By Robert Haugh
After a 4.5-hour study session, Santa Clara residents learned that the six 2026 FIFA World Cup games played at Levi’s Stadium will lose money.
How much? The public still doesn’t know because major agreements still haven’t been released.
According to City staff, the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC) will receive revenues from the events and be responsible for costs. The BAHC was created by the 49ers and led by 49ers CEO Al Guido.
Guido negotiated the Host City Agreement with FIFA. Former City Attorney Brian Doyle documented in 2021 how Guido’s actions were a conflict of interest.
City staff reports that stadium rent of approximately $13 million will go to the BAHC.
According to a San Francisco Chronicle report, current City Attorney Glen Googins confidentially reported to the City Council in May that Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games even after accounting for the stadium rent.
Googins did not want to discuss the issue last night. He said he was focused on making sure the new agreements did not include conflicts like Guido’s.
The City staff also reported that the 49ers would provide revenue for the events if the BAHC falls short of fundraising to cover expenses.
The team’s commitment has not been finalized and will be presented in documents provided to the City Council for a January 28, 2025 meeting.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor said the public should have ample time to review documents since the “devil is in the details.”
[…] Back to San Francisco. Last week, the San Francisco 49ers publicly vowed to cover Santa Clara’s expenses for the World Cup games. The 49ers claimed that they would use money that they received from their NFL operations to cover the costs. One estimate claims that it will cost Santa Clara about $50M to stage the games. The San Francisco Chronicle did a story on the Santa Clara City Attorney privately acknowledging to the City Council that “Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games”. […]
[…] Again to San Francisco. Final week, the San Francisco 49ers publicly vowed to cowl Santa Clara’s bills for the World Cup video games. The 49ers claimed that they’d use cash that they obtained from their NFL operations to cowl the prices. One estimate claims that it’s going to price Santa Clara about $50M to stage the video games. The San Francisco Chronicle did a narrative on the Santa Clara Metropolis Legal professional privately acknowledging to the Metropolis Council that “Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games”. […]
[…] Again to San Francisco. Final week, the San Francisco 49ers publicly vowed to cowl Santa Clara’s bills for the World Cup video games. The 49ers claimed that they’d use cash that they obtained from their NFL operations to cowl the prices. One estimate claims that it’s going to value Santa Clara about $50M to stage the video games. The San Francisco Chronicle did a narrative on the Santa Clara Metropolis Legal professional privately acknowledging to the Metropolis Council that “Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games”. […]
[…] Again to San Francisco. Final week, the San Francisco 49ers publicly vowed to cowl Santa Clara’s bills for the World Cup video games. The 49ers claimed that they’d use cash that they obtained from their NFL operations to cowl the prices. One estimate claims that it’ll price Santa Clara about $50M to stage the video games. The San Francisco Chronicle did a narrative on the Santa Clara Metropolis Legal professional privately acknowledging to the Metropolis Council that “Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games”. […]
[…] Back to San Francisco. Last week, the San Francisco 49ers publicly vowed to cover Santa Clara’s expenses for the World Cup games. The 49ers claimed that they would use money that they received from their NFL operations to cover the costs. One estimate claims that it will cost Santa Clara about $50M to stage the games. The San Francisco Chronicle did a story on the Santa Clara City Attorney privately acknowledging to the City Council that “Santa Clara would lose approximately $38 million from the FIFA games”. […]
Completely selective reporting in this post. From other reporting…
1) “Googins repeated previous statements that the games were “highly likely” to lose money, so the stadium authority/city being shielded from the costs is preferable.”
b>2) “Staff is confident that the presented terms will sufficiently insulate the city and the stadium authority from the associated costs and services associated with hosting the games, said City Manager Jovan Grogan.”
3) “Why did we even start doing this, Council Member Suds Jain said, what was the motivation for even asking to have FIFA come here if we knew it was going to be a loss event?”
4) “The Forty-Niners Management Company (ManCo) bid on the games, and, in 2017, Gillmor sent a letter of support.”
During the meeting, City Manager Grogan stated there have been delays obtaining all information from FIFA, but they are making progress. In this post, as well as most commenting on this blog, there is the typical blame Googins and Jain as they’ve been established as enemy #1 by SCPOA and readers here. Jain and Googins should be given credit for cautiously approaching FIFA 2026 as they were not here when the contracts were struck, but Gillmor was.
It is obvious this blog and many readers are influenced by SCPOA’s animus towards Jain and Googins over the Measure A/B ordeal while trying to avoid criticizing Grogan and Gillmor as they have to negotiate with them over the next 24 months for an extended compensation package in December 2026.
The commenting winners of the evening last night are BAHC CEO, Zaileen Janmohamed, who provided a good presentation on why the region and City of Santa Clara should continue to welcome FIFA 2026 and two community members who provided their opinions on the matter.
