For a lot of soccer fans in Greater Boston, the region’s role in this year’s US-hosted World Cup was largely over by the end of June. By that point, there was only one remaining match scheduled for Foxborough—a quarterfinal, which wound up featuring Morocco losing to France more than a week later on July 9.
But while Boston street vendors were already discounting their FIFA surplus on June 30, the Department of Public Health was just starting to evaluate bids for “Local Public Health Funding for FIFA 2026 World Cup Community Events.” The games ran from June 13 to July 9, but the request for quotes in question lists a start date of June 15—more than two weeks before the deadline for cities and towns to apply—with a contract end date of Sept. 30, 2026.
The solicitation reads: “The Office of Local and Regional Health (OLRH) is seeking municipalities hosting FIFA 2026 World Cup public viewing or fan-based community events (e.g. watch parties- organized public viewing events where matches are shown in parks, community centers, or other public spaces) in need of one-time funding (up to $15,000 per community event) to support local public health (LPH), including but not limited to: LPH staffing, translation, supplies, and handwashing station rentals.”
Other allowable expenses include cooling tents and condoms. But if anyone was waiting on the DPH to have safe sex after a FIFA watch party, they may end up with a World Cup baby come April instead.
This seemingly late contract raises a number of questions. Despite the program potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, the announcement is strange on multiple counts. In one section, it lists the deadline for recipients to spend funds as Sept. 31, 2026, a date which does not exist. Also, the “estimated total value” of the contract is listed as $160,000, with an “estimated annualized amount” of “$10,000 – $30,000.” Those figures are likely reversed, since the annualized amount should be greater than the sum of one to three months of work.
The DPH did not respond to a request for comment and clarification. Here is what we asked:
- Can you please explain how it is possible for a contract to start 15 days before bidding opens, and why the bidding for FIFA-related funding opened after most of the games in this region were already played?
- And also please include the following information:
- How much funding total can be given out through this solicitation?
- Are there any minimums or maximums for how much any single recipient can receive?
- How many applications did you receive so far? Who were they from?
- Which applicants received funding? How much? And for what?
The unresponsiveness of the department comes as no major surprise. While the agency appears responsive on paper for routine requests, that accolade evaporates when journalists press for detailed accountability or push cases to appeal. In an analysis published earlier this year, BINJ contributor Jonathan Gerhardson showed that 3,157 public records requests were logged with the DPH in 2024. The median response time was just seven days and about 68% of requests received a response in less than 14 days. In 69 cases that escalated to appeals across 2024 and 2025, the agency’s exemption claims failed 97% of the time, while its “administrative review” processes operated outside the law and its comms office added a layer of delay for journalists.
Following additional World Cup grant funds
The Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism is scrutinizing multiple World Cup-related contracts and programs after the fact. Our recent coverage visualized the commonwealth’s disbursement of about $12 million to cities and towns for their roles in events like FIFA watch parties. Specifically, we noted the creative use of the state’s Sports and Entertainment Events Fund. Managed by the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, no single recipient (a municipality or nonprofit) is supposed to receive more than half of the funding available
Also, according to MOTT, “Priorities of the fund include direct and economic impacts on the Commonwealth’s tourism industry, promotion of the Commonwealth in national and international media, and geographic equity.” To ensure the latter, the solicitation for grant applications specifically noted: “By law, no more than 50% of the program’s annual allocation may go to one recipient.” But a BINJ analysis showed that is not how things played out.
Overall, the MOTT spending was overwhelmingly concentrated in Boston and Foxborough. Over two rounds of funding, three Boston-focused entities (Meet Boston, Boston Soccer 2026, and the City of Boston) received $10,125,000, accounting for 86% of all funds.
In terms of eligible spending categories, there is some crossover between the MOTT grants for FIFA events and the local health funding via DPH. The agency’s Office of Preparedness and Emergency Management reportedly “led preparation efforts for the department,” refining “public health protocols, environmental health mitigation strategies, and medical surge planning.”
