Mexico - July 2026

Mexico’s role as co-host of the Fifa World Cup in June and July was forecast to bring significant economic benefits. However, this has been blunted by disruption caused by protests from groups attempting to leverage the global event to extract concessions from the government. 

Prior to the tournament, which saw matches in Mexico City (CDMX), Jalisco state capital Guadalajara, and Nuevo León state capital Monterrey, the Mexican government projected that the World Cup would bring 5.5m visitors and an economic impact of more than M$60bn (US$3.42bn). It laid out plans to capitalise on an event that US-based, Latin America-focused consultancy CIAL Dun & Bradstreet said would bring “weeks of peak mobility, hotel occupancy, spending in restaurants, retail, and services”. In February, British multinational consultancy Deloitte estimated that the World Cup would generate US$2.73bn in added value for the Mexican economy, equivalent to 0.14% of GDP, as well as generating 112,200 temporary jobs, or 0.19% of total employment in the country. “These statistics reflect the potential of the tournament as an economic catalyst that will open new opportunities for businesses that can anticipate and capitalise on this historic moment,” said Deloitte in a note published on 9 February.

On the other hand, some predicted that concerns over security, following global media coverage of the wave of criminal violence following the death of cartel boss Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Rubén Oseguera Cervantes in February [EB-26-03], as well as the possibility of protests, would disrupt the World Cup and reduce its positive effects on the economy. While it is hard to measure whether security concerns put fans off from travelling, the latter camp were right about the risk of social unrest, with various groups capitalising on the World Cup to try and extract concessions from a government that is desperate to present a positive image of the country.

From the end of May, the Coordinadora Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (CNTE) teachers’ union mobilised members in CDMX, where they set up encampments in the historic centre, a key tourism area. At one point they tried to take over the Zócalo, a central square where the government was planning to build a fan zone where people could watch the World Cup games, but they were prevented from doing so by security forces. Nonetheless they blocked roads and knocked down World Cup statues, and then on 3 June demonstrators broke into the offices of the education ministry (SEP) and injured at least two police officers. Other groups, including pensioners and the families of Mexico’s many disappeared people, joined forces with the CNTE and marched to demand government action on longstanding issues, often coinciding these with World Cup matches.

President Claudia Sheinbaum attempted to play down the disruption, alleging that the protests were a manufactured “provocation,” while also agreeing to negotiate with the CNTE over the pension reform it opposes, among other issues. After talks failed to produce an agreement, her government stated it would carry out “school-by-school consultations to evaluate the needs of the educational sector” instead. Eventually the CNTE decided to end its mobilisation after 19 days, but by this stage significant economic losses had already racked up.

According to the CDMX chamber of commerce, Conaco CDMX, the CNTE encampments set up in the historic centre of the capital at the end of May led to a steep decline in economic activity in the area, affecting 3,624 businesses with an estimated M$39.5m in losses in just one day. On 7 June, the national chamber of commerce, services, and tourism (Concanaco Servytur), estimated that CNTE mobilisations in CDMX, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Michoacán states were costing the economy M$200m-260m per day. By 18 June, frustrations had grown to the point that Concanaco Servytur president, Octavio de la Torre, called CNTE “enemies of the country,” who had “sabotaged” the World Cup. He cited lower hotel occupancy rates than expected, as well as less revenue at restaurants, and blamed the CNTE for encouraging football fans to experience the tournament in other host cities. As a result, nine out of 10 businesses surveyed by Concanaco Servytur hadn’t reported any significant spike in sales. “Up to now the World Cup hasn’t reached the same level as other important events such as the Formula 1, Pa’l Norte [a music festival held in Monterrey], or the Guadalajara international literary festival,” said De la Torre.

But while Concanaco Servytur has drawn a negative comparison with other large events as a way of blaming CNTE for disrupting economic activity during the World Cup, there is significant research that has found that the benefits of hosting the tournament are overstated. For example, an academic paper published in 2018 by academics at Brazil’s federal universities of Paraíba and Pernambuco, which analysed the economic impact of World Cups from 1978 to 2006, found that hosting the tournament has no effect on GDP per capita. Another paper, written in 2018 by Victor Matheson, a professor of economics at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts, found that while infrastructure investment that is generally carried out prior to the tournament can have a positive effect on economic returns, “there is no reason to believe that the investments required to host the World Cup will provide higher returns than alternative infrastructure projects that could have been carried out instead”. This is an important point given the fact that host nations often spend billions of dollars getting ready to host the tournament, when they could have invested in projects with more long-term impacts.

And a literature review published in 2016 by researchers at the Harvard Center for International Development concluded that “any increased economic activity resulting from the event is routinely dwarfed by additional public budgetary commitments,” adding that “the arguments regarding multiplicative effects and increased revenues also tend to be exaggerated”. Most recently, a Saxo Bank analysis published in May looking specifically at the 2026 World Cup forecast that economic gains would be strongly concentrated, sector specific, and limited to the duration of the event, when protests were most disruptive.

As a result, the economic benefits of hosting the tournament were always likely to be less than proponents of the bid suggested, and the period that should have brought the biggest benefits was disrupted by protests. Mexico is therefore unlikely to reap many rewards from hosting, beyond some improvements in transport infrastructure that will benefit local communities around the stadiums, and potentially a wave of unofficial brand ambassadors as fans recount their positive experiences of the country to friends and family when they return home.

There is also a risk of further protests as the underlying grievances of various protest groups have not been dealt with. The CNTE has said that it is organising a new round of mobilisations in September, and the union’s core demands, including a return to the old pension system and a significant pay rise, will not be easily met. This risk is amplified by the pronouncements of opposition figure Ricardo Salinas Pliego, the billionaire owner of broadcaster TV Azteca, who has called for protests against the government. While this may lend some credibility to Sheinbaum’s claim that the protests were a “provocation,” it doesn’t change the fact that there are genuine grievances that need to be addressed. A new wave of protests, potentially involving other economic sectors, such as the national haulier union, Alianza Mexicana de Organización de Transportistas (Amotac), which called off planned blockades during the World Cup, has the potential to cause even more disruption and further economic losses.

Employment benefits

Those who managed to secure one of the temporary jobs on offer prior to and during the World Cup will benefit in the short term, thanks to a boost in income and potentially to savings. They may also secure some longer-term benefits in terms of professional experience and contacts, but the majority are likely to return to their previous situations in time.