World Cup helped drive strongest consumer spending growth in four years during June, Bank of America says ⁠76%

7/18/2026, 10:00:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Confirmation Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 50.5% saturation with 311 hits. Analysis detected 1,230 faulty-reasoning hits from 616 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (5,204 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.50% of the article peer group.

The World Cup is helping to boost consumer spending around the U.S. in June, with host cities seeing notable gains, according to new data from Bank of America. 
The Bank of America Institute found that consumer spending using credit and debit cards rose 6.3% from a year ago in June – which was the strongest growth in over four years – based on internal card data from the bank. 
That growth was largely driven by discretionary spending amid the decline in gas prices, as total card spending was up 5.6% when excluding gasoline. 
The firm's analysis noted that the start of the FIFA World Cup 2026 on June 11 helped lift consumer spending for the month compared to the preceding period. 
"The World Cup scored big for consumer spending in June," Joe Wadford, an economist at the Bank of America Institute, told FOX Business. 
"Bank of America card spending showed healthy improvement toward the end of the month, due in part to a lift from the World Cup." 
FIFA, WHITE HOUSE MONITORING IMPACT OF CANADA WILDFIRES AHEAD OF WORLD CUP FINAL: SOURCES 
In looking at card spending since the tournament began, the Bank of America Institute data shows higher consumer spending , particularly at restaurants and bars, which may be attributed to the World Cup. 
Some of the gains are likely due to online promotions near the end of June, but occurred in July last year, and thus boosted the year-over-year comparison, the firm noted. 
The analysis compared brick-and-mortar spending in World Cup host cities based on zip codes with spending in other parts of the U.S., finding that some of the surge has been concentrated in communities where games are being played. 
Restaurants saw consumer spending rise by two percentage points in host cities, while it was flat in all other cities in that period. 
"World Cup host cities saw a significant increase in brick and mortar spending, especially compared to the rest of the U.S.," Wadford said. 
HOW TO WATCH THE 2026 WORLD CUP FINAL THIS SUNDAY 
Retail data that excluded restaurants also showed a gain for stores in host cities after the World Cup began, whereas non-restaurant retailers everywhere else saw slower spending growth once the tournament began. 
"From packed stadiums to busy restaurants , the World Cup created a tailwind for the economy. 
But two of the main beneficiaries of the World Cup were local retailers and restaurants," Wadford said. 
"To me, this is a particularly positive story, as it suggests that a major portion of World Cup-generated spending stayed in the community." 
A BILLIONAIRE'S BACKING – AND LIFELONG LOVE OF SOCCER – HELPED BRING MAURICIO POCHETTINO TO TEAM USA 
The Bank of America Institute analysis also looked at the same internal card data by income level, finding that lower-income households in particular increased spending at local brick-and-mortar businesses in host cities, while higher-income households eased their spending slightly. 
Additionally, all income groups boosted their spending at brick-and-mortar restaurants when comparing the pre-World Cup period to the timeframe after it began. 
"Positively, lower-income households provided the biggest boost to World Cup spending . 
Some of this is due to the fact that younger households skew lower income, and they were likely the main ones going out to celebrate this generational event," Wadford explained. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
"But some of the boost is due to this broader story of an improving economy for lower-income households. 
For example, we're seeing a stronger labor market and higher wage growth, which in turn is helping to boost spending for lower-income families," he added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 5.4%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 12.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.5%This article: 4.5%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 8.9%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias3.7%This article: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias3.7%This article: 4.9%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.3%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion6.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 50.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)50.5%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 17.7%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection17.7%This article: 8.3%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.1%

616 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers37%attributed speech391writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 24 words • 100.0% coverageFIFA • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Wadford • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joe Wadford

100%flagged-word coverage
211 attributed words94% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Quote-first Misdirection+51.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joe Wadford: 51.7%51.7%Biased Writer Voice+24.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joe Wadford: 24.2%24.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Joe Wadford: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.