New York–New Jersey Outpaces Dallas and Many US Host Cities as World Cup 2026 Tourism Revenue Reveals Unexpected Hotel Winners

The World Cup 2026 tourism aftermath reveals a striking divide between hotel revenue, occupancy and visitor growth across America’s 11 host markets. New York–New Jersey generated the largest estimated incremental hotel room revenue, while Kansas City recorded the strongest proportional increase in revenue per available room. Yet higher prices did not always translate into fuller hotels or stronger visitor volumes. Industry estimates also suggest that the tournament’s benefits varied considerably by destination, accommodation supply and competing travel demand. For travellers and tourism businesses, the results raise a critical question: which cities converted football’s global audience into measurable economic gains, and which mainly experienced a temporary surge in room rates?

New York’s Revenue Haul Masks a Wider Divide

New York–New Jersey dominated the hotel revenue leaderboard, generating an estimated $339.2 million in incremental room revenue during the tournament’s match-related periods. That represented approximately half of HVS’s estimated $680 million total across the 11 American host markets. Los Angeles followed with $77.2 million, while Boston generated $69.3 million and Dallas recorded $60.8 million.

However, these figures measure additional hotel room revenue against a modelled baseline. They do not represent total hotel turnover, visitor expenditure or the full economic contribution of the tournament. New York’s result also reflects its enormous accommodation market, eight matches and the global attention surrounding the final at MetLife Stadium in neighbouring New Jersey.

The distinction matters for destination managers assessing future events. A large city can generate more incremental revenue simply because it has more rooms to sell. A smaller market can deliver a stronger proportional improvement, even when its total financial gain remains comparatively modest.

Where Hotel Revenue Concentrated

Host market	Estimated incremental room revenue	Main finding
New York–New Jersey	$339.2 million	Largest absolute gain
Los Angeles	$77.2 million	Second-largest gain
Boston	$69.3 million	Strong revenue and rate growth
Dallas	$60.8 million	Nine matches and substantial pricing gains
Miami	$34.2 million	Revenue rose despite weaker-than-expected occupancy
Kansas City	Below $25 million	Strongest proportional RevPAR increase
Houston	Below $25 million	Strong proportional rate performance
San Francisco Bay Area	Below $25 million	Modest proportional RevPAR growth
Philadelphia	Below $25 million	Higher rates accompanied by lower occupancy
Seattle	Below $25 million	Largest occupancy shortfall
Atlanta	$8.2 million	Smallest absolute revenue gain

The table exposes two distinct forms of success. New York captured the largest financial windfall, while Kansas City delivered the most pronounced improvement relative to its normal hotel performance. Neither measure alone determines which destination achieved the best overall tourism outcome.

Kansas City Rewrites the Growth Rankings

Kansas City emerged as the strongest proportional performer in the HVS hotel analysis, recording a 43.1% increase in revenue per available room, or RevPAR, against its adjusted baseline. Dallas followed at 30.1%, while New York recorded 23.5%. Houston and Boston posted gains of 22.2% and 22.0%, respectively.

RevPAR measures the revenue generated per available room, incorporating both the average room rate and occupancy. It therefore provides a more useful comparison of hotel performance than room revenue alone. Nevertheless, it remains a hotel metric, not a direct measure of visitor numbers or spending throughout a destination.

Kansas City’s result illustrates why percentage growth can reveal trends obscured by financial totals. New York’s larger accommodation base helped it generate much more incremental revenue. Kansas City, by contrast, achieved a sharper proportional improvement from a lower underlying rate environment.

Dallas also performed strongly, combining the tournament’s highest match count with a 30.1% RevPAR increase. Its nine matches created repeated opportunities for hotels to capture event-related demand. Yet match volume alone cannot explain performance, because visitor itineraries, room supply, competing business travel and hotel pricing all influence the final outcome.

For tourism boards, the lesson is clear: measure incremental revenue and proportional improvement separately. A city seeking to maximise its total economic contribution needs a different strategy from one trying to improve hotel productivity relative to its normal performance.

Higher Room Rates Changed the Equation

The tournament’s hotel impact was driven primarily by pricing rather than a broad increase in occupancy. HVS found that average daily room rates, or ADR, increased in all 11 markets. Occupancy, however, fell below the estimated no-tournament baseline in seven markets.

New York recorded an estimated $62.27 increase in ADR, the largest absolute gain in the study. Boston’s rate increased by $43.76, while Kansas City gained $41.14. Atlanta posted the smallest ADR increase, at $8.31. These results show how hotels captured additional revenue through higher prices, even where room demand did not match expectations.