Zaileen: https://youtu.be/cHchrDtqr8w?t=13214
Brian: https://youtu.be/cHchrDtqr8w?t=14722
Ruben: https://youtu.be/cHchrDtqr8w?t=14831
It almost seems like Robert Haugh didn’t actually pay attention to the meeting last night or, as usual, he is intentionally misrepresenting what was actually discussed in the meeting.
Yes, big events like Olympics, Superbowl and World Cup are generally expected to be money losing propositions when accounting for direct expenses and revenues because logistics and public safety costs are immense. Lisa Gillmor should have known that when her City Council wrote a letter to John Kristick of the 2026 United Bid Committee on August 31, 2017. “I am pleased to confirm that the City of Santa Clara/Levi’s Stadium will submit a proposal to host one or more matches of the 2026 World Cup”
FIFA rent for use of the Stadium is $1.5M per match day and $150K per non-match day. This is expected to be around $13.5M which goes to the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC). Total direct BAHC expenses at the Stadium for operations and reconfiguring the seating bowl are estimated to be between $45M and $50M. This includes an estimated $12.2M for Qualified Event Expenses to the City (public safety, planning, training, equipment, etc). Per the presentation “BAHC assumes all obligations under the Stadium Agreement, including event costs, public safety costs, and capital improvements”
Per Measure J, NO money will flow from the general fund to support any stadium activities. The BAHC will cover all the City costs except perhaps $24K of early planning costs and that money would come from the Stadium Authority finances, not the general fund. It is possible that this money would be covered by government grants that the BAHC is applying for.
Essentially all the direct expenses of the City are guaranteed to be covered by the BAHC. If the BAHC cannot raise funds to pay the expenses, then the 49ers will cover the balance.
As I stated last night, since the City is taking essentially no risk, the direct rewards are expected to be very limited, just like any investment. The BAHC presentation indicated that the economic impact to Santa Clara County is expected to be between $270M and $360M. Hopefully indirect benefits like TOT taxes for Santa Clara will be very good.
It’s sad that Lisa Gillmor didn’t seem to understand the contract she signed with respect to Senior and Youth fees and Brian Doyle didn’t seem to understand how suite revenues work and why the 49ers would invest $200M of their own money on upgrading the suites.
Suds,
Could you please explain for us what assurances there are that the BAHC can cover all the expenses and will and that the Forty Niners will cover anything that the BAHC cannot or will not cover? What happens if this event is scheduled and takes place and the BAHC does not raise enough funds to cover it and the Forty Niners do not make up for this in time to prevent the city from going out of pocket to cover the expenses?
Also I am hoping that you can explain what the agreement say about the obligation of the stadium authority and the city to provide facilities and services that are outlined in the agreement and if the city is still required to provide them if they are not paid for by the BAHC or by the Forty Niners. If they do not pony up for this and the stadium authority and the city does not is there grounds for the stadium authority or the city to be sued for failure to perform as required by the agreement?
Robert,
You should be more clear about what you mean when you write “Santa Clara.” Your headline reads that the World Cup will be a net loss event “for Santa Clara” and that might be true but not because it is “highly likely to be a ‘net loss event’ for the Stadium Authority.” The revenues the stadium authority will make do not include all the revenue that will be made by the city government of Santa Clara in the form of hotel and sales taxes. It will not include all the revenues that will be increased for businesses in Santa Clara and individual Santa Clarans.
I am not claiming that the World Cup will one hundred percent be a net profit event for Santa Clara writ large but the distinctions I described above are still important to keep in mind when weighing the costs and benefits of hosting World Cup games.
The stadium belongs to Santa Clara. We have been getting the short end of the stick ever since the 49er lawyers out smarted the sitting city council at the time. You can be very sure the 49ers are not going to lose any money, yet they seem to be able to commit us to a losing proposition. We need a city council that will hire/keep staff that is on the city’s side. There is no excuse for this, in my expert opinion.
Howard,
From reporting I have read I believe that the BAHC has pledged to cover any net negative loss suffered by the city through the stadium authority and also that the Forty Niners have pledged to cover any net negative loss that the BAHC cannot cover.
I do not know how reliable these pledges are or what recourse there is if they do not fulfill their pledges.
However the issue of what the stadium authority profits or loses from this event is not the same as what the city government of Santa Clara will profit or lose and it is also not including what businesses and the people of Santa Clara will profit or lose from this event. That is what my comment was about and your comment does not seem to be relevant to that.
Santa Clara could have made about a million dollars per game if they had implemented my fair and reasonable tax on attendees of sports and entertainment events. The council did their best to put me off and dismiss my idea which happens to be better than anything they have introduced, which is basically nothing from a bunch of zeroes.
We pay enough to go to events at Levi’s Stadium. I do not want another added tax or fee to attend events. We get taxed enough.
Any money made would be put back into the city, and you, Dude ,would benefit. I don’t want to hear that you can afford to attend multiple events at the stadium and are whining about paying a few dollars more. The bottom line is that most people attending games and concerts are from out of town.