Cities should stick to the basics of governing  

Next year, 11 U.S. cities will host World Cup matches. Officials are promising big returns: $653 million for Kansas City, Mo.; $594 million for Los Angeles; and $400 million for Dallas/Fort Worth. FIFA claims the national impact will exceed $17 billion in GDP.  

While FIFA and host cities often tout massive returns to justify public funding, research consistently questions these optimistic projections — particularly for events like the World Cup. One recent study concluded, “The results generally show that the observed impact of the World Cup has been a fraction that touted by the event boosters, and frequently the observed impact has actually been negative. Evidence of long-run economic impact has also been elusive.” 

The issue extends well beyond the World Cup. The problem is that governments, and especially municipal governments, often do not have a good sense of themselves and their purpose. And without that identity, and the boundaries and limitations it produces, cities never clearly define their core responsibilities. 

This is the central argument of “The Municipal Financial Crisis” (2022) by Mark Moses, a fellow at the Better Cities Project, where I serve as director of policy. 

With 30 years in California local government, Moses saw this firsthand. He argues that systemic “scope creep” is a root cause of fiscal instability. Cities are trying to be growth engines, when they should be operating as something akin to public utilities: stable, predictable and focused on reliability, not flash. 

Chances are your city has spent public money on amenities like entertainment districts, hotels, convention centers or stadiums, all the while claiming enormous economic benefits. But it doesn’t take cynicism to see that these investments stray from local government’s essential duties — especially when cities struggle with basics like trash collection, road maintenance and public safety. 

Big events like the World Cup often amount to a city throwing itself a party. Because such ventures fall outside core functions, officials embrace any claim that prestige and tourism dollars will trickle down to basic services. Too often, they don’t. 

As Moses recounts from his decades in public finance, rarely did he hear an elected official ask whether a service should exist at all. Absent a governing framework that defines which responsibilities belong to local government, cities drift into new programs on the strength of good intentions, available grants or temporary political interest.  

Moses argues that budgeting should begin with defining scope — clarifying what a city ought to do before deciding what it can afford to do. Without such limits, there is no basis for restraint. Cities need a principled way to say “no,” and that starts by narrowing their understanding of what “yes” should even include. 

Moses states that cities are often in “year-to-year survival” mode. Budgets are technically balanced, but only because obligations are pushed into the future. In reality, budget problems are decision-making problems. There may be things that are worthwhile and even important, but do not need to be done by government itself.  

The idea of government-run grocery stores, which failed in Kansas City and is being given new life in New York City, strikes at that chord. Yes, food is important. No, city hall doesn’t need to take them over. What might be obviously true of grocery stores might also be less obviously true of other city programs, like utilities, homeless shelters and even economic development agencies. Not every problem requires a public-sector solution. In the absence of government, Moses argues that people will find their own way to flourish and do it better. 

But that means elected leaders wouldn’t get to reward favored businesses. They wouldn’t be feted by the businesses and consultants who lobby for those favors. And, when it comes to World Cup matches, they wouldn’t be partying in luxury boxes and hailed for all the revenue that may not ever materialize. 

It doesn’t need to be this complicated. Moses reminds us that the overriding purpose of municipal government is to “provide the local socio-political conditions for residents to flourish.” Governments should focus first on safety, infrastructure and rule of law. 

When leaders lose sight of their role, cities chase every shiny object. The next World Cup may dazzle, but long-term success belongs to those that stay grounded in purpose. 

Patrick Tuohey is co-founder of Better Cities Project and a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute.