World Cup Host Cities Report Hotel Bookings Far Below Projections

The 2026 FIFA World Cup — the largest in history, with 48 teams playing across the United States, Canada, and Mexico from June 11 to July 19 — was supposed to be a bonanza for the hospitality industry. More than 5 million tickets have been sold [1]. FIFA projects $11 billion in tournament profits [3]. Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, forecast a 1.6% increase in average daily hotel rates and improved occupancy across host markets during tournament months [2].

Six weeks before kickoff, the numbers tell a different story. A survey of 205 hotel operators and owners released by the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) on May 4 found that nearly 80% of respondents reported bookings running below their initial projections [1][2]. In several cities, hoteliers described the tournament as a "non-event" [2].

"Despite more than 5 million tickets sold, this demand has not yet translated into strong hotel bookings," the AHLA report stated [1].

The City-by-City Picture

The shortfall is not uniform. Performance varies sharply across the 11 U.S. host cities, with a few bright spots and several markets where the gap between projection and reality has grown wide.

Source: AHLA FIFA World Cup 2026 Hotel Outlook Report

Data as of May 4, 2026CSV

Kansas City is the worst performer. Between 85% and 90% of surveyed hoteliers there reported booking pace below expectations [1][2]. This is striking given that Kathy Nelson, CEO of Visit KC and the Kansas City Sports Commission, has maintained her projection of 650,000 visitors during the tournament [1].

Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle follow closely behind, with roughly 80% of respondents in each market reporting pace below expectations — and many describing bookings as behind a typical summer, let alone a World Cup summer [2][4].

Los Angeles and New York are performing closer to seasonal norms, with bookings roughly in line with a typical summer but not showing the mega-event premium that forecasters anticipated [2]. Houston and Dallas sit in the middle, with approximately 70-72% of hoteliers reporting underperformance [4].

The exceptions are Miami and Atlanta. Around 55% of Miami hoteliers reported bookings ahead of expectations, with some properties running "over 100% what they were this time last year" for select match dates [2]. In Atlanta, about 50% of respondents reported bookings at or above projections, driven by strong air connectivity and confirmed team base camps [1][2].

Who Made the Forecasts — and How

The original demand projections came from several sources. Tourism Economics produced two key reports for the tournament — one analyzing expected hotel sector trends in RevPAR (revenue per available room), ADR (average daily rate), and occupancy, and another quantifying international visitor volume and spending impact [5]. Their methodology incorporated match schedules, hotel market capacity, air travel forecasts, and historical mega-event data [5].

FIFA commissioned its own socioeconomic impact analysis, which projected a $47 billion total U.S. economic impact from the tournament [3]. Victor Matheson, an economics professor who has studied mega-event economics extensively, called that figure "insanity," noting it implies roughly "$400 million per game or $5,000 to $7,000 per fan" [3].

Additional forecasts came from Data Appeal and Mabrian (in collaboration with PredictHQ), which combined global flight search behavior, air connectivity, OTA-based hotel pricing, and predicted event-related spending [5]. Micronomics produced a city-level economic impact report for Los Angeles that projected significant local gains [5].

A persistent criticism from economists is that these studies were funded by parties with a vested interest in optimistic numbers — host city organizing committees, FIFA itself, and tourism promotion agencies — creating an inherent bias toward inflated projections [3][6].

What Went Wrong: Three Competing Explanations

Visa barriers and geopolitical headwinds

The most-cited factor among hoteliers is the suppression of international demand. Between 65% and 70% of AHLA survey respondents said visa barriers and broader geopolitical concerns were significantly limiting bookings from international travelers [1][4]. The AHLA noted "a perception that international travelers may face lengthy visa wait times, increased visa fees, and lingering uncertainty around entry processing" [1].

Domestic travelers are outpacing international visitors in booking activity — a reversal of typical World Cup patterns where the host country draws large contingents of fans from qualifying nations [4]. This shift partly reflects tighter immigration policies under the current U.S. administration, which have generated negative publicity in key soccer markets [1].

