The Truth About Baltimore’s World Cup Bid

Frustratingly — but perhaps predictably — FIFA’s official site visit to Baltimore earlier this week to evaluate the city as a potential host of 2026 World Cup matches has been met with misinformation on all sides. 

The Baltimore Sun, in a column supposedly supporting the city’s bid, stated categorically that the actual odds of success were impossibly small.

Mayor Brandon Scott, in explaining his support, presented a scenario of impossibly large long-term economic benefits. 

And local opponents of the bid pushed back with the incredulous idea that the city has nothing to gain from welcoming the world’s largest and most visible sporting event, and everything to lose.

All of these are varying degrees of wrong.

(You can discuss this on the BSL Board here.)

We truthfully don’t know Baltimore’s competitive chances against other American bids, and history suggests FIFA’s criteria differs from what the average person suspects.

And there’s enough evidence and research from past tournaments to refute the idea that hosting the World Cup will be some sort of economic golden ticket.

Even so, provided there are no new major infrastructure projects required outside of improving the region’s mass transit, the city is uniquely positioned to benefit from hosting matches in a way few others are.

Confused? That’s understandable. So let’s break down each point.

Baltimore’s Chances

Those of us in Charm City are accustomed to being overshadowed by the larger cities on the Northeast Corridor, and often possess a bit of an inferiority complex about it. 

That experience has perhaps clouded the narrative that the city is a definitive long shot.

After all, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington are also bidding to host games, and we know how it goes when Baltimore has to go up against those towns.

Washington’s proximity in particular has many locals discouraged about Baltimore’s chances.

But just look through the recent history of the tournament, and you’ll see more reason to be optimistic than you might think.

Since the tournament expanded to 32 teams in 1998, there have been multiple occurrences of two municipalities as close as Baltimore and Washington each hosting matches, as well as two occasions when one municipality has hosted matches at multiple venues. So whether you view Baltimore and Washington as two separate metropolitan areas, or one combined one, there’s some precedent.

In 1998, it was the Parc des Princes in Paris proper and Stade de France in the suburbs. In 2002, it was several neighboring cities across South Korea and Japan. In 2006 the German cities of Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen — situated less than 25 miles apart — that each hosted matches. In 2010, Johannesburg opened two stadiums to games, as did Moscow in 2018.

Additionally, while people talk about the D.C. bid like it’s a guarantee because of its status as the nation’s capital, it’s not. Tokyo became the first national capital not to host matches in the 2002 tournament.

Objectively, Washington’s potential host venue of FedEx Field is considerably less appealing than M&T Bank Stadium, given its geography well outside of downtown and more than a mile from any rail transit.

You could even argue M&T Bank Stadium is as easily reachable from downtown D.C., given the MARC Camden Line’s terminus at Camden Yards.

Further, FIFA often considers the potential legacy of the World Cup in its host cities. Baltimore provides a unique opportunity there, since it is the only bid city without an MLS or USL club. (Although the city has been linked to potential USL expansion for years.)

The Real Financial Impact

During remarks at FIFA’s official site visit, Mayor Scott estimated that hosting in the neighborhood of five tournament matches could inject as much as $480 million into the local economy. 

This is almost certainly a massive overestimation, and shouldn’t be used to justify excessive spending on behalf of the host bid.

Yes, it’s true that the potential spending on stadium and infrastructure projects should be minimal in Baltimore and other American cities relative to what other host countries have taken on.

The amenities at contemporary NFL venues like M&T Bank Stadium are well in line with most FIFA standards, and there is easy mass transit access from BWI Airport and Penn Station.

But a 2014 report from UMBC economist Dennis Coates suggests that even with a head start on stadium and infrastructure, the event could still be a net negative economically rather than the enormous boon Mayor Scott suggests.

There are several reasons for this. For starters, much of the economic infusion counted in such positive economic projections derives from local consumers, not visitors. Additionally, the duties of hosting can also create additional work for local employees without additional compensation, resulting in a loss of worker income.

There are also lurking expenses, like paying police overtime and other security costs, and surge-level public transportation service.

And the net tourism gain is often less than expected, because the presence of World Cup matches drives down the number of tourists who visit a city for other attractions, and would likely send conventions and other city events that year to other locales.

It’s Still Worth The Trouble

However, even though there likely won’t be a dramatic long-term economic impact, a successful bid could still be a net positive for Baltimore, arguably moreso than for any of the other cities involved. 

The unrest immediately following the death of Freddie Gray in 2015, followed by an elevated homicide rate and nationally publicized police scandal in the years since have given Baltimore a steady stream of negative publicity.

That has coincided with a decrease in expected investments in the city.

Governor Larry Hogan nixed the Red Line transit project as too expansive. Under Armour scaled back plans for its new headquarters at Port Covington. Target fled its location at Mondawmin Mall after opening a second store in a whiter and more affluent part of town at Canton Crossing. 

There have even whispers in some corners that baseball’s Baltimore Orioles could flee to greener pastures, though those appear to be totally inaccurate and unsubstantiated. Still, they speak to the mood of the city in these last few years.

Winning a World Cup hosting bid wouldn’t directly change any of that. But it would provide a positive and defined moment to look forward to and plan for, and a starting point for changing the city narrative. 

And make no mistake, this would be an event that would truly be owned by ‘Baltimore City’ with the downtown stadium location and nearby restaurants and nightlife in Federal Hill, Harbor East and beyond. That in turn could help spur a cycle of reinvestment in a downtown between those neighborhoods that has struggled in recent years.

Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper, the authors of the 2009 book Soccernomics, write that hosting a World Cup can boost image and morale, but not much else.

But for Baltimore, a city with declining population but increasing wealth, image and morale may be acutely valuable. Certainly valuable enough that it would justify the relatively low tax-funded costs, likely to be in the tens of millions of dollars so long as no unexpected stadium construction is necessary.

Even while failing to provide a watershed economic moment or an eraser for the city’s social ills, it would still be worth the trouble.