No, because World Cup host cities never make money — at least not directly.The difference this time is that some American cities are raising a fuss about it.Previous World Cup hosts, such as Russia and Qatar, were perfectly happy to spend loads of money to stage the tournament. They saw it not as a loss, but as an investment. They spent billions on stadiums and infrastructure because they felt the World Cup would bring prestige and intangible geopolitical and long-term economic benefits.In North America, FIFA is dealing with businesspeople and democratically-elected local officials. Some of them see indirect benefits but aren’t willing to write blank checks or offer unlimited taxpayer money. This push-and-pull has been a main source of the 2026 World Cup’s messiness.The cities all signed contracts promising FIFA all sorts of facilities and services. Each will spend upwards of $100million (£74m) to accommodate the World Cup, multiple people familiar with their budgets have told The Athletic.Many are determined to balance those budgets, but that’s proven difficult. To help, FIFA designed a “host city supporters program” that essentially allows each city to sign up local sponsors. The problem: FIFA hasn’t given the cities many assets to sell to sponsors. And it won’t let them sign deals with companies in industries where FIFA already has its own sponsor, such as McDonald’s or Coca-Cola. Food chains, drinks, sportswear brands, cars, airlines and more than a dozen other types of potential “host city supporters” are off the table.Some cities have access to public funds, but others are struggling. The U.S. federal government allocated $625m in total to the 11 American cities specifically to cover security costs, but those grants haven’t relieved all financial pressures. Some cities have pulled back from plans for fan festivals, in part because those carry significant costs.FIFA argues that the World Cup is a worthwhile investment for all these cities because it brings tourists, their dollars and a global spotlight.In Kansas City, for example, “there is a united, collective belief that this could be transformational for the way people think about Kansas City,” host committee CEO Pam Kramer said, “and for the confidence we have in ourselves.”Bigger cities, though, don’t need FIFA’s spotlight. And many economists doubt the grand prophecies that this World Cup will deliver billions of dollars in vague “economic impact.”