New study reveals best and worst 2026 World Cup cities for traffic – and the results are surprising

A new study has ranked the best and worst 2026 World Cup host cities for traffic congestion, and some of the results are not what fans might expect.

While huge cities such as Los Angeles and Toronto struggled badly in the rankings, one of the world’s most notoriously congested locations surprisingly finished among the best-performing venues ahead of next summer’s tournament.

2026 World Cup host cities ranked by traffic revealed

A study carried out by telematics company Geotab has ranked all 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup based on how well they are expected to cope with the huge influx of supporters and vehicles during the tournament.

The rankings were based on four key factors – congestion levels, vehicle idling, road safety and overall resilience, which measures how quickly a city’s transport network recovers after major events.

Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, home to several group games including England and Scotland, finished top of the rankings ahead of Houston’s NRG Stadium and Mexico City’s iconic Estadio Azteca.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was Mexico City placing so highly despite being famous for severe day-to-day congestion. However, researchers found the city performed extremely well in terms of resilience, meaning traffic and transport systems recover relatively quickly after major events.

At the other end of the scale, SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, BC Place in Vancouver and Toronto’s BMO Field ranked as the worst-performing venues for traffic disruption. The study found that those cities struggle to return to normal traffic conditions once large events finish, meaning congestion lingers for far longer than expected.

Researchers also noted that suburban venues tended to outperform city-centre stadiums overall, with locations such as Foxborough and Houston proving easier to manage logistically despite being further away from urban centres.

Fans travelling to games were strongly encouraged to use public transport wherever possible.

FGG says: The results show bigger venues don’t always cope better

On paper, you’d expect huge cities like Los Angeles or Toronto to be among the best‑prepared World Cup hosts, given their size, infrastructure and transport networks. But this study shows that big‑city muscle doesn’t always translate into smooth matchday travel during major sporting events.

What really stands out is how much the ‘resilience' metric has shaped the rankings.

Mexico City might be chaotic on a normal weekday, but the data suggests it actually bounces back from major events far faster than some wealthier North American cities, where congestion lingers for hours after the final whistle.

All of this only adds to the growing concern among supporters.

In between expensive trains, long distances and the risk of heavy traffic, fans are going to have to plan their journeys carefully, because getting to matches at this World Cup could end up being almost as stressful as the games themselves.