Frank Cooper, CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) of the credit card company Visa, stated in a press release that it was “one of the tournaments with the greatest impact ever, both on and off the field.” In contrast, Alexander Bouzier, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, predicted in an interview with the BBC that “the economic impact of hosting the tournament will not last for the long term.”
According to Bank of America (BofA), the United States saw the largest boost in consumer spending, reaping an economic impact of $20 billion. This represents half of the total economic impact of $40 billion and exceeded the forecast of $17 billion. Consumption growth rates reached 5–7% for apparel and general merchandise and the 10% range for air travel and leisure.
Nike more than doubled its jersey sales compared to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Among the 11 U.S. host cities, Kansas City saw the sharpest surge in credit card spending and hotel room rates. Airport passenger traffic also set a new all-time daily record. Beer sales increased by 14% compared to the previous year. In particular, sales in Boston, Massachusetts, saw the sharpest rise among U.S. host cities. New York hotels achieved room revenue close to their $300 million target as guests flocked to the city before and after the final.
In its report, Visa noted, “The number of credit card transactions by foreign visitors in U.S. host cities increased by approximately 20% during the tournament,” and assessed this as “a prime example of the ‘pop-up economy’ generated by global events.”
While Canada and Mexico enjoyed a short-term boom as visitors flocked to fan festivals held during the tournament, they did not achieve significant returns relative to their investment. Canada, which hosted 13 matches in Toronto and Vancouver, saw tourist spending rise 34% year-over-year, with over 1 million people flocking to the fan festivals held during the tournament. However, revenue generated by hosting the tournament totaled only $150 million to $200 million—representing just 15% to 20% of the total $1 billion cost of hosting the event.
There are also expectations that Vancouver will be able to shake off its “no-fun city” image through this tournament. A survey conducted in Toronto during the tournament found that 9 out of 10 respondents expressed an intention to return for travel within two years. “Destination Vancouver,” the Vancouver-area convention bureau, reportedly saw a 125% year-over-year increase in the number of corporate and international conferences secured as a result of hosting the World Cup, and has already achieved 85% of its 2028 target.
In Mexico, where 13 matches were held across three cities—Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey—the government, academia, and the industry have differing views on the number of foreign visitors. The government estimates that foreign visitor numbers increased by approximately 3 million during the tournament, while academia and the industry estimate the increase to be around 175,000.
This discrepancy stems from the fact that airport passenger traffic and hotel occupancy rates actually declined during the tournament. In fact, passenger traffic at Mexico City International Airport fell by 10–15% compared to the previous year, hitting its lowest level in the past three years. Hotel occupancy rates in all three cities also remained in the mid-to-high 50% range, down 2–7% from the previous year.
The Services and Tourism Federation, affiliated with the Mexican Chamber of Commerce, estimated the economic impact of hosting the World Cup at approximately $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion. Bloomberg and other outlets noted, “Although visitor numbers and room sales declined, short-term revenue increased significantly due to factors such as room rates that rose by more than 40% compared to the previous year.”
