I’m not a huge soccer fan. I watch the World Cup when it’s on, but I couldn’t tell you the starting lineup of most teams. But even I got caught up in the announcement this week. On June 29, 2026, FIFA officially revealed the host cities for the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico. And the reactions have been… mixed. Some cities are ecstatic. Others are furious. And the whole thing says a lot about how huge this event is.
Let me break down the list and what it means.
The 16 Host Cities
The US gets 11 cities: Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey (MetLife Stadium), Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area (Levi’s Stadium), and Seattle. Canada gets two: Toronto and Vancouver. Mexico gets three: Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara.
Some of these are no-brainers. LA, New York, Mexico City—these are global cities with big stadiums and infrastructure. But there are some surprises.
The Biggest Surprise: Kansas City
Kansas City? Really? I mean, no disrespect to KC—I’ve been there, and it’s got great BBQ and a passionate sports culture. But it’s not exactly a global tourist hub. Yet Kansas City beat out cities like Chicago, Denver, and Nashville. Why? Arrowhead Stadium is huge (over 76,000 seats), and the city has a strong local organizing committee. Plus, it’s centrally located. FIFA likes that for travel logistics.
Chicago was a big loser here. They had a strong bid, but reportedly pulled out due to concerns about using public funds. That’s a shame—Chicago’s Soldier Field is iconic. But I get it. The World Cup is expensive.
The Mexico Factor
Mexico City’s Estadio Azteca will host the opening match. That place is legendary—it’s hosted two World Cup finals already (1970 and 1986). But it’s also old and needs upgrades. Some say it’s a safety risk with the altitude and air quality. FIFA is betting on history over practicality. I think it’s the right call—that stadium has soul.