New York and New Jersey Subpoena FIFA Over 2026 World Cup Ticket Pricing Practices

On May 27, 2026, New York Attorney General Letitia James and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport announced they had subpoenaed FIFA — the governing body of world soccer — demanding internal records about how it priced and sold tickets for the 2026 World Cup at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey [1]. The stadium, temporarily rebranded as New York New Jersey Stadium for the tournament, will host eight matches, including the World Cup final on July 19. The cheapest resale ticket for that final was listed at $9,200 on FIFA's own platform. The most expensive: $11,499,998.55 [2].

The subpoenas mark an escalation in a months-long confrontation between fans, lawmakers, and FIFA over what the attorneys general called a "gauntlet of confusion, fake scarcity and impossibly high prices" [3]. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has separately requested information about ticketing at SoFi Stadium and Levi's Stadium [4], while 68 members of Congress sent a letter to FIFA president Gianni Infantino in March criticizing the scarcity of affordable tickets [5]. Football Supporters Europe and Euroconsumers have also filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission [6].

What the Subpoenas Seek

The joint investigation, which includes support from the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, targets two distinct categories of alleged misconduct [1].

Dynamic pricing and price escalation. This is the first World Cup in which FIFA has used dynamic pricing — a model borrowed from the airline industry in which ticket costs fluctuate in real time based on demand [7]. Between October 2025 and April 2026, FIFA raised prices for more than 90 of the 104 tournament matches, with costs across the three main ticket categories rising by an average of 34% [1]. The top face-value ticket for the final started at $10,990 and eventually tripled to $32,970 [8].

Misleading seat maps. When ticket sales began, FIFA divided MetLife Stadium into four categories, with Category 1 representing the best seats closest to the field. After many fans had already purchased tickets, FIFA created new "Front Category" zones within each existing tier and sold those premium seats at higher prices. Buyers who had already paid for Category 1 reported being assigned seats further from the field or behind the goals — effectively a downgrade they never agreed to [1][9]. Some Category 1 purchasers were reassigned to Category 2 locations [7].

FIFA has stated that its original stadium maps "were designed to provide guidance rather than the exact seat layout" and that maps "evolved as fan sections and stadium layouts were finalized" [9].

Source: NY/NJ Attorneys General

Data as of May 27, 2026CSV

A Price History That Defies Inflation

The 2026 ticket prices are not merely expensive by historical standards — they represent a structural break from two decades of gradual increases. Category 1 tickets for the World Cup final cost $700 in Germany in 2006 and rose incrementally through South Africa ($900 in 2010), Brazil ($990 in 2014), and Russia ($1,100 in 2018) [10]. In Qatar in 2022, the same tier cost $1,607 — a 46% jump from 2018 that drew criticism at the time [10].

The 2026 final's initial Category 1 price of $10,990 represents a 584% increase over Qatar [8]. Adjusted for cumulative U.S. inflation of roughly 3.8% annually over the period, the real increase remains staggering [11].

Source: ESPN, FIFA

Data as of May 27, 2026CSV

At the group-stage level, the cheapest tickets at the five World Cups between 2006 and 2022 averaged roughly $20–$40 for residents of the host country. In 2026, the cheapest tickets to group-stage matches not involving the United States, Canada, or Mexico started at $120 to $265 [2]. That represents approximately a sixfold increase over the 2006–2022 average [12].

For context, the face value of a Super Bowl ticket starts at $950, though those are distributed through the NFL to teams and season-ticket holders [13]. The average secondary-market price for the 2026 Super Bowl at Levi's Stadium was roughly $4,000 to $6,000 [13]. The World Cup final's average ticket price of $12,500 exceeds those figures by a wide margin — for a sport with a far smaller domestic fan base in the United States [8].

Who Gets Through the Door

The pricing structure intersects with an allocation system that limits public access before a single ticket reaches the secondary market.

FIFA allocated approximately 1 million tickets to hospitality packages for the 2026 tournament, managed by On Location, which replaced FIFA's previous hospitality partner, MATCH Hospitality [14]. For knockout-stage matches, up to 35% of seats are reserved for corporate hospitality buyers [14]. Additional allocations go to national football federations, FIFA sponsors, and broadcast partners.

