Home World Cup: When 'Glory' Comes with 'Burden'

In March 2026, just under 100 days ahead of the World Cup kickoff, a small Massachusetts town faced an unprecedented choice: Denying FIFA permission to hold 7 matches at Gillette Stadium because $7.8 million in security funding was missing.

Foxborough, a town of 18,000 residents on the outskirts of Boston, had signed a contract with FIFA in 2022. But when implementation time came, a simple question remained unanswered: Who would pay for police and firefighters throughout the 39-day World Cup? The town council calculated that $7.8 million amounted to nearly 10% of their annual operating budget. Normally, when New England Patriots (the stadium tenant) play, Kraft Group, the stadium owner, covers all security costs.

The Boston Soccer 2026 organizing committee, responsible to FIFA, had a total operating budget of $170 million, but at the time of the dispute with Foxborough, it had only $2 million in its account. The dispute dragged on for weeks, drawing involvement from the Massachusetts governor, the Department of Homeland Security, and ultimately Kraft Group had to step in as a guarantor.

The Foxborough story is not unique. It represents a new peculiarity in the context of professional sports events operating under a franchise model – purely commercial. This model allows any country or city to access top-tier event hosting, but behind that "glory" lies a financial burden.

Fortune magazine recently published a striking analysis: FIFA will earn about $8.9 billion from the 2026 World Cup, while the 11 U.S. host cities could face a combined deficit of up to $250 million. This is the first time in World Cup history that FIFA is running the tournament itself rather than through local organizing committees. Fortune describes it as "reverse franchising," and that model means revenue flows to Zurich, while the bills stay with the host cities.

This is not unfamiliar to Vietnam.

In 2009, when Vietnam hosted the 3rd Asian Indoor Games, it was the first continental multi-sport event we hosted, seen as a significant step forward after the 2003 SEA Games.

In reality, the total estimated cost reached 2,100 billion VND (including around 540 billion for constructing the indoor sports palace). However, sponsorship revenue was only 30 billion VND. At that time, we lacked experience in seeking other "non-sport" revenue sources.

In 2016, Da Nang hosted the 5th Asian Beach Games. The event was a success professionally, but sponsorship revenue was only about 25 billion VND, a stark contrast to nearly 400 billion VND spent on organizing (already much lower than initial estimates). Once again, "non-sport" revenue sources were hardly mentioned.

But let's return to the World Cup story. If they bear all the costs, what do cities get? The answer lies in other figures: Houston estimates that hosting World Cup matches is equivalent to 7 Super Bowls over 39 days, generating $1.5 billion in economic impact. Dallas-Fort Worth estimates $2 billion and 3,000 new jobs. Atlanta estimates $1 billion and a national soccer training center that opened just before the tournament began. All of this stems from the global brand that the World Cup places on their map.

Nearly a decade later, when Da Nang planned to host the 9th Asian Beach Games, the picture had changed significantly. The city had its own sports development strategy, substantially upgraded infrastructure, and more importantly, practical experience to understand that the real value of hosting lies not in direct revenue, but in international branding, post-event tourist flows, and accumulated organizational capacity over time.

In the context of Vietnam nurturing ambitions to host the Asian Games and further ahead, the World Cup, the story from Foxborough raises several questions to answer before signing any contract with international professional sports organizations. Have we considered "non-sport" revenue sources or, more importantly, the commercial value that events bring? Even more crucially, can we exploit them when the cost constraints for hosting are almost non-negotiable?

But the most practical question: If we don't host major events, what will we do with the world-class facilities that are being built and will be built?