The “largest, longest and most complex World Cup in history” came to a close Sunday, with FIFA emerging as the “biggest winner ... despite a number of norm-shattering decisions during the tournament,” according to Kevin Baxter of the L.A. TIMES. Attendance “topped 6.8 million, a World Cup record averaging more than 65,000 fans a game.” FIFA estimated that the cumulative global TV audience “topped 5 billion people across linear television, digital streaming and social platforms while more than 1.8 billion people were expected to watch the final,” making it the “most-viewed sporting event in history.” Exact figures won’t be known for a few days. Revenue for the four-year World Cup cycle is anticipated to reach $15B, making it the first $10B sporting event in history. Weather disrupted just a handful of matches, not the dozen or more that were feared, and the logistical nightmares of staging the 39-day tournament across three countries for the first time “never materialized.” However, Baxter notes there were “also lowlights.” This was “by far the most political World Cup in history” and the first in which a host country, the U.S., was actively at war with a participating one, Iran. Then there was the red card issued to USMNT F Folarin Balogun that President Trump “took credit for overruling from 2,800 miles away.” Baxter: “But as always with FIFA, money speaks the loudest, so Infantino’s norm-shattering behavior over the last year doesn’t seem to have cost him much support” (L.A. TIMES, 7/20).
EVERYONE PLAYED A PART: ESPN.com’s Sam Borden wrote the joy of the World Cup, “as ever, came from the sport: the stars, the drama ... the goals and moments and memories that seemed to overflow during this spectacular soccer summer.” The “pain of this World Cup, as ever, came from the administration: the ticket prices, the politics, the money grabs, the hydration breaks during indoor matches.” FIFA’s “remarkable lack of transparency about everything from the legitimacy of a particular VAR review, to how a sitting president might have influenced a player’s suspension leaves an indelible smudge across an event that really ought to be the purest party in the world.” Borden: “This World Cup, perhaps more than any other, asked of us -- demanded, really -- that we straddle the line between naivete and cynicism.” Borden: “And yet still: Is it the height of abject skepticism to suggest that all the goodwill of this tournament -- the matches, the emotions, the beautiful connections formed between teams and cities and fans and visitors -- is impossibly colored by the inevitable FIFA grime smeared everywhere?” (ESPN.com, 7/20).
HARD TO SCREW UP: In N.Y., Will Leitch wrote this World Cup “was an unequivocal success.” Leitch: “Those of us old enough to remember the 1994 edition have spent 30 years telling everyone we could find that it was one of the most fun sporting experiences imaginable and that it would blow your mind whenever it returned to America. Then it happened, and it was even better the second time.” It “should be said that almost all the things we thought would be bad about this World Cup were, in fact, bad.” The tickets “were cartoonishly expensive,” FIFA “drained every host city for every penny it could get and then barnstormed out of town.” President Trump “couldn’t leave well enough alone and launched a whole scandal.” All that stuff “was terrible,” but “none of it made a difference, because ... no matter how hard FIFA might try, the World Cup is impossible to screw up” (N.Y. MAGAZINE, 7/19).
GREATEST OF ALL TIME? GLOBE & MAIL’s Cathal Kelly wrote by “general consensus, the greatest World Cup ever was France 1998. … But that was until this World Cup, now the most successful ever.” Kelly: “What this version of the tournament has proven is the essentiality of sport.” As it turns out, there is “only one circumstance you can get everyone in the world together without a constant airing of grievances or threats to leave -- here. At the sports.” So, in “a weird way, maybe it is hopeful.” Kelly: “What makes the 2026 World Cup so successful is, in part, how unsuccessful most people expected it to be.” All the bad things that people said about this World Cup in the run-up “were true. It was too expensive … It was a lot of hassle and too spread out.” Then, while “everyone waited for things to collapse and justice to be served, the tournament began and was remarkable” (GLOBE & MAIL, 7/17). The WALL STREET JOURNAL’s Robinson & Clegg wrote this World Cup “can only be regarded as a triumph.” It was a “pointed reminder that America still possesses a shine dazzling enough to entrance the rest of the world.” It also proved that the “best advertisement for America was simply America itself” (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7/17).
FROM START TO FINISH: In Boston, John Powers writes if this World Cup “was the most riveting of them all, it was because it was about catharsis from beginning to end.” The “best team in the 48-nation field prevailed, but what made this Cup enthralling was the gripping uncertainty.” Powers: “Thus did the planet’s beautiful game hold Americans spellbound in a way that the 1994 tournament ... did not. In an era of YouTube and social media and podcasts, this one was inescapable.” Customarily when the home side goes out “interest disappears quickly.” But even after the USMNT was booted by the Belgians in the Round of 16, “everyone from Boston to Seattle remained tuned in” (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/20).
RESHAPING THE GAME: REUTERS’ Julien Pretot wrote the 2026 World Cup “may ultimately be remembered less for the identity of its winner than for the question it left hanging over the game: how much of soccer’s American makeover will survive once the tournament leaves North America?” From “mandatory ‘hydration’ breaks that effectively split matches into four quarters to championship rings, a halftime show and an ever more tightly packaged entertainment product, FIFA embraced elements of the U.S. sporting model with enthusiasm.” Some of those innovations “will probably be remembered as novelties of an American-hosted tournament -- while others may prove harder to dislodge.” Pretot noted the breaks are “likely to be discussed for future World Cups, not least because player welfare offers FIFA an obvious rationale for retaining them and because the commercial potential ... will be difficult for the sport’s decision makers to ignore” (REUTERS, 7/19).
WHAT’S NEXT? In D.C., Les Carpenter writes soccer “bloomed in the U.S.” after the 1994 World Cup, but the impact of the 2026 edition “is harder to predict.” The tournament “captivated television audiences,” showing that “the country is more engaged than ever with soccer.” Yet in a country with “two thriving pro leagues, the MLS and NWSL, and robust youth organizations coast to coast, the changes are unlikely to be as obvious.” Former U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulat wonders “how many more people will watch MLS, NWSL and overseas soccer in the coming weeks and months” and whether the “advertisers that rushed to make World Cup commercials stick around to build campaigns around the pro leagues or the men’s and women’s national teams.” Carpenter notes the 2026 World Cup “won’t fundamentally change American soccer.” Carpenter: “That happened 32 years ago, when the World Cup came here the first time. But it may stoke the fire” (WASHINGTON POST, 7/20).
