Just like that, it’s gone. Toronto’s World Cup is over.
Not long before a young Alphonso Davies took the stage in 2018 to tell the FIFA World Congress why Canada would be a suitable host country, it was almost impossible to think the tournament would come to the Great White North.
But if it did, Toronto – the fourth most populous city in North America – was always going to play a part in the tournament.
Did the World Cup suit Toronto?
Once Cristiano Ronaldo or Luka Modrić bow out of their final World Cup, all 540 minutes of football will have been played in Toronto. Hundreds of thousands have enjoyed what the famously multicultural city had to offer, including German online sensation, Freddy – it’s safe to say Toronto suited the World Cup.
But did the World Cup suit Toronto?
With hundreds of millions spent, fans priced out, and protests throughout the tournament, some in the city feel the World Cup hasn’t been the city-changing spectacle it was promised to be.
Despite FIFA’s vows of an extraordinary tournament across the continent, tension in Toronto began building early.
When the city first pitched the games in 2018, it estimated hosting would cost taxpayers between $30 million and $45 million Canadian Dollars (£15 – £23 million). By 2022, those projections increased to about $300 million (£158 million).
And it didn’t stop there. In early 2024, a City of Toronto report estimated the games would cost around $380 million (£201 million), with $200 million (£105 million) covered by federal and provincial grants.
The increasing costs caused many to wonder if hosting was a smart move, but the city pressed on and looked for ways to deal with the inflated costs, like purchasing tickets directly from FIFA and reselling them to fans.
Then, there was the stadium. Toronto Stadium held the smallest capacity of fans in the tournament, was criticised for adding roughly 17,000 temporary seats, and was labelled the “worst” host stadium by many online.
And most in the city wouldn’t even be able to access it, as tickets were priced at record-high levels, leaving matchday experiences inaccessible to many.
As kick-off drew closer, some groups in the city took to the streets to voice their concerns.
The Toronto Underhoused and Homeless Union (TUHU) sounded the alarm about the threat that a mega event poses to unhoused people in the city.
The group said unhoused Torontonians were being displaced from the downtown area, especially around Union Station, the city’s transit hub. In some cases, it claimed people were experiencing violence at the hands of security.
In May, TUHU hosted a “red card rally” and laid out demands for the city, including the replacement of contracted security with harm and reduction workers and 24/7 respite space.
The city does have a human rights action plan, which includes a section on unsheltered populations. It says it’s employing a “people-first, human rights-based framework that supports individuals living in encampments.”
Another group took a more drastic approach in the days before the tournament kicked off, making sure the city saw their message.
Along Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway, the official World Cup sign was covered by activists with a “Kick Israel out of FIFA” banner.
But once the football started, all eyes turned to the same place – the lush, green pitch of the Toronto Stadium and the fans that inhabited it.
Videos of tens of thousands of Bosnian supporters in the streets went viral, and the world began to marvel at the exciting moments in and around the stadium on matchdays.
A lot of fun, had by a few
For many in the city, the tournament has had little impact on their lives, and the only benefit of a home World Cup is a more favourable time zone to watch matches.
Despite a few batches of reasonably priced tickets being released, high prices on reselling apps and scam fears have prevented many from attending the Toronto Stadium.
Even tickets for its final match, a clash between Luka Modric’s Croatia and Cristiano Ronaldo’s Portugal, were being resold for a minimum of around $2,550 (£1,350) in the days prior.
“It’s been like a disconnected sort of situation where a bunch of tourists from all over the world came to go watch games on the lakeshore, maybe marched through town, and celebrated when they won, but it hasn’t been sort of this collective experience.”
Urban studies professor David Roberts
“I could count on one hand the number of people I know who have actually attended a game,” said urban studies professor David Roberts, who has studied the tournament’s impact on cities since 2009.
“It’s been like a disconnected sort of situation where a bunch of tourists from all over the world came to go watch games on the lakeshore, maybe marched through town, and celebrated when they won, but it hasn’t been sort of this collective experience.”
The professor pointed out some significant differences from his time in Durban, South Africa during the 2010 World Cup.
“They did these massive public viewing areas on the beachfront that were free and not ticketed. You could just show up and celebrate with your community.
“It really became this kind of collective experience of people of all kinds of different backgrounds joining in on the celebration.
“We have that to some degree… but it just seems like we could have done more.”
Even for those enjoying games across the city, there have been a few hiccups.
One FIFA Fan Fest venue turned away hundreds of hopeful spectators after it reached its limit, while another watch party descended into chaos at Nathan Phillips Square after protests forced organisers to initially cancel the Belgium-Iran broadcast, only to resume it suddenly before halftime.
The party turned into a protest between opposing Iranian groups, with anti-Regime Iranian protestors chanting at those who supported the Islamic Republic.
“We will not be broadcasting the 3pm game. Thank you for your understanding,” the screens read as kick-off approached.
Away from the crowded parties and giant screens, TUHU has been left disappointed.
Months after raising the “red card” to the city and calling for change, the group feels their demands have not been heard.
It interviewed more than 40 unhoused people in Toronto ahead of the tournament and heard stories of displacement, harassment and violence.
While the data isn’t available yet, Angie Hocking, a TUHU member, fears that many will have had a “continual experience.”
“Because the city wasn’t responding to the work that we know that they needed to do at the time. We leaned into mobilising community care as best we could,” she said.
“It’s been busy. The team worked overtime.”
While the past six weeks have been frustrating for the group, the tournament has sparked conversations that may lead to a better future for unhoused people. One example, Hocking says, is the city’s recent commitment to an audit that will explore how mega events will impact vulnerable Torontonians.
Roberts says this hindsight is positive and can make Toronto better prepared for the next mega event.
“I do think there’ll be some conversations here about what went wrong, what could have been done differently, and what might be some things we have to put into process, so that the next time the city are considering bidding on hosting an Olympics or something else that there is a mechanism by which there is more accountability, more thought, more process.
“Because it just feels like this one was done in sort of a shady back room, and then we got what we got,” he said.
Worth it?
So, with 540 minutes of football played at an estimated cost of $82 million (£43 million) per game, there is one question begging to be asked.
Was it worth it?
For almost all, the answer is no.
Contracts show that while governments are footing the bill for hosting the tournament, FIFA is profiting from the matchday revenue. This ranges from media rights to ticket sales to parking.
Ahead of the tournament, the governing body estimated around $3.8 billion (£2 billion) of economic output from games in Canada, and the city told FourFourTwo it expects the tournament to generate $940 million, but economists estimate that number could be lower. And much of that revenue will pass by the city and enter the coffers of the provincial or federal government.
“I think from the city budget perspective, there’s no way to recoup that money,” said Roberts. “And I would take that FIFA projection with the biggest grain of sand you could possibly find.”
In 2018, Chicago pulled out of the bid, with officials citing FIFA’s “inflexibility” and “unwillingness to negotiate.” Three years later, Montreal did the same due to funding friction between different levels of government.
While Roberts says most people’s experiences were likely neutral to positive in Toronto, he believes the city should’ve followed Chicago and Montreal’s lead – it would’ve been better off putting its money elsewhere.
“You could have asked me this before. You could ask me in two weeks. I would always say we should have passed,” he said.
“I think we would have been a fun place to watch the World Cup, no matter if there were games at BMO Field or not, and we could’ve invested that money into all kinds of other things that would make the city more fun, more livable, more efficient, whatever it might be.
“It’s a bad idea overall to be spending the level of money that we’re spending on a private event at the lake.”