The $60 "Supporter Entry Tier" tickets that FIFA introduced in response to backlash were made available in limited quantities — members of Congress noted these represented just 1% to 2% of total inventory [5]. The original bid by U.S. Soccer officials seven years ago had promised hundreds of thousands of $21 tickets across the group stage [12]. That promise was never fulfilled.

The net effect is that ordinary fans face a double barrier: a small allocation of affordable tickets, followed by dynamic pricing on the remainder that pushes costs upward as demand builds.

FIFA's Defense: Market Rates for a Market Economy

FIFA and its president have offered a consistent rationale: the United States is the world's most developed entertainment market, and FIFA must price accordingly.

"We have to look at the market," Infantino said in May. "We are in the market in which entertainment is the most developed in the world. So we have to apply market rates." He argued that "you cannot go to watch in the U.S. a college game, not even speaking about a top professional game of a certain level, for less than $300" [12].

When confronted with reports of a single resale ticket listed at nearly $2.3 million, Infantino was dismissive: "If some people put on the resale market, some tickets for the final at $2 million, number one, it doesn't mean that the tickets cost $2 million." He added that if anyone did pay that price, "I will personally bring a hot dog and a Coke" [12].

FIFA has also emphasized its nonprofit status, arguing that "unlike the entities behind profit-driven third-party ticket marketplaces, FIFA is a not-for-profit organization" and that "revenue generated from the FIFA World Cup every four years is reinvested to support the development of men's, women's and youth football across all FIFA 211 member associations" [12].

There is a commercially coherent version of this argument. The 2026 World Cup is the largest ever, expanded from 32 to 48 teams with 104 matches across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and is projected to generate a record $10.9 billion in revenue [15]. FIFA says it received more than 500 million ticket requests, compared to fewer than 50 million combined for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments [12]. Premium pricing for a scarce asset in a market where fans routinely pay thousands for NFL playoff tickets and Broadway shows is not inherently predatory. Consumer protection law was not designed to set price ceilings for discretionary entertainment.

But this defense has limits. FIFA is not a private entertainment company competing in an open market — it is a monopoly provider of access to the only World Cup in existence. There is no substitute product. And the allegations under investigation are not about high prices alone but about whether fans were misled about what they were buying.

Who Gets Priced Out

The pricing has measurable effects on who can attend.

In Kansas City, which will host six matches at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, the cheapest remaining tickets as of late May were $380 [15]. A family of four attending a single group-stage match would spend a minimum of $1,520 on tickets alone — before travel, food, or accommodations. For a household earning the U.S. median income of approximately $80,000, that represents nearly 2% of pre-tax annual income on a single sporting event.

International travelers face even steeper barriers. The American Hotel & Lodging Association reported in early May that close to 80% of survey respondents across U.S. host cities said hotel bookings were tracking below initial expectations [2]. International visitors — who spend more per trip than domestic fans and are more valuable to local economies — appear to be deterred by the combined cost of tickets, flights, and accommodations [2].

Pep Guardiola, the Manchester City manager, offered a blunt assessment. The World Cup, he said, was once "a celebration of the joy of football" that remained "affordable" for fans globally [12]. That characterization no longer applies.

Football Supporters Europe described FIFA's pricing strategy as a "monumental betrayal" [15], and the group's complaint to the European Commission specifically alleges that FIFA withheld material information — including ticket availability data, seat allocation details, and category boundaries — from consumers during the purchasing process [6].

Legal Authority and Jurisdictional Questions

A central question is whether New York and New Jersey can compel FIFA, headquartered in Zurich, to produce records about a global event.

The attorneys general are acting under state consumer protection statutes — New York's Executive Law §63(12) and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act — which grant broad investigatory powers over entities conducting business within their borders [1][4]. FIFA is selling tickets for events taking place in New Jersey and marketing them to residents of both states. That commercial activity within state borders is generally sufficient to establish jurisdiction for a consumer protection investigation.

