In addition to the exorbitant prices of tickets for the 2026 World Cup matches, in some venues in the United States there is an unexpected expense: transportation to the stadium.

Traveling a few kilometers by train or bus can cost almost US$100, which has drawn criticism from fan groups, local politicians and even FIFA itself.

The most controversial case is that of New York and New Jersey, where the final and seven other matches of the World Cup will be played, which takes place between June 11 and July 19.

Fans traveling by train from Manhattan to MetLife Stadium will have to pay $98 for a round-trip ticket.

Although the fare was lowered twice after a wave of criticism, it is still well above the usual fare during NFL games, which is about $12.

In Boston, another of the American venues, the special train to Gillette Stadium will cost US$80, four times more than for normal sporting events.

This contrasts with what happened in the most recent World Cups.

In Russia 2018, free trains were enabled between the host cities, and in Qatar 2022, fans with tickets had free access to the metro and other public transport services.

The controversy over transport prices has also opened a broader debate about who should bear the extraordinary costs of transporting hundreds of thousands of fans to the largest football tournament in the world.

New York and New Jersey, at the center of the controversy

Most of the criticism about the price of transportation focuses on the New York and New Jersey region, where eight World Cup matches will be held, including the final.

The controversy began when NJ Transit, the public company that operates rail transportation in New Jersey, announced that the special round-trip ticket between Manhattan (New York) and MetLife Stadium would cost US$150.

The figure provoked an immediate reaction from fans, local authorities and FIFA itself.

World football's governing body even warned that such a high fee could have a "deterrent effect" on fans who wanted to attend matches.

After weeks of negotiations and public pressure, the price was lowered to US$105 and later to US$98.

Even so, the fare is still much higher than the usual cost of that same trip during NFL New York Giants or New York Jets games, which usually costs around US$12.90.

And, for those who prefer to go to the stadium in their vehicle, parking prices in many cases exceed US$200 on match days, according to local media, which has caused even more outrage.

Boston is the other venue embroiled in controversy over transportation costs for the World Cup.

Fans who want to travel on the special trains to Gillette Stadium, located in Foxborough, will have to pay US$80 for a round-trip ticket, compared to the US$20 that a similar service usually costs during other sporting events.

In this case, local authorities allege that it will be necessary to launch special services to transport tens of thousands of fans to the stadium, located about 45 kilometers from the center of Boston.

The solutions of Miami, Philadelphia or Atlanta

In any case, this is not a problem that affects the majority of the venues where the World Cup will be held.

Some cities have chosen to absorb part of the costs or look for alternative formulas.

In Miami, for example, county officials have announced that they will offer free buses to transport spectators to Hard Rock Stadium during the tournament.

As explained by the local organizing committee to the AP agency, the objective is to facilitate access to the stadium and reduce traffic congestion.

In Kansas City, fans will be able to use shuttle services for US$15 round trip, a figure much lower than those in New Jersey or Boston.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia the local government signed an agreement with Airbnb, FIFA's official sponsor, to provide free transportation services back after matches.

Other cities such as Atlanta, Houston and Seattle will maintain the usual prices of their public transportation networks during the World Cup.

The dispute over who pays the bill

The controversy over transport rates has opened the debate on how the costs of organizing the World Cup should be shared between FIFA and the host cities.

The controversy has its origins in the agreements signed when the United States, Canada and Mexico obtained the venue of the tournament.

The original contracts signed by host cities in 2018 required providing free transportation to fans to games, but FIFA changed that requirement in 2023, believing it placed an excessive financial burden on venues.

Since then, cities are only required to ensure that ticket holders have access to transportation to the stadiums, even if they have to pay for it.

That is why some cities have chosen to subsidize part of the expenses or seek private sponsors, while others have transferred a significant part of the bill to the fans.

In this case, furthermore, we are talking about the largest World Cup in history: the 2026 edition will be the first with 48 teams and 104 matches, and FIFA expects to obtain income close to US$13,000 million during the 2023-2026 cycle, compared to the US$7,500 million registered in the previous cycle.

Those who believe that the organization should assume part of the expenses allude to this figure.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill said NJ Transit faces a bill of about $48 million to safely transport about 40,000 fans per game to and from the stadium.

Sherrill questioned whether those costs fall on local taxpayers while FIFA rakes in billions of dollars in revenue.

For his part, the Democratic leader of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, maintained that "the least FIFA can do is guarantee that New York residents can get to the stadium without being charged abusive prices."

FIFA, for its part, rejects these arguments.

The organization claims that it eliminated the requirement for free transportation precisely to alleviate financial pressure on host cities and assures that it has worked for years with the venues on their mobility plans, in addition to promoting the obtaining of federal funds to support transportation infrastructure.

He also claims that he is not aware that in other large sporting or musical events held at MetLife Stadium, the organizers have assumed the cost of transporting spectators.