The Occupancy Paradox

Host market	Occupancy change against baseline	RevPAR change
Los Angeles	+1.0 percentage point	+15.5%
Dallas	+0.7 percentage point	+30.1%
San Francisco Bay Area	+0.3 percentage point	+13.4%
New York–New Jersey	Essentially unchanged	+23.5%
Boston	−0.5 percentage point	+22.0%
Houston	−1.8 percentage points	+22.2%
Atlanta	−2.6 percentage points	+9.4%
Philadelphia	−3.5 percentage points	+14.8%
Miami	−4.6 percentage points	+18.9%
Kansas City	−4.6 percentage points	+43.1%
Seattle	−6.3 percentage points	+15.7%

Los Angeles, Dallas and San Francisco were the only markets to record occupancy above their adjusted baselines. New York remained broadly in line with expectations, while Seattle experienced the sharpest shortfall. Kansas City and Miami each recorded a 4.6-percentage-point occupancy decline, despite their positive RevPAR results.

This pattern raises an important commercial question. When hotels anticipate exceptional demand and sharply increase prices, some ordinary leisure travellers may postpone their trips or choose alternative destinations. Meeting planners may also shift events to different dates or locations, particularly when they negotiated room blocks before tournament prices rose.

HVS identifies displacement of individual travellers and group business as a plausible explanation for the weaker occupancy results. The data does not prove that every lost room night resulted from higher prices, however. The baseline is modelled, and other changes in travel demand may also have influenced performance.

For hotel operators, higher revenue does not automatically mean stronger demand. Revenue managers must weigh pricing opportunities against the risk of losing room nights, corporate accounts and repeat customers.

International Arrivals Tell a Different Story

Hotel revenue reveals how destinations monetised demand. International arrivals help establish whether the tournament also strengthened the flow of overseas visitors. The national picture remained complicated, despite evidence of improvement among countries competing in the tournament.

Tourism Economics reported that arrivals from participating countries declined by just 1.1% year on year in June and July. Arrivals from non-participating countries fell by 8.9% over the same period. Among travellers aged 25–44 from participating countries, arrivals increased by 5.7%.

These comparisons suggest that the competition supported travel from relevant source markets while broader inbound tourism faced headwinds. However, they do not establish how many additional visitors each host city received specifically because of the tournament.

The US Travel Association reported that international inbound travel to host cities increased by 0.7% during the event. That contrasted with a 3.6% decline in national inbound travel from January through May. Its analysis also found nearly flat room-night demand across the 11 host markets over the tournament period, even as RevPAR increased substantially.

The distinction is important for travel businesses. International arrivals, hotel room nights and hotel revenue measure different stages of the visitor economy. One international visitor might stay with relatives, book accommodation outside the host city or travel between several destinations. Conversely, a higher room rate can lift hotel revenue without a corresponding increase in arrivals.

What the International Data Can Prove

Indicator	Reported result	What it indicates
Arrivals from participating countries	−1.1% year on year	Relative resilience in relevant source markets
Arrivals from non-participating countries	−8.9% year on year	Broader inbound weakness
Arrivals aged 25–44 from participating countries	+5.7% year on year	Growth among a key travelling age group
International inbound travel to host cities	+0.7% during the tournament	Modest improvement in host-market visitation
Room-night demand across host markets	Nearly flat	Limited overall volume growth despite stronger revenue

For destination marketers, the next analytical step is to compare arrivals by country of origin with airport passenger data, hotel guest origins and local visitor surveys. Such evidence could reveal whether the event attracted first-time visitors, encouraged longer stays or redirected existing travel towards match locations.

Until comparable city-level arrival data becomes available, the evidence supports a measured finding: the tournament strengthened selected international travel markets, but it did not produce a uniform surge in overseas visitation.

New York’s Wider Spending Footprint

The hotel figures capture only one part of the economic impact. New York City’s official post-event assessment provides a broader view of spending across accommodation, food and drink, retail, recreation, entertainment and transport.

On 30 September 2026, the New York City mayor’s office announced an estimated $2 billion in economic impact for the city. The assessment included $1.2 billion in direct visitor spending and $162 million in operational spending. The wider New York–New Jersey region was estimated to have generated $3.5 billion in total economic impact.

The city also reported that international Visa card spending rose year on year by 12% in Manhattan, 19% in Brooklyn and 6% in Queens. Hotel occupancy increased by 6% in the combined Bronx and Staten Island hotel markets. These figures suggest that the tournament’s economic footprint extended beyond the main tourist districts, although card spending alone cannot capture all visitor expenditure.

How the Benefits Reached Beyond Hotels

Measure	Reported result	Relevance to tourism
New York City economic impact	$2 billion	Wider city-level economic activity
Direct visitor spending	$1.2 billion	Spending linked to visitors
Operational spending	$162 million	Event-related expenditure
Wider New York–New Jersey economic impact	$3.5 billion	Regional economic footprint
International card spending in Manhattan	+12% year on year	Greater recorded spending
International card spending in Brooklyn	+19% year on year	Stronger spending beyond Manhattan
International card spending in Queens	+6% year on year	Wider geographic participation

The findings offer an important lesson for other host destinations. A major sporting event can create opportunities for neighbourhood businesses when visitors explore beyond stadiums and established sightseeing areas. Restaurants, independent retailers, cultural attractions and local transport providers can benefit when itineraries encourage wider movement across a destination.