The precedent from the 2015 FIFA corruption prosecution is instructive. In that case, the U.S. Department of Justice established federal jurisdiction over a Swiss nonprofit on the basis that money flowed through U.S. banks and that relevant conduct occurred on U.S. soil [16]. State attorneys general operate under different statutes, but the core principle — that conducting business within a jurisdiction subjects you to that jurisdiction's laws — applies.

FIFA has not publicly raised jurisdictional objections to the subpoenas as of May 28 and declined to comment to ESPN on the investigation [7].

What Remedies Are Realistic

Even if the investigation finds violations, the timeline creates a fundamental constraint. The World Cup begins on June 11, 2026 — approximately two weeks after the subpoenas were issued. The final is July 19.

Pre-tournament injunctive relief — a court order requiring FIFA to change its pricing or seat assignments before matches begin — would require the attorneys general to file a lawsuit, seek emergency relief, and persuade a judge to act within days. Courts are generally reluctant to issue injunctions that would disrupt a major international event absent extraordinary circumstances, and FIFA would almost certainly argue that any order would cause irreparable logistical harm [6].

Post-event remedies are more likely. These could include:

• Disgorgement of revenue: Requiring FIFA to return profits attributable to deceptive practices
• Civil penalties: Fines under state consumer fraud statutes, which in New York can reach $5,000 per violation — potentially significant when multiplied across hundreds of thousands of transactions
• Restitution: Direct refunds or credits to consumers who were assigned seats different from what they purchased
• Injunctive relief for future events: Court orders governing how FIFA conducts ticket sales in these states going forward

A private class-action lawsuit is also in its early stages. Migliaccio & Rathod LLP opened a formal investigation on April 9, 2026, and is collecting information from affected fans, though no lawsuit has been filed in court [6].

The Gap Between Promise and Practice

The distance between FIFA's original commitments and the current pricing structure is the thread connecting fan outrage, legislative pressure, and now legal action.

When the United States, Canada, and Mexico won the hosting bid in 2018, U.S. Soccer officials projected hundreds of thousands of tickets at $21 — a price point designed to make the tournament accessible to casual fans and families [12]. That figure was part of the public case for bringing the World Cup to North America.

By the time tickets went on sale in late 2025, the $21 tier had vanished entirely. The cheapest tickets in the initial release started at $120. FIFA later introduced a limited $60 "Supporter Entry Tier" in response to global backlash, but these were restricted to loyal fans of participating teams and numbered in the hundreds per match rather than the thousands [12].

What changed between the bid and the sale is the central question the subpoenas aim to answer. The attorneys general are seeking internal FIFA documents about how the ticketing strategy was developed, what role sponsor agreements played, and whether FIFA's public statements about affordability were consistent with its internal plans [1].

Source: FRED / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

The Broader Pattern

The 2026 ticket controversy is the latest chapter in a longer story about FIFA's relationship with the fans whose passion generates its revenue.

FIFA's projected $10.9 billion in revenue from the 2026 cycle [15] would be a record. The organization collects a 30% cut — 15% from the buyer and 15% from the seller — on every transaction through its official resale platform [12]. The higher the resale price, the more FIFA earns. This creates a structural incentive to underprice the initial allocation (generating scarcity) or to set initial prices high enough that resale margins remain large.

Representatives Nellie Pou and Frank Pallone Jr., both New Jersey Democrats, sent a separate letter to Infantino asking him to explain what they called FIFA's "opaque" use of dynamic pricing [5]. The 68-member congressional letter noted that the $60 federation-distributed tickets represented only 1–2% of total supply [5].

Whether any of this constitutes a legal violation — as opposed to aggressive but lawful commercial behavior — is what the investigation will determine. The subpoenas compel the production of documents; they do not presume an outcome. But the political and legal pressure is now coming from multiple directions simultaneously: two state attorneys general, a third state requesting information, 68 members of Congress, a European Commission complaint, and a pending private investigation by a plaintiff's law firm.

FIFA has seven weeks before the opening match. How it responds to the subpoenas — and whether it makes any concessions on pricing or seat assignments before kickoff — will shape both the legal battle and the experience of the millions of fans who will determine whether the most expensive World Cup in history is also remembered as the most exclusionary.