Beyond the Beautiful Game: Strategic Risk Lessons from the World Cup

As the United States prepares to host FIFA World Cup – the world’s biggest soccer (known as football internationally) tournament – the event offers more than a showcase of elite soccer. It is a global stress test for American infrastructure, construction resilience, and risk management in a world shaped by inflation, cyber threats, and geopolitical volatility.

The World’s Largest Stage as a Stress Test

The FIFA World Cup is more than a tournament. It is a global business and infrastructure challenge of unmatched scale. This year, when the United States hosts matches across 11 cities, the event will stretch infrastructure systems, test commercial resilience, and place risk managers under incredible scrutiny.

For U.S. stakeholders, the World Cup is a double-edged sword. It brings the promise of global attention and economic benefit, but it also exposes weaknesses in physical assets, construction projects, and the insurance structures underpinning them. Unlike previous tournaments, no new stadiums are being built. Instead, existing NFL venues are being retrofitted with natural grass, expanded seating, and upgraded broadcast systems. At first glance this lowers risk, but the reality is more complex. The retrofits come with tight deadlines, inflationary costs, and operational risks that have already challenged several projects.

Adding to this, the global backdrop has shifted. Rising geopolitical tensions, state-sponsored cyberattacks, and volatile supply chains are increasing the risk profile across the country. For U.S. executives, the World Cup is not just a celebration of soccer. It is a stress test of infrastructure, commercial contracts, and insurance capacity in a volatile world.

Construction and Retrofit Challenges

Host stadiums are already undergoing transformations. MetLife Stadium in New Jersey has removed thousands of seats to expand the field to FIFA dimensions. In Dallas, AT&T Stadium has reconfigured suites and stands. Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta is installing a grass field using a complex new system. Each of these projects carries risk.

• Tight timelines: Grass installations must be complete and stable months before kickoff. Delays could impact playing quality and reputational risk for host cities.
• Operational strain: NFL and MLS schedules leave narrow construction windows. Project overruns are costly and disruptive.
• Technology upgrades: Stadium lighting and broadcast systems must meet stringent global standards. Failures could cause both reputational damage and liability.

These projects occur in an environment of elevated construction inflation. Material costs are still 30 to 40 percent higher than pre-pandemic baselines. Labor shortages remain acute, with U.S. construction unemployment at record lows. Contractors face pressure to deliver on time and within budget, while insurers are scrutinizing project schedules, bonds, and delay-in-completion clauses with greater intensity.

Material Costs, Labor Instability, and Inflationary Pressure

Infrastructure costs in the United States have surged since 2020. Pandemic disruptions, supply chain delays, and ongoing inflation have left steel, glass, and concrete markets volatile. Contractors are facing pressure to secure materials far in advance, often paying premiums to lock in supply.

At the same time, labor shortages remain a systemic issue. Stadium retrofit projects compete with federal infrastructure investments and private commercial development, stretching the construction workforce. This creates safety concerns as contractors push to meet deadlines with lean crews, increasing the likelihood of accidents or quality issues.

From an insurance perspective, this environment amplifies risks across multiple lines:

• Builder’s risk: Cost overruns and supply delays increase claims potential.
• Delay-in-completion: Even minor schedule slips could cascade into contractual penalties with FIFA and sponsors.
• Surety bonds: Higher demand for completion guarantees has driven up pricing.

Risk managers must prepare for elevated premiums and stricter underwriting requirements as insurers adjust to these conditions.

Geopolitical Tensions and Their Direct Impact

Recent events have underscored how fragile global supply chains and energy markets remain. Escalating conflict in the Middle East has disrupted Red Sea shipping routes, forcing rerouting of goods and raising freight costs. This has already translated into higher prices for steel and energy. At the same time, U.S.-China tensions around technology exports continue to complicate sourcing for broadcast and stadium technology.

These geopolitical pressures bring new risks:

• Supply chain fragility: Components sourced from high-risk regions may not arrive on time. Replacement suppliers often come at a significant premium
• Energy price volatility: Fuel and power price surges could strain budgets for stadium operations and construction
• Cyber warfare spillover: State-sponsored hacking campaigns targeting critical infrastructure could easily extend to World Cup venues, ticketing systems, or broadcast feeds

The insurance implications are significant. Political risk and trade disruption insurance, once peripheral in the U.S. context, now deserves attention for large-scale infrastructure and event projects. Builders and sponsors alike must evaluate exposures to geopolitical shocks that could ripple into U.S. operations.

Coordinating Public-Private Infrastructure Insurance

The World Cup is a patchwork of public and private responsibilities. Cities and states invest in transit and public security. Stadiums are privately owned. FIFA enforces global standards and contracts with sponsors. The challenge lies in aligning insurance and risk management across this fragmented landscape.

Lessons from prior mega-events are instructive. Brazil’s 2014 World Cup suffered from corruption in construction contracting, leading to litigation and reputational fallout. Qatar’s 2022 tournament highlighted the vulnerability of digital infrastructure, with cyberattacks targeting telecom and ticketing systems. In each case, fragmented responsibility slowed response and complicated claims.

For 2026, U.S. stakeholders must avoid these pitfalls. Coordinating builder’s risk, terrorism coverage, cyber insurance, and event cancellation policies across jurisdictions is essential. Clear allocation of liability between cities, stadium operators, and FIFA should be negotiated early to prevent disputes when losses occur.

Lessons from Recent Mega-Events

Global sports provide a wealth of recent lessons:

• Qatar 2022: Despite extensive planning, the tournament nearly faced disruption from a major cyberattack on telecommunications infrastructure. It underscored the importance of cyber resilience
• Brazil 2014: Cost overruns and corruption scandals damaged public trust and led to years of litigation. Transparency and compliance remain critical
• Olympics Tokyo 2020: The pandemic forced a one-year delay and left organizers with billions in losses. It highlighted the need for contingency planning and contract clarity around force majeure

Each of these lessons is relevant to 2026. U.S. stakeholders must expect the unexpected and structure insurance and governance accordingly.

The World Cup is a stress test for U.S. infrastructure and risk management systems. The convergence of retrofit challenges, inflationary pressure, and geopolitical volatility requires an integrated approach. Risk managers should:

• Scrutinize project schedules to ensure realistic delivery dates, backed by performance bonds and completion guarantees
• Negotiate delay-in-completion coverage early, with clear definitions of covered perils.
• Build cyber resilience into all stadium and event systems, with insurance policies explicitly covering cyber-triggered cancellations or disruptions
• Incorporate geopolitical risk assessment into sourcing and supply chain planning.
• Align public and private coverage through collaborative insurance programs across host cities, stadiums, and FIFA

The World Cup is not just another event. It is a national test of resilience, reputation, and risk management maturity