Bragging rights and a place in history “might be the most compelling reasons” to host FIFA World Cup matches, but from a financial perspective, it is “hard to see what’s in it for NFL owners,” according to Ben Volin of the BOSTON GLOBE. The experience is “riddled with expensive headaches and hoop-jumping,” while FIFA “keeps most of the revenue.” Eleven NFL stadiums will host World Cup matches, but several of the league’s cities “took a pass.” One NFL official from a city that will not be hosting said, “I know more than a few teams weren’t disappointed to lose the bid.” The 11 stadiums are built for football, not soccer, while several domed stadiums installed LED lighting to grow grass indoors. Several stadiums spent millions making other changes. All venues paid to conceal corporate logos and advertising that are not FIFA’s exclusive partners. There are also “opportunity costs.” FIFA’s “exclusive use” agreements mean none of the stadiums can host other events for the next month and a half. The World Cup will “still bring benefits” despite FIFA’s “Draconian restrictions.” Seven also own MLS teams and they are “hopeful” for a boost in soccer. For the hosts who do not own MLS teams, their participation is “more about being seen on TV, and helping the local economy” (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/29).