Price gouging across the travel chain

The cost of attending the 2026 World Cup has escalated at every touchpoint. General admission tickets start at $21 but are scarce at that price; final match tickets reach $10,990 — nearly seven times the $1,600 ceiling at the 2022 Qatar World Cup [7].

Transportation costs have spiked in parallel. A roundtrip train ticket from New York City to MetLife Stadium in New Jersey costs $150, up from a typical $12.90 fare [7]. Shuttle buses run $80-$95, and stadium parking starts at $125 in Kansas City — double NFL game rates [7]. In Mexico, hotel rates in Guadalajara have increased by over 330%, and Monterrey by more than 200% [8].

Several host jurisdictions have imposed temporary lodging tax surcharges: Toronto raised its Municipal Accommodation Tax from 6% to 8.5%, Vancouver added a 2.5% Major Events tax, and New Jersey proposed a 2.5% hotel surcharge during the tournament [7]. Nearly 70 members of Congress expressed "great concern" about rising costs and their impact on fan access [7].

FIFA room block collapse

A structural factor compounding the problem: FIFA initially secured massive group room blocks across host cities, creating an early demand signal that inflated booking projections. Those blocks have since collapsed. Roughly half of AHLA survey respondents reported material room block releases, with many hoteliers indicating that early booking signals "overstated true demand" [2][4].

In Vancouver alone, FIFA released approximately 15,000 rooms per night back into the open market [8]. Hotels that had counted on guaranteed payouts from these blocks are now scrambling to fill rooms at the eleventh hour, competing against each other and against a flood of short-term rental inventory.

The Historical Benchmark: Are Low Early Bookings Normal?

The steelman case against panic is that World Cup hotel demand has historically skewed toward late bookings and walk-up travel. Only 25% to 30% of AHLA respondents reported meaningful incremental demand at this stage, but proponents of patience argue this is consistent with past tournaments [2].

Wyndham Hotels CEO Geoffrey Ballotti offered a measured perspective: "We're expecting a stronger July...already seeing our hotels within 20 miles pacing considerably ahead" of the prior year [2].

However, direct comparisons to past World Cups are complicated by the 2026 tournament's unique structure — 48 teams (up from 32), 16 host cities across three countries, and 104 matches spread over 39 days. No prior tournament has attempted this geographic dispersion, making historical booking curves an unreliable guide.

Source: Multiple sources / Academic research

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

Past World Cups also illustrate the wide gap between host-country spending and tourism revenue. Brazil spent $15 billion hosting the 2014 tournament and generated roughly $3 billion in visitor spending. Russia invested over $11 billion for 2018 and saw approximately $1.5 billion in returns. Qatar's 2022 World Cup cost an estimated $220 billion, with tourism revenue of $2.3 to $4.1 billion [6][9]. Twelve of the last 14 World Cups since 1966 have produced financial losses for host countries, with the three most recent averaging a negative 31% return on investment [6][10].

Who Bears the Financial Risk

Hotels and short-term rentals

Independent hotel owners face the steepest immediate exposure. Properties that raised rates aggressively based on FIFA-era projections now risk vacancy during what should be peak season. The AHLA data suggests that hotels in mid-tier cities like Kansas City and Philadelphia — markets without the baseline leisure demand of Miami or New York — are most vulnerable [2].

Short-term rental hosts are in a similar bind. Despite early projections from Airbnb and Deloitte suggesting record rental revenue — with each of 382,000 expected Airbnb guests spending an average of $122 per night on lodging — reports indicate bookings have disappointed hosts who listed properties at elevated World Cup rates [11][12]. Some luxury listings in New Jersey are priced at $6,000 per night, but demand at those price points appears thin [12].

Oppenheimer nonetheless upgraded Airbnb to "Outperform" in early May, arguing that the combination of soft hotel bookings and released FIFA room blocks could redirect budget-conscious fans toward short-term rentals — a potential positive for platforms like Airbnb even as it compounds hotel losses [13].

