It was almost two months ago that the final World Cup whistle echoed through Foxborough.
In the time since FIFA’s seven successful events in the commonwealth, which spurred satellite celebrations statewide, most public dialogue about the games has been positive.
Catching its breath from a month straight of covering feel-good attractions like the friendly fan army from Scotland, the media has obsessed over numbers furnished in glorious press releases, like the nearly 450,000 fans who flocked to Mass from over a hundred nations. One local TV news program crowed, “The World Cup was a hit in Boston—even an anti-Olympic host advocate was impressed.”
Far less impressive, however, has been the state’s lack of transparency around World Cup spending. The office of Gov. Maura Healey and multiple agencies published rosy recaps and select data, but have been reluctant to share inconvenient specifics. That includes details about “663 law enforcement missions” the governor boasted were “coordinated” “through the State Police Operations Center.”
We are seeking many contracts, comms, and details, including about the detection of “70 unauthorized drones,” “seizing” of 33 drones, and “mitigating” of “six drone incursions” during the World Cup. In the meantime, we have started to reveal improprieties in allocations for the tournament. And a new batch of government documents, obtained through a public information request from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), starts to clarify how tens of millions of federal tax dollars flowed through Mass for safety and law enforcement.
Huge grant
When funding was split up for the World Cup, there were several pots of money made available to Mass stakeholder entities, from the state’s Department of Fire Services to small cities hosting watch parties. The biggest pot of all was the plainly named FIFA World Cup Grant Program (FWCGP). In addition to its total award value of $46 million, the “competitive opportunity … to support safety and security needs” was unique in that it did not require applicants to match awards dollar-for-dollar, like other World Cup-related funding opportunities.
With so much money on the table, applicants rushed in. Documents provided to BINJ show EOPSS issued rejections to more than 10 municipalities—many close to Foxborough like Mansfield, Wrentham, and Walpole, the latter of which unsuccessfully applied to fund resources ranging from first-aid kits to “mass decontamination gowns.” The Massachusetts National Guard was also denied funding, as was the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Office and at least one private security firm. All of the notification letters note that the grantmakers received $94 million in funding requests, but only had $46 million to spread around, “resulting in many commendable applicants not being supported.”
The losers were told: “Due to limited funding and intent of these federal funds, state and local responses from entities that are part of the FIFA World Cup Boston 2026 Planning Task Force will be prioritized for an award.”
And the winners were … Massachusetts State Police and the City of Boston combined received more than half of the FWCGP pie ($23,254,865.94 between the two). This centralization of funding meant smaller communities which endured local traffic and EMS strains were effectively dissed. A city worker in one southern Mass town who spoke anonymously said the flatout denial of neighboring first responders was “shocking,” especially in light of which entities won out.
At the same time, a lot of those costs still had to be absorbed, whether the payer wound up being the host committee, a city or town, or the state. Andrew Zimbalist, an author and professor at Smith College in Northampton specializing in the economics of sports, explained the gambit which left taxpayers and planners with the tab in 2026: “FIFA has been using a new financial model. … They used to cover the operating expenses for the host cities, and they’re not doing that anymore. Basically all of the revenue goes to FIFA, and virtually all of the costs fall upon the host cities.”
Speaking to the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism, Zimbalist continued: “The host cities have to rely upon this mythical notion that there is such a large increase in economic activity, that that will cover the expenses involved.”
Host with the most
One of the top recipients of FWCGP funds was Boston Soccer 2026 Corp., aka the FIFA World Cup Boston Host Committee. Per the state’s legal arrangement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which pumped more than $600 million into 11 North American host regions for FIFA-related preparedness, more than 60% of the $76 million allotment to Mass flowed through this singular entity.
The nonprofit, which appears to operate remotely, was responsible for administering $46 million in contracts—for everything from fire personnel to the purchase of surveillance equipment—to nine entities including Massachusetts State Police. The host committee itself also received roughly $10 million from the government. We asked what they spent it on, but Boston Soccer 2026 did not respond to a request for comment.
An EOPSS spokesperson wrote in an email, “In response to your inquiry about the Boston Soccer 2026 Corporation, I can confirm that our office located responsive records and will work to include those records in the next production as requested.” There’s already lots to know, though, some of which we gleaned from documents the state already produced.
Organized as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, Boston Soccer 2026 Corp. is based in Foxborough. The address listed on public documents is 240 Patriot Place, an empty storefront that was formerly the location of one of Tom Brady’s TB12 sports therapy clinics. The retail space, in plain view with large windows facing a pedestrian mall, doesn’t seem to have been occupied by an org tasked with managing millions for a famously private FIFA. And yet for two weeks this past summer, the nonprofit orchestrated the most sophisticated entertainment spectacle in Massachusetts history.
Though New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft himself is not directly tied to Boston Soccer 2026 in public records, the nonprofit’s officers came from top spots at his businesses. Its president, Mike Loynd, served as the vice-president of strategic initiatives for Kraft Sports + Entertainment, a subsidiary of the Kraft Group. He apparently facilitated communication between stakeholding entities, like when the host municipality began publicly shaming the state and FIFA organizers for still holding out on funding in February.
MASSterList reported at the time: “Asked why the Krafts can’t just cut a check [for the town of Foxborough], Mike Loynd … said they’re offering up Gillette—which will be temporarily rebranded as Boston Stadium under FIFA rules—for the event during a peak period for them. ‘Their stadium is their business, so they’re taking their business offline for two months to support this event,’ said Loynd.”
