Houston rushing to fix up city before 2026 FIFA World Cup — but is the cost of hosting these events worth it?
As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, Houston is cleaning house and undertaking significant infrastructure improvements to prepare for the influx of international visitors that will descend on the city.
The municipality is addressing issues such as non-functional freeway lighting, deteriorating buildings and outdated public amenities to ensure a welcoming environment for fans.
But just how big is the scope of the event and the required improvements?
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
The city is set to host seven "Super Bowl-size" matches during the tournament, which is expected to bring in millions of fans from over 100 countries across the globe.
To prepare, Houston Public Works is prioritizing the repair of freeway lighting, particularly along Interstate 610 and U.S. Highway 59, where many lights are currently inoperative.
In internal emails, a maintenance manager at Houston Public Works noted challenges such as wire theft, a qualified labour shortage, unreported damage by unknown contractors and knocked down electrical services.
What's more, aging infrastructure and coordination with the Texas Department of Transportation for lane closures have complicated these efforts.
The city is also focusing on demolishing "blighted" and "dangerous" buildings, including the old Greyhound station at 2121 Main Street and an old hotel at 801 St. Joseph's Parkway in order to improve public safety and aesthetics.
In addition, the city is cleaning up graffiti, improving landscaping, restriping roads, fixing sidewalks and creating a new park for a month-long "fan fest" party.
Of course, all these upgrades will come at a cost.
Hosting a major world sporting event, like the FIFA World Cup, is a significant financial undertaking for any city.
For instance, the 2018 World Cup in Russia cost more than $14 billion, while the 2014 tournament in Brazil totaled approximately $11.6 billion.
More recently, Qatar spent $229 billion to host the World Cup in 2022, making it the most expensive such undertaking.
These investments often cover stadium construction, transportation upgrades and other infrastructure projects.
And while the 11 American host cities are requesting $625 million in federal funding to help finance the needed works, Houston's own cost is projected to be around $70-$80 million — on par with the projected costs for other cities.
Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it
The potential benefits for host cities include infrastructure development, increased tourism and job creation.
For example, over the five years leading up to the 2018 World Cup in Russia, about 315,000 jobs were created annually. Workers' income increased by about $5.61 billion (450 billion rubles), and small business profits grew by nearly about $10 billion (800 billion rubles). The country also welcomed 4.2 million tourists in 2018 — 10% more than it did the previous year.
In Brazil, World Cup-related investments helped finance rapid transit projects in three of the country's largest cities: Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte and Recife.
And hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup could generate more than $5 billion in economic activity for North America. Additionally, host cities could see an estimated $160-$620 million in incremental economic activity, with 'a net benefit of approximately $90-$480 million per city after accounting for potential public costs.'
Houston officials, specifically, are anticipating over $1 billion in revenue as a result of the event.
Plus, the city could benefit from improved infrastructure and investment in the sport and its incoming athletes in the long run.
However, there are also risks such as huge costs and budget overruns (Canadian host cities Vancouver and Toronto are already citing 'substantial' increases).
Additionally, hosting such events can also lead to issues of displacement of residents (including lower-income communities), environmental concerns, questionable return on investment and underutilized facilities post-tournament.
Brazil's 12 stadiums used in the 2014 World Cup cost 50% more than planned, and just six of the 35 planned transportation projects were completed on time.
The Popular Committee for the World Cup and Olympics claimed more than 170,000 people were displaced from their Rio de Janeiro homes for games-related purposes, while Beijing was reported to clear 1.5 million people from their homes for the 2008 Olympics.
Qatar is contending with an even darker legacy, standing accused in the deaths of migrant workers associated with hosting the event.
In addition, a study by the Wesleyan Business Review highlights environmental concerns, noting that the extensive event preparations can lead to increased pollution and strain on local resources.
In fact, some cities like Minneapolis, Chicago and Glendale, Arizona withdrew their bids to host in 2026.
It's unclear what Houston's balance sheet will look like when the event has come and gone, but it's clear that it will require a lot of resources and massive upfront investments, impacting many Houstonians — whether or not they welcome the event in the first place.
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now
This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs
Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week.
