US World Cup hosting draws praise and affordability concerns

The United States’ second turn as a men’s World Cup host produced a mixed but largely positive verdict, with the strongest marks going to atmosphere inside the stadiums and the weakest to affordability and access for supporters.

The Guardian Football said the US staged 78 matches across 11 host cities during the 2026 tournament, making it the main operational backbone of the North American event. With only the third-place match in Miami and the final in East Rutherford, New Jersey, still to be played when the assessment appeared, the article asked a straightforward question: how well did the country handle one of football’s biggest tournaments?

The answer, at least from the evidence presented, was that the American host cities succeeded in creating lively venues but struggled to make the experience easy and affordable for everyone attending. The report described the stadiums as generally well received, with large NFL arenas filling up with fans and delivering the kind of noise and scale that suit a global showpiece. That helped many venues earn strong marks for atmosphere, even if traditional charm was not a defining feature.

America s World Cup report card: atmosphere rated highly

The stadium experience was one of the clearest positives in the US hosting review. According to The Guardian Football, many of the venues were built to contain and amplify crowd noise, which helped generate an intense matchday feel. In a tournament spread across a huge country, that matters. Crowd energy can shape the memory of a World Cup as much as the football itself, and the US host cities appear to have delivered in that respect.

Seattle stood out in particular. The article said the city was generally regarded as having one of the best host city environments of the tournament. That suggests the quality of the fan experience was not uniform across the country, but that some locations managed to combine stadium atmosphere with a stronger surrounding city feel.

Where the United States fell short

If the stadiums earned approval, the surrounding logistics did not fare as well. The report pointed to problems with accessibility, and it also judged affordability harshly. That is a significant issue for a World Cup that aims to welcome a broad range of supporters, not just those able to absorb high travel and ticket-related costs.

The article did not provide a detailed breakdown of prices or infrastructure failures, but its overall conclusion was clear enough: the US delivered a strong spectacle inside the grounds while leaving questions outside them. In practical terms, that is a familiar tension for major sporting events in large, car-dependent or geographically spread-out host nations. A packed stadium is only part of the story. Getting there, moving around, and paying for the experience shape the tournament just as much.

Why the assessment matters

The United States played the central hosting role in a 2026 World Cup that is also split across Canada and Mexico. Because it handled the overwhelming majority of matches, its success or failure will shape the long-term view of the event. Positive reviews for atmosphere suggest that the tournament found a strong stage. Criticism over accessibility and affordability suggests that future hosts will still face pressure to make mega-events feel welcoming, not exclusive.

The timing also matters. With the final matches still pending when The Guardian published its review, the article functioned as an early report card rather than a final retrospective. Even so, it gives a useful snapshot of how the US hosting effort was being judged before the tournament officially closed.

For now, the broad takeaway is that the United States did well at building spectacle and less well at making the fan experience universally easy or affordable. That split verdict may become one of the defining memories of the 2026 World Cup’s American leg.