When the host-town showdown boiled over soon after, Loynd again jumped in to make Kraft look the hero. ESPN reported: “Less than a week ahead of a vote that could have decided the fate of the games, the town, the Kraft Group and host committee agreed to terms that will allow for the approval of a license granted to FIFA necessary for the games at Gillette, sending a joint statement but providing little detail as to how the agreement was reached. … The host committee said for the first time that it would pay for security funds, if necessary, within two business days of being invoiced. The Kraft Group would fund any shortfall.”
In the back-and-forth with Foxborough, Boston Soccer 2026 officials noted that Mass was expecting at least $30 million in funding for safety and security. When the FIFA World Cup Grant Program number finally came out later in March, it was even higher—$46.1 million. Still, many applicants received nothing. A few, like Foxborough, got millions of dollars less than requested.
The three biggest recipients of World Cup Grant Program funding accounted for more than 70% of the FWCGP sum. Boston Soccer 2026 was awarded $9,859,994—to then give itself for security operations. That’s in addition to more than $4 million the entity got from the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism for “Host City Authority events delivery” in Boston and Foxborough, and to any extra private dollars pulled in from strategic supporters including Sanofi and State Street. According to Zimbalist, though, no matter how you square the books, there simply wasn’t enough to cover these costs, for the host committee or for any other entity involved.
“[The region] got $46 million [from FEMA for the FWCGP grants], and according to a document that was circulated within the state government, a state study, costs were above $90 million for security as of last December, before the World Cup even began,” Zimbalist said. “So there was money from the federal government, but that wasn’t nearly enough to cover the security costs.”
Kraft, Trump & FIFA
Robert Kraft and FIFA go back like Blue Hill Ave and Adidas. Well, not quite that far back, but at least three-plus decades. In 1994, when some recall the sport in the US was stagnant or even in slow decline, his group won a longshot bid to bring the World Cup to Foxborough. The then-budding iconic smirking mogul proved himself to be a stellar stateside FIFA ally, and subsequently became a founding investor in Major League Soccer and the owner of its New England Revolution team.
“Robert Kraft has been a true champion for soccer in the United States,” the president of U.S. Soccer said in 2009. At the time, Kraft was leading a campaign to bring the cup to America in 2018 or 2022. That effort fell short, but for the next round, he went all-in. As the Boston Globe later reported, he “was a central figure in the bid from the start, serving as honorary chair of the North American bid committee and a key conduit to President Trump.” It was Kraft who reportedly introduced Trump to FIFA President Gianni Infantino at the White House, and it was Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill of 2025 which set the terms for how FIFA safety dollars would flow through US host regions.
According to the resulting state bid solicitation documents, “Per federal rules and regulations, the [EOPSS Office of Grants and Research] is the only entity eligible to submit a FWCGP application to DHS/FEMA for these funds.” From there, “the [state] is required to pass-through 100% of these funds to the Host City Committee Task Force, otherwise known as Boston 2026. Boston 2026 will manage all subawards.”
In other words, the Patriot Place-based nonprofit had remarkable discretion over public dollars. The notice of availability of grant funds even emphasized: “Please remember, all state and local subawards … will be made by Boston 2026. [Massachusetts] will not be responsible for administering Commonwealth Standard Contracts or Interdepartmental Service Agreements to any subawardees.”
No critics or reporters seemed to notice this unique arrangement, details resulting from which fall out of reach from public scrutiny. But in the months leading up to the spectacle, some began to call out the Mass host committee for having deep pockets and short arms. For one, Boston’s festival for soccer fans was seen by some as small compared to those in other cities, while many jeered at $80 commuter rail round trips to Foxborough. In some other rare critical coverage, Kraft was also knocked for his company’s mere $5 million contribution to the new $33 million MBTA station at Patriot Place built for the FIFA festivities.
Yet with all that money on the table, Zimbalist said that he didn’t see any real economic benefit to the Kraft organization. When all the pieces and invoices settle in a couple of years, the maestro will have likely lost out big financially in the short term. Nor did the economist shade Boston Soccer 2026 for the unusual funding pipeline: “There’s a lot of indirect democracy going on all the time, you don’t always get to elect or directly appoint the … administrators. A lot of the stuff that a host committee will do is corrupt and problematic, but the general notion that the host committee has some funding for covering their massive security costs doesn’t particularly bother me.”
Lobbying and campaign donations
With the Big Beautiful White House-approved passthrough in place at the federal level, the host committee and its boosters also curried favor with relevant state and local powers.
According to Mass records, Boston Soccer 2026 spent at least $100,000 lobbying on Beacon Hill between 2025 and 2026. The hired counsel’s stated reason for employment: “Legislative and Executive advocacy related to the State’s support of the FIFA World Cup event in Massachusetts in 2026. Areas of focus include support in the FY25 supplemental budget to ensure a successful event for residents and visitors.”
A few select campaign accounts also saw bumps. All together, individuals who listed their employer as Boston Soccer 2026 donated more than $6,000 to Mass political leaders, the bulk of it going to Gov. Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
There is neither enough distance between the World Cup and the present—nor are there enough documents available at this time—to see the full picture of FIFA spending in New England. But it’s starting to develop. The $46 million FWCGP was the largest World Cup grant program, and there were other giant pots of free cash too. According to the state, “Massachusetts received an additional $21.2 million through FEMA’s Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Grant Program, which [provided the] Boston Police Department, Foxborough Police Department and Massachusetts State Police with enhanced resources and training to protect World Cup events from malicious drone activity.”
To be continued …