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
Royal letters, famous golfers and rehearsed pitches: The tips and tricks to a successful Trump meeting
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer came carrying a signed letter from the king. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa brought along two golf champs. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney repeatedly practiced his elevator pitch ahead of his Oval Office meeting On Thursday, it's German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's turn to meet with President Donald Trump. Ahead of his first White House visit, the German press has offered some unsolicited advice: lean into their shared affinity for golf. Numerous foreign leaders have invested heavily in the choreography of a face-to-face with the U.S. president. The meetings, which U.S. officials have downplayed as 'just another world leader coming to visit,' come with huge stakes at home and abroad for those leaders. How to handle a mercurial American president prone to ambushing his guests requires unique preparation. 'How to survive your Trump meeting,' as an American lobbyist who advises foreign governments calls it, has become a cottage industry for lobbyists, consultants and national security experts in Washington. That's according to interviews with a dozen government officials, diplomats and advisers. Most of these officials were granted anonymity to speak openly about how foreign governments manage Trump. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team prepared assiduously, hearing from key Republicans on Capitol Hill what amounted to a 'Trump 101' crash course on how to engage with the president, according to three congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the matter. That now infamous meeting went off the rails anyway — exponentially increasing the anxiety of other world leaders about taking part in Trump's newest reality show, an unscripted Oval Office get-to-know-you session featuring several Cabinet officials and playing out live before the White House press corps and broadcast instantly around the world. The Zelenskyy meeting 'was a real 'oh shit' moment for other leaders,' said one senior U.S. congressional aide familiar with the planning that went into that meeting. 'They saw this public gauntlet they'd have to run. How do I avoid the Dumpster fire Zelenskyy fell into?' Managing Trump is nothing new for foreign leaders who saw how the U.S. president operated during his first term. But the efforts to coddle a lifelong public performer, who can shift quickly from charming to contentious, have intensified since Trump took office for the second time in January, noticeably more confident and far less restrained in his approach to the job. 'What Zelenskyy went through was a huge lesson learned for other world leaders. Without a doubt, everyone's been studying that really closely,' said another American who engages with the Ukrainian government on how to manage U.S. ties. Japan's new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, the second head of state invited to the White House after Trump's inauguration, prepared for his early February visit by studying graphics showing Japan as the top foreign investor in the U.S. and brainstorming with aides about what demands Trump might make, Ishiba's aides said at the time. When asked by reporters during his Oval Office sit-down what he thought of the president, Ishiba said, through a translator, that Trump's television career made him 'intimidating' but that he was 'powerful' and 'sincere' in person. Carney, whose condemnations of Trump's bullying '51st State' rhetoric propelled his Liberal coalition to an unlikely electoral victory this spring, spoke with several official and informal advisers in the run-up to his post-election White House visit in early May. One person who spoke with the prime minister, granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation, said they counseled him to distill his message into a couple clear phrases and repeat them as needed. 'With Trump, you want to make sure there is one core sentence, even two to three core sentences you are going to find a way to get out no matter what,' the person who advised Carney continued. 'And you don't need to talk that much. Let him speak.' Carney followed the advice, emphasizing that Canada was 'not for sale' but that the two countries were 'stronger when they work together.' It proved effective in lowering the temperature: Trump complimented Carney's initial statement and, shortly after the prime minister left the White House, described the conversation as a 'great meeting' with 'no tension.' The person said they gave the same advice to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre before his White House visit in late April.'The reason the Zelenskyy meeting went so badly was Zelenskyy was trying to spar like an equal,' they said. 'That is not allowed in the meeting.' The risk of entering Trump's lion's den can be worth the reward for world leaders. Trump pared back his musings of acquiring Canada as a 51st state after the meeting with Carney. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who traveled to Mar-a-Lago in late March just to play a round of golf with Trump, later convinced the U.S. president to reverse a decision on building icebreakers and purchase those ships from Finland. South Africa's Ramaphosa, who similarly tried to connect with Trump over golf by bringing South African golfers Retief Goosen and Ernie Els with him to the White House, received a harsher treatment. Trump, eager to highlight unfounded allegations about a 'genocide' targeting South Africa's white farmers, turned down the lights and played on a television wheeled into the Oval an unsourced video of what he said were gravesites. Forced into a defensive posture, Ramaphosa expressed uncertainty about the scenes depicted but did not directly criticize Trump, even as he tried to dispel the notion that a genocide was occuring. However awkward his meeting, the South African leader, unlike Zelenskyy months earlier, managed to avoid a bigger blow-up. Brian Clow, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top adviser during Trump's first term and the early days of the ongoing trade war, revealed the blueprint for dealing with the president. 'Even if Trump says some outrageous things, you've got to choose if you're going to interject or disagree — because it may be counterproductive in the long term if you get into too much of a back and forth.' Translation: don't get Zelenskyy-ed. Clow's next piece of advice: vibes matter. 'You've got to prepare for the overall tone and approach that you want to take,' Clow said. 'That can be just as important as the policy issues.' He suggested calling up the White House in advance, Clow said: 'Scope out how conversations might go, what could come up. That can actually influence how the meeting itself goes.' But preparation can only go so far with a U.S. president famous for unpredictability, Clow said. In March, Trump raised an obscure 1908 border treaty with Trudeau as he mused about erasing the border between the two countries. Trudeau was forced to deflect ian the moment. The big takeaway: 'Tread carefully,' Clow advised anybody who walks into the Oval Office. 'This is Trump's show, and you've got to let him do his thing.'
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
10 minutes ago
Trump directs DOJ, White House counsel to investigate Biden's mental state in office
President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether former President Joe Biden's administration sought to conspire to cover up his mental state while in office, prompting a response from Biden. "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." The move by the White House represents a significant escalation from the White House, as it is a directive to the Justice Department to formally investigate. It goes beyond the review into Biden's last-minute pardons before leaving office Biden responded to Trump's memo to Bondi and the Department of Justice, calling an investigation "nothing more than a mere distraction" and defending his decision-making ability. In a statement he says any suggestion he was not in control is "ridiculous and false." "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations," Biden said in a statement sent to ABC News. The president directed the U.S.'s top law enforcement official, in coordination with his White House counsel, to investigate "the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office," according to a statement from the White House.
