Kansas City is spending $1.4 million in previously allocated World Cup funds to subsidize vacant storefronts ahead of the 2026 tournament. But if mega events like the World Cup really sparked economic development, would we need to pay businesses to show up?
There’s a long track record of inflated claims around the economic benefits of hosting major sporting events. Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson found that the 1994 World Cup resulted not in a $4 billion boost, as advertised, but in a net loss between $5.5 billion and $9.3 billion across host cities. Despite this, city officials—and their usual partners in the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Council—continue to market the 2026 event as transformational for Kansas City.
A recent Kansas City Star article outlines the Small Business Storefront Vacancy Revitalization initiative, under which the city will offer up to $25,000 per year in rent subsidies to small businesses that occupy empty retail spaces. The goal is to fill downtown with activity and present a more vibrant environment to World Cup visitors.
But if the World Cup were the growth engine it’s advertised to be, wouldn’t businesses already be competing for these spaces?
The need for incentives suggests otherwise. Rather than a natural uptick in demand, the city appears to be staging vitality. Pop-up stores and subsidized art installations may look good for a few days, but they are not a substitute for long-term market viability. Officials point to similar programs in Seattle and San Francisco, yet even there, long-term results remain unclear.
Yes, some storefronts may light up temporarily. But if Kansas City genuinely wants to support small business, better options exist: streamline the permitting process, reduce regulatory barriers, address infrastructure needs, and improve public safety. These are structural reforms that support entrepreneurs regardless of tourist calendars.
Instead, city leaders appear to be following a familiar pattern: promote a high-profile event, rush to spend earmarked funds on short-term optics, and then dodge accountability when outcomes fall short.
If it hasn’t worked so far, why would anyone expect it to work in the future?
