When it comes to major global sporting events, England is famous for hosting Wimbledon; France, for the Tour de France; and America, for the Masters golf tournament.
But the U.S. is also on a streak, landing more international events than ever.
This year, the nation co-hosted the FIFA World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico. The U.S. will also host the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and the Rugby World Cup in 2031 and 2033.
On Sept. 12, more than 68,000 rugby fans descended on the host city, Baltimore, to watch one of the world’s greatest rivalries: the South Africa Springboks versus the New Zealand All Blacks, which South Africa won, 43-28.
What’s driving the good fortune for sports fans living in the U.S.? Is the U.S. becoming the new global hub of sports?
Stefan Ruediger, an associate professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, offers his perspective on the topic. Ruediger teaches Sports Economics as part of the school’s Global Economies and Markets focus.
Q. Why are more international sports organizations hosting tournaments in the U.S.?
A. There are several straightforward economic reasons. The U.S. is a very large and affluent consumer market with an established willingness to spend substantial amounts on sports and entertainment. That creates opportunities not only through ticket sales, but also through sponsorships, media rights, hospitality and merchandise.
The U.S. also has an unusually large stock of high-quality sports infrastructure. International organizations can bring major events into many U.S. markets without first having to build a stadium or much of the surrounding infrastructure required to stage them. That can substantially improve the economics of hosting.
Q. What does it mean for the U.S. economy?
A. Sports economists have long cautioned that the total amount spent around an event is not the same as its net economic benefit. Some local spending would have occurred anyway; some visitors may displace other visitors; some revenue leaves the local economy, and hosting itself has costs.
One potential U.S. advantage is the amount of infrastructure that already exists. Los Angeles is an especially interesting example for the 2028 Olympics because it can rely heavily on existing sports venues, rather than building an entirely new set of permanent facilities.
Economically, that matters because using existing infrastructure can reduce the additional cost and financial risk of hosting. It can also limit the danger of being left with expensive facilities that have little use after the event.
I would not automatically assume that hosting a major international event produces a large economic payoff. But the economics can become more favorable when a city can accommodate the event largely with the infrastructure it already has.