Nevertheless, card-spending growth does not automatically equal net new spending. Analysts must account for residents’ expenditure, changes in visitor mix and spending that might otherwise have occurred elsewhere. A stronger evaluation would distinguish genuinely additional visitor spending from purchases merely shifted between districts or dates.

Why Match-Day Gains Can Mislead

A fair assessment must distinguish match-day performance from the wider tournament period. Tourism Economics reported a 36.3% year-on-year increase in hotel room revenue on match dates across US host markets. Its analysis estimated $633.8 million in incremental room revenue on and around match dates.

HVS used a different approach. It compared actual hotel performance during match-related windows with an adjusted baseline based on each market’s underlying January–May trend. Its windows began three days before the first local match and ended three days after the last. These windows overlap when matches occur close together, capturing some of the surrounding demand.

The two estimates are not contradictory simply because their totals differ. They use different analytical approaches and definitions of the event’s impact. The Tourism Economics estimate should not be substituted directly for the HVS market ranking, nor should the two totals be combined.

A More Reliable Event-Performance Test

Comparison window	Question for analysts
Match dates	How much did room revenue and pricing rise during games?
Surrounding nights	Did fans arrive early or extend their stays?
Non-match dates	Did demand remain elevated between fixtures?
Pre-tournament weeks	Was the market already strengthening or weakening?
Post-tournament weeks	Did visitor demand persist after the event?
Nearby destinations	Did visitors spread spending beyond host markets?

Non-match dates are not perfect control periods. Fans may arrive early, remain after a fixture or travel to another host city. Analysts should therefore compare multiple time windows, neighbouring markets and previous-year patterns rather than attributing every difference to the tournament.

The post-event test is particularly valuable. If hotels maintain stronger occupancy, destinations attract repeat visitors and businesses report sustained gains, the event may have produced benefits beyond a temporary pricing spike. If performance quickly returns to baseline, the main result may have been a short-lived revenue opportunity.

What Travellers Should Learn From the Results

The findings matter beyond hotel investment and destination marketing. Visitors planning future trips around major sporting events can use the evidence to make better booking decisions, particularly when accommodation prices rise well ahead of a tournament.

First, travellers should compare accommodation across a wider geographic area. A hotel near a stadium may command a substantial premium, while properties along public transport routes or in neighbouring districts may offer better value. However, travellers should calculate the full journey cost, including transport fares, late-night services and additional travel time.

Second, booking flexibility can make a difference. Where cancellation terms permit, monitoring prices as an event approaches may help travellers identify changing availability. However, waiting is not guaranteed to produce cheaper rooms, especially for popular fixtures with limited accommodation capacity.

Third, visitors should compare total trip expenditure rather than room rates alone. Transport, meals, attraction tickets and additional nights can significantly change the final cost. Travellers visiting several host cities should also account for intercity fares and the possibility of high demand on match days.

The practical lesson is to plan around the full destination, not just the stadium. Neighbourhood choice, transport access and trip timing can matter as much as the headline hotel price.

What Future Host Cities Must Change

The results offer destination managers a useful framework for evaluating major events. A successful hosting strategy should not focus exclusively on attendance, hotel rates or headline economic-impact estimates. It should also measure additional visitor nights, spending across local businesses, displacement of existing travel and the persistence of demand after the event.

The initial forecasts also deserve scrutiny. In November 2025, Tourism Economics projected that the tournament could generate close to $900 million in incremental US hotel room revenue. Its subsequent September 2026 analysis estimated approximately $633.8 million. These figures reflect different stages of analysis and should not be interpreted as a directly comparable forecast-versus-actual calculation without confirming that their definitions and periods match.

HVS’s later analysis adds another layer: hotel revenue increased in all 11 markets, but occupancy fell below the adjusted baseline in seven. This reinforces the importance of assessing demand and pricing separately. It also shows why event planners should work closely with hotels, convention organisers, transport operators and local businesses before the event begins.

For future host destinations, a balanced scorecard should include incremental room revenue, occupancy, ADR, RevPAR, visitor spending, international arrivals and post-event visitation. Transparent baselines and consistent reporting would help residents and businesses understand who benefited, which costs accompanied those benefits and whether the gains justified public investment.

The Final Tourism Scorecard

The World Cup 2026 tourism aftermath delivers a more nuanced verdict than a conventional winners’ list. New York–New Jersey dominated incremental hotel revenue, Kansas City led proportional RevPAR growth, and Dallas combined a high match count with a strong hotel-performance uplift. Meanwhile, Seattle, Miami and Atlanta demonstrated that higher room rates can coexist with weaker-than-expected occupancy. International arrival figures and New York’s broader spending estimates show that the event’s impact extended beyond accommodation, although comparable city-level evidence remains essential. The lasting lesson is straightforward: a successful tourism event must generate additional value, not merely more expensive rooms. Future host cities should judge success through visitor growth, wider business participation and benefits that persist beyond the final whistle.