The 2026 World Cup is leaving images of packed stadiums, cities fully engaged, and thousands of fans traveling across North America. But the tournament's map also has major absences.
Chicago, Las Vegas, Washington, Phoenix, or Montreal have been left without matches despite being cities with sporting, tourist, economic, or political weight. Some withdrew due to costs and FIFA's demands. Others did not have a stadium that met the tournament's requirements. And others were left out during the selection process.
The result is striking: while cities like Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, New York/New Jersey, Atlanta, Houston, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City, or Monterrey are concentrating the World Cup spotlight, other major sporting capitals are following the tournament from the outside.
The question is obvious: why don't some of North America's most important cities have matches in the 2026 World Cup?
What are the venues for the 2026 World Cup
The 2026 World Cup will be played in 16 venues spread across the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
- The United States concentrates the majority of matches, with venues such as New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Philadelphia, Boston, Kansas City, Seattle, and San Francisco Bay Area.
- Mexico has Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
- Canada has matches in Toronto and Vancouver.
The selection left out several important cities that had been mentioned during the process or that, due to their size and sporting tradition, seemed like natural candidates.
Chicago: the most political "no" to FIFA
Chicago is one of the major absences from the 2026 World Cup.
The city was already a host in the 1994 World Cup and has a huge sports market, a relevant soccer community, and a strategic position in the Midwest. However, it decided to withdraw from the process.
The main reason was economic and political. Local authorities considered that FIFA was not offering sufficient guarantees regarding costs and risks for taxpayers.
The then-mayor Rahm Emanuel argued that the city could not accept an agreement where FIFA would keep a large portion of the profits while Chicago bore the expenses for security, transportation, logistics, and adaptation.
The decision seemed risky at the time. Today, with several venues facing millions in costs to host matches, many see it as a financially prudent choice.
Las Vegas: perfect city, problematic stadium
Las Vegas seemed like an obvious candidate.
The city has become a capital of American sports: NFL, NHL, Formula 1, major boxing matches, UFC, Super Bowl, casinos, betting, and mass tourism.
The problem was at Allegiant Stadium, the Raiders' stadium. Although it is modern, spectacular, and prepared for major events, its configuration did not fit well with FIFA's requirements for a World Cup.
The playing surface and the space available around the field posed difficulties in meeting the required dimensions and safety zones. Adapting it would have involved complex works, high costs, and possible closures or schedule alterations.
In a World Cup where FIFA demands very specific conditions regarding turf, width, technical areas, media, security, and hospitality, having a large NFL stadium is not always enough.
Washington: the capital without a World Cup stadium
Washington has also been left without matches, despite being the capital of the United States.
The problem was not a lack of political, tourist, or symbolic relevance. It was the lack of a suitable venue.
The old RFK Stadium, which did have football history and hosted matches in the 1994 World Cup, was no longer a viable option and was slated for demolition. The Commanders' stadium, located in Maryland, carried doubts regarding access, transportation, fan comfort, and logistics.
The bid eventually diluted, and Washington did not make the final list of host cities.
The paradox is evident: the United States, Mexico, and Canada World Cup will be played without matches in the US capital.
Phoenix: too much cost for Arizona
Phoenix and Arizona also decided to step aside.
The area has a large, modern stadium with a retractable roof, the State Farm Stadium, capable of hosting major events like the Super Bowl. Furthermore, its location near Mexico could have been attractive for a North American World Cup.
But the authorities considered that the cost of assuming FIFA's obligations was too high.
The official position was clear: the region could logistically organize an event of that scale, but it had to be financially responsible.
The comparison with the Super Bowl was important. Arizona already knew what organizing a major sporting event entails and concluded that the World Cup could impose a greater burden, with longer, more complex demands and less local control over revenue.
Montreal: the city that clashed with FIFA's conditions
Montreal is one of the great Canadian absences.
The city had elements to be a host: a tourist tradition, cultural weight, good location in eastern Canada, and an Olympic stadium with sufficient capacity.
But it withdrew its candidacy in 2021 due to the conditions demanded by FIFA.
One of the most controversial points was the control the organization wanted over public spaces and the calendar of major events. In Montreal, this clashed with established events such as the Formula 1 Grand Prix and other summer events.
Local leaders even accused FIFA of imposing excessive conditions and demanding a level of exclusivity that was difficult for a city with its own tourist agenda to accept.
Toronto and Vancouver did end up as Canadian hosts. Montreal, no.
Other cities that also missed out
Chicago, Las Vegas, Washington, Phoenix, and Montreal are the most notable absences, but not the only ones.
Cities such as Detroit, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Denver, Nashville, Orlando, Tampa, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, Baltimore, or Edmonton also missed out or withdrew.
In some cases, costs were a factor. In others, the stadiums. In others, competition with nearby bids or the ability to meet all of FIFA's demands.
The process was especially tough because the 2026 World Cup, despite being the biggest in history, could not be everywhere. Even with 48 teams and 104 matches, FIFA had to concentrate the tournament in host cities capable of guaranteeing large stadiums, transportation, hotels, security, fan zones, airports, training grounds, and commercial control.
Why FIFA demands so much from host cities
Organizing World Cup matches is not just about opening a stadium.
FIFA demands very strict conditions regarding the playing field, pitch dimensions, security areas, press areas, VIP areas, access, transportation, hotels, training grounds, fan zones, signage, advertising, brand protection, and operational control of the environment.
Cities can receive tourism, international visibility, and economic activity. But they must also bear expenses for security, transportation, personnel, construction, crowd management, and public services.
That is why several cities decided that the business was not so clear.
The dilemma: world prestige or public bill
The World Cup generates enormous promise: millions of spectators, international tourism, consumption in hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, and transportation.
Economists and tourism experts usually warn that the effect must be measured city by city and match by match. It is not the same to host a semifinal, several matches of teams with large traveling fan bases, or matches with lower demand.
Furthermore, part of the tourism spending may substitute local consumption that would have occurred anyway. Residents also avoid saturated areas during major events.
Therein lies the dilemma for cities that were left out: lose a global showcase or avoid a public bill that is difficult to justify.