Is being ‘inspired’ to participate the same as actually building participation? For youth in marginalized communities in Toronto, the answer is likely no.
By: Isra Iqbal, Lyndsay Hayhurst, and Adam Ehsan Ali
Photo above: “Soccer Ball Blue” by HolgerLi (Public Domain Mark 1.0).
Recent public debates around the 2026 Future of Sport in Canada Commission’s Report and the 2026 Federal Budget have underscored growing concerns about inequity, violence, exclusion, fragmentation, and a lack of accountability across Canada’s sport system. However, what implications do these sport governance models have in light of sport mega-events, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, being hosted in Canada – especially for equity-denied communities in host cities? And, to what extent does the World Cup inspire youth in equity-denied communities in host cities to participate in soccer?
Despite increased recognition of sport as a tool for fostering safety and belonging, dominant sport governance models continue to prioritize elite performance outcomes and participation and assume that events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup will spark “the inspirational effect,” resulting in increased participation in sport at the grassroots and community levels.
FIFA itself has promoted such an effect, evidenced by their World Football Week’s “Be Active” campaign with the World Health Organization to encourage physical activity amongst children, which they initiated just weeks before the World Cup kicked off. Auto company Kia, a FIFA World Cup sponsor, also hosted the OMBC Cup 2026 this past April in California, which brought 63 youth from nine countries together to participate in a global tournament to highlight “youth connection, inspiration, and cultural exchange”. But do inspiration and participation simply follow? And if so, for whom? Is “being inspired to participate” the same as building participation? Or causing it?
The assumption that the 2026 FIFA World Cup will unequivocally spark increased participation rates in grassroots and community soccer is problematic. Indeed, major sporting events like the World Cup are constrained by a lack of long-term strategies and limited resources made available after the event. And, to increase the tangible benefits and possibilities of youth sport participation goals that may result from SMEs, robust partnerships and sustainable commitments need to be formed amongst local and regional organizations, especially in communities that experience recreation deserts, poverty, structural inequalities and lack of sport infrastructure.
Unsurprisingly, the City of Toronto – one of the host cities for this World Cup – along with the media, has increased its focus on the celebratory, legacy, and financial-return impacts of hosting. This is indicated through many initiatives put forth by the City of Toronto, such as the creation of Fan Festival sites in the downtown core, that include live match screenings, food, music, and other cultural programming.
Yet, it seems that the City of Toronto has overlooked youth residing in equity-denied communities – especially those that are geographically distant from the FIFA WC stadium – that do not need to “look good” or be in the public eye when fans, sponsors and media descend on Toronto. For example, Thorncliffe Park, a community that is characterized by high poverty rates (45%), the highest proportion of recent immigrants (18.6%), the highest proportion of households in the LICO-AT measurement (37.5%) and the highest proportion of households living in unaffordable (50.1%) and unsuitable housing (42.1%), has received little to no attention in the preparation for and delivery of the tournament. Although the City of Toronto’s Community Benefits Plan commits to including equity-owed communities and ensuring that the “benefits of hosting the FWC26 are felt widely across communities,” engagement and participation efforts for Thorncliffe Park residents were not reported. Rather, communities within and near Liberty Village and Fort York were included in the Plan, with many engagement sessions reported by City officials. And, as the City of Toronto has spent more than $380 million in municipal funds to host the tournament, it has blatantly ignored the structural issues and barriers the Thorncliffe community face daily. Such communities often disproportionately suffer unintended consequences, of SMEs including displacement, inflation, gentrification, and transportation disruptions; consequences which may further amplify existing sport participation inequities.
Despite hopes that the World Cup might promote educational and cultural aspects – the short lifespan of the event, and its focus on the development of elite sport as the expense of mass participation in equity-denied communities rings true.
If the World Cup is meant to truly inspire and boost youth participation in soccer in Canada, this means addressing the contextual conditions and inequalities that are exacerbated by hosting sports mega-events, and that achieving social and economic gains from the World Cup for youth in equity-denied communities are unlikely. All told, it’s clear that hosting will not benefit everyone in the City of Toronto, especially those youth in equity-denied communities who are meant to intuitively jump on the escalating “soccer participation bandwagon” because of it.