Last week, FIFA announced that the 2026 World Cup had already broken the all-time attendance record for the tournament. Though this may be a bit less impressive than it seems — an expanded field means many more games this year than in previous editions — the feat was still surprising to many who’d been paying attention. Talk of ridiculous ticket prices, the potential presence of ICE, the dangerous heat and, more recently, President Trump’s war with Iran dominated previews of this year’s 48-team tournament co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. But it’s been a smooth logistical ride so far, and a hell of a spectacle on the field: this World Cup is on track to be the highest-scoring per match in history.

Neither the good vibes nor the results on the field thus far are a surprise to Stefan Szymanski, who knows his World Cup history. He is the co-author of the 2009 international best-selling book Soccernomics, which took a fun, deep dive into the economic forces that create winners and losers in the world’s most popular sport. (it was cited recently by Mayor Mamdani in a BBC interview.) Szymanski, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, recently updated his classic book, and currently hosts The Soccernomics Podcast with his co-author, Simon Kuper and Ashish Malhotra.

I spoke to Szymanski after group-stage play wrapped up about the tournament’s enduring popularity despite FIFA’s avariciousness and an unpredictable administration, why the favorites are the same as ever, and why a 64-team tournament would make the World Cup even better.

Three weeks ago, I wrote a hater’s guide to this year’s World Cup, about everything threatening to degrade the tournament. How wrong I was!I think this is always the pattern of the World Cup. If anything, the run-up to the Qatar World Cup [in 2022] was even worse in terms of the publicity, but once it happened, it was great and people loved it. For Russia in 2018, I refused to go — Putin’s disgusting. And yet, again, it was a tremendous success. I think this is the nature of it. The World Cup is by far the world’s biggest entertainment event. Let’s not even talk about sports — there is no bigger event on the planet. And none of the players on the field are really interested in politics or political statements or political issues, no matter what is swirling around them. They’re just interested in playing soccer, and these are the best players in the world, and it’s absolutely compelling. So in some sense, I don’t think one should be surprised by the way this is going.

But we’re not done yet. The one big difference in this World Cup is that normally heads of state are absolutely focused on making sure the tournament is a success. You’ve got a completely rogue head of state [in President Trump], and who knows what he might do. But I think what’s been interesting is that even he has laid low. He had many opportunities to say nasty things about the nine African nations who qualified for the second round. He didn’t say anything about Haiti. He didn’t say anything about Iran’s team, and although they were treated badly, it could have been worse.

I’ve been assuming he wants to avoid a similar scenario to Game 3 of the NBA Finals, when got booed so strongly at Madison Square Garden.I think that’s right. The official position is that he’s going to present the trophy at the final — maybe he’ll try to take it home with him. But my guess is he would be roundly booed at that, and if he turns up in any other games, he’ll get booed. But then again, when has that ever stopped him doing whatever he wants? He revels in his unpopularity. He likes to be hated by the people who hate him.

As the co-author of the seminal book on the macroeconomic and global forces in the game, what are your thoughts on how the tournament has gone so far on the field? 

I had a sports-journalist friend at The Telegraph email me asking, why do there seem to be so many surprises, and why are the small teams doing so well........

© Daily Intelligencer