It usually doesn’t pay FIFA a flat “hosting fee” per game; instead, the city or host region typically covers a large share of local costs like security, transportation, fan zones, and temporary infrastructure. For 2026, reports say host cities are shouldering hundreds of millions to billions in combined public costs, while FIFA keeps most of the tournament revenue.

What cities actually pay

Host cities are commonly responsible for:

  • Police, security, and emergency services.
  • Traffic control and public transit upgrades.
  • Fan festivals and local event operations.
  • Temporary venue overlays and other logistics.

Those costs can vary a lot by city, but the public reporting this June says New Jersey alone is spending at least $100 million , and Toronto approved a $380 million World Cup budget. FIFA, meanwhile, is projected to generate around $9 billion to $11 billion from the 2026 tournament.

The short version

If you mean “How much does a city pay FIFA just to host one match?” the answer is: usually no direct per-game fee is publicly quoted. The real price is mostly in the local public bill for hosting obligations, which can run from tens of millions to hundreds of millions depending on the city and the event.

Why this feels expensive

Cities often hope the World Cup will bring tourism and tax revenue, but many studies find the benefits are smaller than promised. Recent coverage says host cities often take on the risk while FIFA keeps most of the upside.

One example

A useful example is New Jersey, where officials and reporting say the state’s hosting-related expenses are already at least $100 million , while FIFA’s tournament revenue is projected in the $11 billion range.

Bottom line

So the honest answer is: a city does not usually pay a fixed ticket price to FIFA for a World Cup game; it pays through hosting costs that can become very large. For the 2026 World Cup, the public bill appears to be substantial in several North American host cities.