There were some incredible contenders to host the showpiece in 2026, but the eventual choice does come with plenty of risks
The location of the 2026 World Cup final has been confirmed, and it's headed to New York! Well, not exactly, but East Rutherford doesn't exactly have the same ring to it, does it? According to FIFA, New York-New Jersey will play host, but we all know it's the latter's MetLife Stadium that will be staging the biggest game the sport has to offer.
Now, let's get one thing out of the way: we won't be taking shots at MetLife Stadium being in New Jersey. It's commonplace in American sports for teams to build stadiums outside of their own cities. In fact, the other two top contenders to host the World Cup final are also outside of their own city limits. It's just the way things work when it comes to stadium building in the U.S.
However, there is something that separates the stadiums in the Dallas and Los Angeles areas from the one representing New York: Innovation. While AT&T Stadium and SoFi Stadium are among the boldest and most futuristic sports arenas in the world, MetLife is comparatively tame and, perhaps more importantly, very, very exposed to the elements.
It's what makes FIFA's decision to choose New York over Dallas and Los Angeles so risky, as MetLife Stadium feels like an imperfect host chosen because of its proximity to the country's biggest city, rather than its suitability for the event.
Article continues below
