Back

Why epidemic risk at the 2026 World Cup may not be what you think

Lessler, J.; Smith, C. P.; Das, P.; Sykes, A. L.; Urbinati, A.; Geith, K.; Powers, K. A.; Davis, J. T.; Kern-Allely, S. C.; Vega Yon, G. G.; Lofgren, E. T.; Pearson, C. A. B.; Vespignani, A.

2026-06-01 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.05.28.26354384 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The 2026 FIFA World Cup may bring over one million visitors to North America from around the globe to participate in mass gathering events. The nature of the event and recent news have raised concerns for some that the tournament could lead to infectious disease outbreaks or fuel existing epidemics. Objective: To systematically assess the infectious disease threat posed to the United States by the tournament. Design: A multi-institutional team evaluated pathogen-specific risk across three dimensions: importation, outbreak potential, and impact to identify a priority pathogen list. A systematic screening protocol ensured common criteria and that pathogen information was collected when necessary to inform inclusion. Results: Increased risk from the World Cup is near zero for 63 of 77 evaluated pathogens. Pathogens were predominantly excluded as threats due to low excess importation risk and low outbreak potential if introduced. The remaining priority pathogens fall into five categories: (a) mosquito borne pathogens with the potential for sustained transmission in some host cities, (b) seasonal respiratory viruses, (c) chronic infections with high prevalence outside the United States, (d) pathogens present in the United States with likely increased transmission at World Cup activities, and (e) high-consequence infectious threats. Limitations: Data availability is variable across diseases. Impact calculations may not reflect actual costs to host cities. Disease incidence in World Cup travelers may differ from national incidence rates. Conclusion: While infectious disease outbreaks at the 2026 FIFA World Cup are possible, in an already highly connected world where large gatherings are frequent, the elevated risk from the tournament is not as extreme as it first may seem.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.4%
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.1%
3
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
4
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
6
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
9
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
10
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Journal of Travel Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.7%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
17
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.1%
21
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
22
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
23
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
24
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
26
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
28
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
29
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
30
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%