<\/p>\n
Brian Iannucci of Dallas watched as Argentina played a World Cup match against Austria on June 22 during an invite-only watch party at Argentina 163, a restaurant in Euless.<\/p>\n
Tom Fox\/The Dallas Morning News<\/p>\n
The shocking amounts of brisket<\/a> have been consumed, The Londoner\u2019s beergate controversy<\/a> has faded and the singing Argentines<\/a> have left Klyde Warren Park. But now that Dallas\u2019 wildly well-received, monthlong World Cup hosting party has ended, just how big of an economic boost did the tournament actually provide?\u00a0<\/p>\n A new report<\/a> from Bank of America offers one indication: a roughly 3.75% year-over-year overall local spending boost for the duration of the tournament. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI do think that the true economic benefit came from attracting visitors,\u201d said Taylor Bowley, an economist at Bank of America Institute who worked on the report. \u201cIt\u2019s the fans that travel that really introduce new dollars into these host cities like Dallas, that really benefited local restaurants and other hospitality businesses.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u2018Temporary\u00a0boosts\u2019<\/p>\n To that effect, Bank of America\u2019s report also measured the tournament\u2019s impact on \u201cconsumer-facing small businesses\u201d in American host cities, a category that includes bars, restaurants and hotels, and found that Dallas had a roughly 11% year-over-year sales income bump in the category in June, when North Texas hosted six games. In July, when the region hosted three games, the region saw around a 2% year-over-year bump.<\/p>\n \u201cThose temporary boosts,\u201d added Bowley, \u201cespecially [for] small businesses that operate on relatively thin profit margins\u00a0\u2014 those can go a long way.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Related: World Cup crowds boost Dallas restaurants and bars, leave some scrambling for brisket, beer and sleep<\/a><\/p>\n The report\u2019s authors determined host cities\u2019 overall spending increases by measuring localized card spending by Bank of America customers compared with their spending for the same period in 2025. They measured the boost to small businesses by analyzing sales revenue for Bank of America small business clients, generally defining the category as businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales revenue.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Bank of America\u2019s data is not meant to be comprehensive, the report notes \u2014 the overall spending increases did not capture international tourists\u2019 spending, because they\u2019re not Bank of America customers \u2014 and the report\u2019s numbers were also influenced by factors beyond the World Cup. Philadelphia, for example, recorded a larger small-business increase in July, when the city hosted one game, than it did in June, when it hosted five \u2014 but the city was also a major destination for the country\u2019s 250th anniversary celebrations, Bowley noted.\u00a0<\/p>\n Still, the bank\u2019s report offers among the first quantitative analyses offering at least some insight into the real economic impact of the World Cup for the tournament\u2019s 11 U.S. host cities. The economic impact question is particularly significant because the tournament \u2014 which was widely considered a massive on-field success \u2014 was also largely defined by various economic controversies. Fans were outraged by\u00a0record high ticket prices.<\/a> Strict contract stipulations meant FIFA received the vast majority of the tournament\u2019s revenue, from everything from media rights to concessions, even as host cities were required to assume financial liability and cover costs for expenses ranging from security and traffic management to stadium retrofitting.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Modest bump\u2019<\/p>\n For those reasons, Chicago ended up declining to host altogether.<\/p>\n \u201cI was not gonna allow taxpayers of the city of Chicago to be dumb money,\u201d Rahm Emanuel, the city\u2019s mayor at the time, told the media<\/a>. \u201cThey assumed that we were gonna take all the risk, and they were gonna get all the reward. I told them to take a hike.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Three states that hosted games, Missouri, Georgia and Florida, also waived\u00a0taxes<\/a> on ticket sales, which amounted to tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue, while U.S. taxpayers ended up\u00a0paying billions<\/a> in direct and indirect subsidies to host cities and states. Following the tournament,\u00a0FIFA reported a record $15 billion revenue but has reportedly stalled on verbal promises<\/a> to pay U.S. host cities $1 million each.\u00a0<\/p>\n Related: Texas investigates World Cup ticketing after fans report worse seats than advertised<\/a><\/p>\n And while ahead of the games both FIFA and the White House issued promises about the tournament\u2019s overall return for the U.S. economy, projecting a boost of over $30 billion, analysts have long said the figure is inflated. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a modest bump,\u201d Barbara Denham, an economist at Oxford Economics who authored a World Cup economic impact report, told The Dallas Morning News<\/a> earlier this year. Denham highlighted a positive short-term tourism and hospitality effect, but relatively little longer-term impact, especially because the tournament involved few major infrastructure investments. \u201cIt\u2019s not as significant as people think,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Card spending<\/p>\n Bank of America\u2019s report generally backs up the short-term bump projection: Overall, it found the 11 U.S. host cities saw a roughly 5% year-over-year bump in card spending. \u201cI would say that for host cities, it\u2019s quite a big boost,\u201d Bowley said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n The bank\u2019s report also found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that tourists increased their spending far more than residents did, with nonlocal Bank of America customers who traveled to host cities bumping up their spending by more than 17%. The data also showed younger people recorded higher spending increases than older people, and the increases were well-distributed among income groups.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n