Forget the Azteca, it’s a travesty this stadium didn’t host the 2026 World Cup final over MetLife

The 2026 World Cup has showcased some of the most impressive stadiums ever used for a single tournament.

From the iconic Estadio Azteca in Mexico City to the ultra-modern SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, there has been no shortage of world-class venues.

But now that Spain and Argentina have played out the final at MetLife Stadium, it’s even harder to ignore the sense that FIFA made the wrong call.

Based on how the tournament unfolded, one stadium clearly offered the most complete experience, and it wasn’t MetLife, and it wasn’t the Azteca either.

MetLife Stadium proved to be an underwhelming choice for the final

On paper, MetLife Stadium ticks many of the right boxes. It holds over 82,000 fans, sits close to New York City and has hosted some of the biggest events in sport and entertainment.

However, throughout the tournament, and ultimately during the final itself, it proved to be one of the more criticised venues.

The pitch was a recurring talking point, for one.

Designed primarily for NFL games, the stadium required a temporary natural grass surface, and it never fully convinced.

Players openly questioned it, with Vinicius Jr describing it as slow and Didier Deschamps suggesting it felt like there was “concrete underneath.” Compared to other venues, the surface appeared to lack the same quality and consistency, and that concern lingered right through to the final itself.

Transport and accessibility also drew criticism.

Reports of overcrowded trains, long waits for rideshares and general logistical issues contributed to a matchday experience that felt less smooth than at other host venues, even for the biggest game of the tournament.

When considering that MetLife was neither the largest nor the most advanced stadium used during the tournament, its selection for the final feels even harder to justify in hindsight.

AT&T Stadium in Dallas was the clear standout

While many have pointed to the iconic Azteca as the romantic choice for the final, its infrastructure does not fully match the demands of a modern World Cup showpiece.

The history is unmatched, but tighter concourses, more limited hospitality areas and fewer modern amenities place it behind newer venues in terms of overall experience.

AT&T Stadium, by contrast, looked purpose-built for an occasion of this scale.

Its retractable roof and powerful air-conditioning proved priceless in the extreme Texas heat, creating a comfortable environment for both players and supporters.

The enclosed design amplified crowd noise, producing one of the most intense atmospheres seen during the tournament.

Beyond atmosphere, the stadium excelled in logistics. Wide concourses, efficient crowd flow and well-organised transport made it one of the easiest venues to navigate.

The overall experience felt streamlined and designed with major events in mind.

The viewing experience also stood out. The massive four-sided video board ensures clear visibility from every seat, complemented by excellent sightlines throughout the stadium.

Across all key areas, such as comfort, atmosphere, organisation and spectacle, the home of the Dallas Cowboys emerged as the most complete venue of the tournament.

That makes it all the more surprising that the World Cup final wasn’t played there.