FIFA's announcement that MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, would host the 2026 World Cup final sparked widespread debate among football fans and sports analysts. While the decision settled the fierce competition with other cities like Dallas and Los Angeles, it also raised questions about the stadium's suitability for hosting the world's biggest sporting event.
Historical context: A World Cup with a continental flavor
The 2026 World Cup is a unique event, marking the first time in history that the tournament will be co-hosted by three countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This edition also sees a historic expansion, with the number of participating teams increasing from 32 to 48, thus raising the logistical and organizational challenges. In this context, the United States was considered a strong contender to host the final, given its impressive sports infrastructure. The last World Cup hosted by the US was in 1994, when Brazil won the title at the Rose Bowl in California.
Reasons for the controversy: Location and infrastructure
Criticisms of MetLife Stadium's selection center on two main points. The first is its location. The stadium, which seats over 82,000, is situated in an industrial area of New Jersey, surrounded by highways and marshes—an environment lacking the glamour and appeal that audiences expect for a global event of this scale. Newspaper reports, such as those in The Independent, have indicated that the area was previously used for chemical disposal, adding an environmental dimension to the debate.
The second point concerns the public transport infrastructure. Critics argue that access to the stadium relies heavily on private cars, with limited and congested public transport options, which could create a traffic nightmare on the day of the final, especially when compared to other stadiums located in the heart of major cities that have well-developed transport networks facilitating the movement of tens of thousands of fans coming from all over the world.
Defending the choice: Experience and proximity to New York
Conversely, supporters defend FIFA's decision by pointing to MetLife Stadium's extensive experience in managing large-scale events. The stadium successfully hosted the 2014 Super Bowl, as well as numerous concerts by world-renowned artists, demonstrating its operational and security capabilities in handling massive crowds. Furthermore, its proximity to New York City, one of the world's leading financial and cultural centers, offers a significant strategic advantage in terms of the availability of hotels, international airports, and tourist attractions that will serve fans and official delegations, making it a practical destination despite the aesthetic challenges posed by its surroundings.
Expected impact: Economic opportunity and global exposure
On a local and regional level, hosting the final represents a massive economic boost for the New York and New Jersey area, where the match is expected to attract billions of dollars in investment and stimulate the tourism, hospitality, and transportation sectors. Internationally, the successful organization of the final in this location will solidify the United States' position as a leading destination for major sporting events and further cement the popularity of soccer in North America, a key objective of co-hosting this World Cup.
