversy. Prices can rise or fall according to demand, bringing the revenue-focused model of American professional sport into the World Cup on an unprecedented scale.

Supporters can also resell tickets through FIFA’s official marketplace. In most markets, sellers may set prices without an upper limit, while FIFA charges a 15% fee to both the buyer and seller. Mexico and Ontario have restrictions preventing tickets for their matches from being resold above the original price.

FIFA argues that the higher income will support football development around the world. It has also introduced a limited Supporter Entry Tier, offering $60 tickets through the national associations of qualified teams for every match, including the final.

The potential income is enormous. FIFA generated $929 million from ticket sales and hospitality rights at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Richard Sheehan, a finance professor at the University of Notre Dame, has estimated that the 2026 total could exceed $7 billion.

Host cities may not share equally in that bonanza. Unlike the organisers of the 1994 tournament in the United States, cities do not receive the soaring ticket revenue directly. Stadiums have largely been rented for fixed sums, while local authorities face substantial security and transport costs.

That imbalance has prompted investigations and complaints about ticketing practices. It has also raised fears that high prices could damage the atmosphere inside stadiums by excluding many traditional travelling supporters.

The tournament increasingly reflects a K-shaped economy, where wealthy consumers continue spending while lower-income households fall further behind. Dynamic pricing searches for customers willing to pay the most, turning what was once a mass sporting experience into a luxury purchase for some supporters.

FIFA is betting that demand, global television audiences and premium spending will justify the model. The danger is that football’s richest World Cup becomes one of its least accessible.

For millions watching from home, the tournament will still offer drama and escape. For those trying to enter the stadiums, however, the true contest may be surviving the bill.