What to know
- Toronto has invested around $380 million into hosting the FIFA World Cup, with officials estimating benefits including job creation, tourism growth, infrastructure improvements and more than $300 million in GDP impact.
- While the city expects the tournament to leave a lasting legacy through upgraded transit, expanded soccer facilities and community programming, University of Toronto professor Simon Darnell says there is little evidence that mega-events consistently deliver on such promises.
- Darnell argues Toronto will likely see a short-term boost in tourism and business activity, but remains skeptical that hosting the World Cup will help with long-standing issues like traffic, homelessness or access to community spaces and programming.
- According to Darnell, the true measure of the World Cup’s impact will be whether investments continue after the tournament ends, through accessible sports facilities, grassroots programming and community-focused infrastructure improvements, rather than the event itself.
Ahead of the FIFA World Cup, the City of Toronto spent around $380 million on transit and infrastructure upgrades to prepare for increased foot traffic across the city. Officials say the investments will deliver long-term benefits, but one expert is skeptical that the improvements will have a lasting impact beyond the tournament.
How is Toronto expected to benefit according to city officials?
Toronto was initially chosen as one of the 16 host cities of the 2026 World Cup back in June 2022, and as a result, officials projected our city would see multiple benefits from the opportunity. Experts cited an increased GDP, job openings, and tourism as some of the key sources of funding that would support the city during the tournament.
The City of Toronto claimed it would see an estimated $307 million in GDP impact, 3,300 additional jobs created, 174 thousand overnight visitors, as well as bookings for over 292 thousand accommodations. Officials said this had the potential to generate , $3.5 million in revenue.
Since then, the city has put major funding into improving and adding capacity to BMO Field, transforming it into the near 50,000 seat venue, the Toronto Stadium.
Big money also went into improving transit times during games and providing accessible spots to watch the match for residents and visitors.
Where did the funding come from?
The city says the $380 million needed to fund the World Cup is coming from all three levels of government, as well as other sources.
Around 53 per cent of it will be delivered from the federal and provincial governments, including:
- $104,340 million from a signed funding agreement with the federal government, for operational and capital expenses.
- $97 million from the Province of Ontario, part of a conditional agreement with the city. This funding will only be for permanent investments in public infrastructure that will outlast the World Cup.
City funding sources include:
- $79,940 million from the city’s reserve funds, in addition to revenue from overperforming Municipal Accommodation Tax from 2024.
- $56.6 million from a Municipal Accommodation Tax applied to hotels and short-term rentals, temporarily increased by 2.5 per cent from June 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026 by the city
- $34,620 million from commercial rights sales and rental fees
- $7.5 million from other funding, including donations by the FIFA World Cup Champions Table, merchandise sales, music royalties, etc.
Read More
Will the city actually benefit following the legacy of the World Cup?
Despite multiple claims from government officials of long-lasting benefits and infrastructure supporting the city, one expert is still skeptical.
Simon Darnell is a professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto whose research focuses on sport, development and social justice. He told Now Toronto that it’s unlikely the city would actually see benefits on a long-term basis.
“I’m relatively skeptical that either of those things are going to happen for the city of Toronto,” he said. “I don’t think it’s impossible that those things can happen from sports mega-events like the World Cup, but the track record is not very strong.”
When it comes to Canadian soccer opportunities, Darnell said he believed with, or without the World Cup, the country was in a “good spot.”
“If we’re really serious about trying to advance the game of soccer, both at the level of elite sports and participatory sports, then there are better ways to do that than hosting the World Cup,” Darnell said.
And when it comes to the infrastructure of the city, he said the World Cup wasn’t helping with that either.
“On the urban development side, hosting this is not going to solve Toronto’s problems like homelessness, and traffic, and access to community space. In fact, it’s probably putting more of a tax on those problems than if we hadn’t hosted the World Cup,” he said.
“I think in both of those cases the legacy remains to be seen. I’m cautiously optimistic, but I don’t think we have a lot of evidence right now to suggest that those legacies are going to be realized.”
Despite being a soccer fan himself, Darnell said he has to admit that the event could just be one big party, before the city goes back to regular scheduled programming.
“We spent so much money on hosting these events, and so I think we need to be continuing to ask ourselves the question of what else could that money have been spent on if we hadn’t spent it on hosting these games,” he said. “It’s not like I’m immune to the spectacle of it all. I think it’s very exciting, but as a policy and as policy choices, I’m not entirely convinced that this is the way forward.”
In the short term, Darnell did say the city will likely see an economic boost.
“Hotels are full, and I think there is that kind of sense of like this is a real opportunity for the tourist sector,” he explained.
Although, looking forward, long-term improvements to tourism aren’t often the outcome of hosting large events.
“The data doesn’t usually back that up,” Darnell shared.
Reflecting on when Vancouver hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics, Darnell noted it was an example of when a host city did flourish in the long term. Although, he questioned whether the benefits Vancouver saw as a result of hosting could have happened without spending money on the upscale international event.
“I’m talking about transit and community development. Some of the infrastructure that that city now has was a result of hosting, and so that’s a good thing,” Darnell said. “I still question whether or not they needed to have the Olympics in order to build those facilities.”
Additionally, Darnell raised concerns about who benefits most from hosting large sporting events.
“Corporate media and corporate sponsors are the two groups that tend to benefit the most from hosting sports mega-events,” he explained.
Meantime, Darnell warned residents already facing challenges can at times bear the burden, but noted this may not be the case with new FIFA changes made this year.
“FIFA has a new policy apparatus now that’s built on human rights, that’s supposed to protect people in host cities, and the first time that it’s been implemented [is] for this World Cup,” he explained. “So, it sort of remains to be seen whether or not those people that are on the margins are going to be protected from hosting sports mega events, but I think that’s always a risk.”
How to tell if there’s a long-term benefit?
Despite his caution, Darnell said positive outcomes are possible if investments into sport and infrastructure continue after the competition ends.
“If the World Cup is leading to more investment in accessible soccer, that would be a good thing, for sure,” he said. “If they’re building new sports facilities, that could have a real benefit.”
Darnell said it would take investing in other departments as well.
“It’s also going to require investment in coaching, and it’s also going to require just long-term funding in grassroots or public access sports,” he added.
Long after the 2026 World Cup ends, Darnell said the best way to weigh the financial pros and cons is by looking at community-based programming and accessibility. He explained that in some of his research, he has been asking youth across Ontario what they want from sports, and the answers were surprising.
“The answers that we get back more often in that research are not that they want to grow up and be pro athletes; it is that they want to play sports that are close by, that are with their friends, that are coached by people that they can identify with that are safe,” Darnell explained.
Meanwhile, on the urban development side, Darnell says if it was possible for FIFA-related infrastructure changes to offer long-term benefits for easing traffic congestion, he would welcome it with open arms.
“It would be great if hosting the World Cup helped us to solve our traffic problems,” he said. “…Let’s say that maybe this becomes a way in which the rapid policy becomes more implementable or successful as a result of testing it for the World Cup, then that could be a win. I could see that being a win.”
For Toronto residents wondering whether hosting the World Cup was worth the investment, Darnell said one question should direct the conversation.
“We should keep coming back to the question of whether or not this was the best use of our money,” he said. “I think we should embrace how much fun soccer is, and how wonderful it is that the men’s national team is doing well, but I think we should keep asking ourselves whether or not, as a policy choice, this is the best use of our money.”
According to Darnell, the legacy debate begins after the World Cup comes to an end.
“The legacy remains to be seen,” he said.
