The excitement surrounding the FIFA World Cup may have come with a hefty economic price tag for the United States, with a new report estimating that businesses across the country could have lost nearly $11.7 billion in productivity as millions of employees adjusted their work schedules to watch the tournament.
According to a study by human resources software provider UKG, the football extravaganza led to widespread workplace disruptions as employees either left offices early, arrived late, took unscheduled breaks or skipped work altogether to follow the high-profile matches. The report suggests that while the tournament generated unprecedented enthusiasm among football fans, it also resulted in significant losses for employers due to reduced productivity.
The impact was particularly noticeable as the FIFA World Cup reached its concluding stages, with the championship match drawing massive global attention. The report estimated that the cumulative productivity loss in the United States alone amounted to approximately $11.7 billion, while the global economy may have suffered productivity losses worth nearly $17 billion during the tournament as employees across different countries paused work to watch the action unfold.
Researchers noted that football’s growing popularity in the United States, combined with the country’s role as a major host of the expanded 2026 FIFA World Cup, contributed significantly to the surge in workplace absenteeism. Many employees reportedly planned their workdays around important fixtures, while others used leave or flexible work arrangements to ensure they did not miss the matches. In some cases, workers admitted to multitasking by streaming games during office hours, affecting overall efficiency.
The findings highlight an interesting paradox surrounding mega sporting events. While such tournaments often stimulate economic activity through tourism, hospitality, retail spending and broadcasting revenues, they can simultaneously reduce workplace output as millions of fans devote their attention to live sporting action instead of professional responsibilities. Economists have long debated whether the short-term decline in productivity is eventually offset by increased consumer spending and business generated by these global events.
The World Cup has undeniably been a commercial success for FIFA, which is expected to report record revenues from the tournament. The governing body has projected that the event would contribute billions of dollars to global economic output through tourism, infrastructure development, sponsorships and media rights. However, several economists have argued that the long-term economic benefits for host nations are often more modest than initial projections suggest, particularly when indirect costs and productivity losses are taken into account.
Despite concerns about workplace efficiency, many employers reportedly adopted a flexible approach during the tournament by allowing staff to watch selected matches or adjust their schedules. Some organisations viewed the event as an opportunity to boost employee morale through watch parties and flexible working hours, believing that accommodating workers’ enthusiasm could improve engagement in the long run.
The report also underscores football’s expanding influence in the United States, a country traditionally dominated by sports such as American football, basketball and baseball. The successful hosting of the FIFA World Cup attracted millions of spectators, generated packed stadiums and significantly increased public interest in the sport. Businesses linked to hospitality, food services and entertainment benefited from the influx of fans and heightened consumer spending during the tournament.
While the estimated productivity losses present one side of the economic equation, analysts believe the overall financial impact of the World Cup will continue to be debated. Supporters argue that the tournament has strengthened the country’s global sporting profile and generated substantial economic activity beyond traditional workplace metrics, whereas critics maintain that disruptions to regular business operations should also be factored into any assessment of the event’s overall economic legacy.
