With just days left, the U.S. opening match at the World Cup is still not sold out 34%

By Rafael Nam0%

6/9/2026, 2:13:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 14.9% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 1,024 faulty-reasoning hits from 692 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,637 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.90% of the article peer group.

Something unusual is happening with only a few days remaining before the U.S. men's national team opens its World Cup campaign against Paraguay: Tickets for the match are not sold out. 
Although numbers fluctuate regularly, FIFA's ticketing website still shows 132 tickets left to sell for a game that's set to take place in Los Angeles on Friday. 
Meanwhile, resale platforms such as StubHub and SeatGeek  and FIFA's own marketplace  also show thousands of tickets on sale. 
The number is even higher for Canada's opening match against Bosnia Herzegovina in Toronto on the same day, with 226 tickets left in FIFA's website and a high number of tickets available in resale markets. 
That's unusual for high-profile events such as the opening matches of the World Cup  traditionally among the hardest to get tickets in the tournament. 
This year will feature three hosts in the U.S., Canada and Mexico  but so far only Mexico's opening match against South Africa on Thursday looks to be virtually sold out. 
Ticketing experts widely agree on the reason: the prices. 
FIFA dramatically jacked them up for the tournament  especially for high profile games. 
The most expensive regular seats for the U.S. opener against Paraguay are priced at $2,735  more than the final cost for the 2022 World Cup final<i>  </i>while the cheapest are $1,120. 
Even President Trump said he wouldn't pay those prices. 
"I would certainly like to be there, but I wouldn't pay it either, to be honest with you," Trump told the <i>New York Post</i><i> </i>in a recent interview. 
The other two remaining games for the U.S. national have far fewer tickets available, given that prices are well below the ones for the opening match. 
Prices have also fallen sharply 
There are not only plenty of tickets left to sell  a number of them are also available below FIFA's face value. 
According to Ticketdata, which tracks prices across the resale platforms, the cheapest pair of tickets for the opening match for the U.S. and Canada was $951 as of Monday morning, while in FIFA's resale platform, tickets were available for as low as $690. 
Other games across the 104-match tournament also still have many tickets left to sell  despite FIFA President Gianni Infantino's claim that every match is "already sold out." 
That's especially the case for lesser well known teams such as the Jordan against Algeria match, which still had hundreds of unsold seats in the FIFA's web site. 
Demand for high-profile tickets such as Argentina and Portugal was far higher, however, with many of those games looking largely sold out. 
Will the opening matches sell out? 
Whether eventually the U.S. and Canada opening matches will sell out is hard to answer. 
Throughout the sales process, FIFA has closely guarded how many tickets it has actually sold and how many are left to sell, making it virtually impossible to gauge. 
In addition, like other teams, FIFA could also sell tickets in other platforms including third-party ones such as SeatGeek, which can further obscure how many tickets are left to sell. 
FIFA and organizers, however, are hoping for a surge in excitement that leads to a last-minute rush of sales for the opening matches as well as for those such as Jordan against Algeria that look far from being sold out. 
Ben Shields, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, says perceptions so far of the tournament have been shaped by how expensive tickets and travel has been for a tournament taking place across an entire continent. 
That, he says, "does not seem to sit well with many." 
But that could change. 
"The hope or bet  for FIFA is that once the matches start  and the greatest players in the world compete for the most prestigious prize of them all, the sport as business lens will fade into the background and the World Cup will be seen and experienced as the enduring global institution that it is," Shields says. 
"We shall see." 
Copyright 2026 NPR 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Rafael Nam: 3.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 4.8%Rafael Nam: 4.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 11.3%Rafael Nam: 5.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 7.7%Rafael Nam: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.7%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Rafael Nam: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 4.5%Rafael Nam: 10.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 3.2%Rafael Nam: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.9%Rafael Nam: 7.0%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Rafael Nam: 14.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Rafael Nam: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.6%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Rafael Nam: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Rafael Nam: 5.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 4.0%Rafael Nam: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 5.8%Rafael Nam: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope5.8%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.4%Rafael Nam: 5.2%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization10.4%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.3%Rafael Nam: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon1.3%This article: 1.3%Rafael Nam: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion1.3%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.4%Rafael Nam: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.4%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Rafael Nam: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.6%Rafael Nam: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal1.6%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Rafael Nam: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.6%Rafael Nam: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.6%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Rafael Nam: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 4.0%Rafael Nam: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 6.5%Rafael Nam: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rafael Nam: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

692 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech549writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageBen Shields • 39 words • 100.0% coverageBen Shields • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBen Shields • 59 words • 0.0% coverageBen Shields • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNPR • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ben Shields

97%flagged-word coverage
112 attributed words78% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+34.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ben Shields: 34.8%34.8%Biased Writer Voice-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Ben Shields: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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