EAST RUTHERFORD, NEW JERSEY - JULY 09: A general view the stadium and the Meadowlands Train Station is seen from a NJ Transit train prior to the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 semi-final match between Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid CF at MetLife Stadium on July 09, 2025 in East Rutherford, New Jersey. (Photo by Luke Hales/Getty Images)
Getty Images
By now, many fans know that New Jersey Transit plans to charge fans $150 per round-trip train ticket for World Cup fans making the trip from New York City’s Penn Station to the Meadowlands station at MetLife Stadium, a venue that will host eight games during the 2026 World Cup, including the final.
Understanding how the saga has reached this point is another story.
The short version is that this is a dispute over funding between the New Jersey government, which claims running trains service for approximately 40,000 fans per game will cost a total of $48 million, and FIFA, which has not provided the state with any funding to cover those costs because it’s part of the responsibilities that come with submitting a bid to be a World Cup host market.
ForbesWhat Fans Are Paying To Attend The 2026 World Cup
But the reality is the convergence of circumstances that include the uniquely inconvenient geography of MetLife Stadium, the Big Apple’s irresistable commercial appeal, the divided governance of the New York metro area, and shifting attitudes when it comes to using public dollars to fund sports.
MetLife Stadium: The Uniquely Isolated Venue
One of the ironies of MetLife Stadium and the Meadowlands sports complex is that, despite being in the nation’s largest metro area, it has among the fewest options for access from surrounding communities.
The rail line that goes to the stadium from nearby Secaucus is an out-and-back spur that does not operate normal commuter service. And while there are more than 20,000 on-site parking spaces, the geography is such that there is almost no off-site, unofficial parking capacity in the surrounding area.
(Whether you consider the 5,000 spaces at the nearby American Dream Mall, available for $225 for World Cup matches, as on- or off-site parking is a matter of semantics.)
Pedestrian access from the surrounding community is also next to impossible, unlike some other stadiums where fans who are willing to walk a couple miles would have more affordable alternatives.
So FIFA’s decision to establish an event perimeter that absorbs all the on-site parking will result in more stress focused directly on transit than it might have in a different host city.
The expected 40,000 riders per match is at least five times what typically use rail options for a Jets or Giants NFL game. And accommodating those fans on a transit system that is otherwise arguably the most used by regular citizens of any host city, according to the NJ government, will lead to a drastic increase in cost per rider.
FIFA has countered that most other host municipalities have offered prices in line with normal mass transit fares. (Matches at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, Mass., will also require an $80 round trip ticket by train, but that trip is several fold longer in distance than the journey between New York Penn Station and the Meadowlands.)
Forbes4 Reasons USMNT World Cup Ticket Sales Could Be LaggingBy Ian Nicholas Quillen
Big Apple Lure
Why doesn’t the nation’s largest and most commercially significant market have best-in-class access and infrastructure for its only NFL stadium and proposed World Cup venue? Well, because the appeal of the New York market has made it possible to attract premier events without making improvements we’ve seen in other, more modern venues across North America.
If you assessed the logistics of MetLife Stadium against nearly any other venue in the tournament – including those in Mexico and Canada – without accounting for the market’s other benefits, it would compare unfavorably to nearly all of them.
Yet not only was New York / New Jersey selected as one of 16 host markets, it was awarded the final, presumably because of the importance of proximity to offices of corporate commercial partners and access for high-end foreign travelers.
It’s a pattern that repeats over and over in other forms of entertainment. So there has been no major municipal motivation to construct a more modern sports district with better ties to community infrastructure.
That’s fine when you can rely on automobile transit. But FIFA has insisted on a transit-first experience in order to provide for an expanded security perimeter and stage installations for fans to partake in before and after matches. The result is the removal of roughly 80% of the realistic parking inventory.
Shifting Attitudes On Funding Sports
And in the era before the heightened security measures that arrived with the 9-11 Attacks, when the U.S. last hosted the World Cup in 1994, FIFA could’ve expected more willingness for local authorities to foot the bill.
In 1994, the World Cup was far less understood by the average American. But it arrived during a time when the practice of state and local governments subsidizing sporting events was seen as sound economic policy, based on the economic activity it would supposedly create.
The primary place this played out was in stadium construction. And the 1990s marked a subtle shift in which not only were governments funding such stadium construction efforts, but they also were letting teams take the majority of the revenues from such construction, according to a report this March from the National Council of State Legislatures.
That attitude began to shift significantly in the next decade as a growing body of research suggested such public funds were a poor investment and had little net impact on economic activity.
Today’s dispute may not be about constructing a new facility, but it remains a discussion about public funding for sports. The rhetoric from New Jersey Governor Mike Sherill’s office about not passing costs to citizens could be found in any modern stadium proposal debate. So could FIFA’s insistence in meaningful economic benefits for local communities as a result of hosting tournament matches.
Matters Of State
The last piece to understand is how New York metro’s unique state boundaries effect governance and the likelihood of real or perceived local economic impact.
The burden of providing transit to and from matches is falling primarily on the New Jersey state government, since that is where MetLife Stadium is located and who operates the transit links. But most of the commercial and economic benefit will probably be felt in New York City and State, which is a far larger tourism draw.
That dynamic doesn’t exist in any other host market. And it allows Gov. Sherrill to make a calculation that holding firm on this issue won’t come at a major economic or political cost in her state.
The calculation isn’t guaranteed to be correct. New Jersey has a rich soccer heritage, and is the home state of several famous figures in the American game. And there may be embarrassment within the state if it is seen as responsible for negatively impacting the tournament.
But it’s a far more open question than in other municipalities, where the economic commitments and potential windfalls are more evenly distributed.