Taxpayers and host-city governments

The 11 U.S. host cities collectively committed to roughly $625 million in public investment for the tournament, including a $65 million federal allocation to Houston for security [3]. Each city faces an estimated $100 to $200 million in costs for infrastructure, security, and logistics [3][10].

Cities receive no revenue from ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, or parking — all of which flow to FIFA and its commercial partners [3]. On top of that, FIFA's standard host-city agreements require sales tax exemptions on World Cup tickets, costing Missouri an estimated $1.9 million per game ($11 million total for Kansas City's six matches), Florida $7.4 million, and Georgia up to $25 million [10].

The contractual picture is murky. Most host-city agreements remain classified as "commercially sensitive," and Texas's attorney general required Houston and Dallas to release their contracts with financial figures redacted [3]. The nonprofit organizing committees that manage tournament operations in each city are exempt from public disclosure laws, creating a transparency gap around who is responsible if costs exceed budgets [3].

After funding 40 major sporting events since 2015 through its Events Trust Fund, Texas officials have consistently reported that "neither a positive nor negative impact is determinable" from the public investment [3].

New Jersey has already spent $37.5 million retrofitting MetLife Stadium for soccer and expects to absorb $65 million in costs for transit security across hubs, bridges, tunnels, and airports [3].

The Broader Pattern: Mega-Event Tourism Fatigue

Academic research on mega-event economics provides context for the 2026 shortfall. A peer-reviewed study published in Tourism Management identified a potential "peak event" phenomenon — the point at which the Olympic Games and World Cup have reached their maximum viable size, with diminishing returns for host nations [14].

The research documents a consistent pattern: mega-events trigger a temporary rise in international arrivals followed by a subsequent decline, driven by rising prices, infrastructure saturation, and a "crowding-out effect" in which regular tourists avoid the destination during the event [6][14]. The Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics created only 7,000 temporary jobs — 10% of the 70,000 projected — while local retailers lost $167 million despite $70 million in tourism earnings [6].

The 2026 World Cup occurs against a backdrop of declining international arrivals to the United States more broadly. The U.S. hospitality sector has seen softening inbound travel even as global tourism has rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, suggesting country-specific factors beyond the World Cup are at play [15].

Implications for Future Mega-Event Hosting

If the hotel booking shortfall persists through kickoff, it will intensify scrutiny of the joint U.S.-Canada-Mexico bid model. The geographic dispersion of the 2026 tournament — 16 cities across three countries and four time zones — was marketed as a strength, using existing stadiums and infrastructure rather than building from scratch. But that same dispersion dilutes the concentration of fan spending that smaller, purpose-built host setups (like Qatar's eight stadiums within a 35-mile radius) can capture.

The counterargument is that using existing venues and infrastructure dramatically reduces the risk of white-elephant stadiums — the empty, decaying arenas that have plagued past hosts from Brazil to South Africa [9]. If the 2026 model produces modest hotel losses but avoids billions in stranded construction costs, the net outcome may still compare favorably to predecessors.

The reputational stakes are significant. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has positioned the expanded 48-team format and multi-nation hosting model as the future of the tournament. A material revenue shortfall would strengthen the hand of critics who argue that mega-events should return to smaller, centralized formats — or that FIFA's revenue projections systematically overstate the benefits to host communities while obscuring the costs [3][6].

What Happens Next

With six weeks until the opening match, the window for a late booking surge remains open. Historically, a significant share of World Cup attendance materializes in the final weeks before the tournament, particularly once the group-stage draw clarifies matchups and travel demand [2]. The AHLA data represents a snapshot, not a final verdict.

But the structural factors — visa friction, price escalation, and the sheer geographic spread of this tournament — are unlikely to reverse in six weeks. Hotels in underperforming markets face a binary outcome: either late demand materializes and vindicates the wait, or they absorb losses on rooms priced for a boom that did not arrive. For taxpayers who backstopped $625 million in public investment based on the same forecasts, the stakes extend well beyond the hotel industry.