When Texas dedicated $22 million to host the 2017 Super Bowl between the New England Patriots and the Atlanta Falcons, state officials expected a return on their investment.

But a state analysis after the Patriots’ thrilling comeback win said it was “impossible” to tell if Texas taxpayers broke even on their investments.

If anything, Texas came up $14 million short, according to a breakdown of tax revenues in the same analysis.

Texas taxpayers likely will be on the hook again when Houston and Dallas welcome the FIFA World Cup this June and July. The cities are among 11 in the U.S. that have agreed to shoulder hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for the soccer tournament, subsidizing a World Cup expected to generate $11 billion in profits for FIFA.

Host cities and their local organizing committees will pay for security at the matches, cover the cost of retrofitting their stadiums to better accommodate soccer and operate fan festivals in addition to the main matches. Originally, they were supposed to pay to transport FIFA officials to all matches, as well, though that requirement has been waived, according to Houston organizers.

The cities get little tangible benefit in return. They do not see a slice of game-day revenues from ticket sales, concessions and merchandise, or parking. Even selling tickets or suites in exchange for corporate sponsorships — usually a key revenue generator for local organizers — was restricted by FIFA this year.

Cities had to agree to FIFA’s demands before the U.S., Mexico and Canada even submitted their bid in 2017 to host the World Cup, and many of those host city contracts remain secret. Now, as the event nears, some cities are questioning whether those agreements will leave them paying for more than they get in return.

“Everybody signed an agreement that was very, very one-sided,” said Alan Rothenberg, who is on the Los Angeles host committee for the 2026 World Cup and was the president of U.S. Soccer the last time the country hosted the tournament in 1994.

Then, some host cities would get a slice of game-day revenues, such as a share of the money made from selling food and drinks at the matches. U.S. Soccer also covered the bill for security at the games and other organizing expenses, Rothenberg said. That helped cities take in more money than they spent, making hosting a more attractive endeavor.

This time around, the agreement was so lopsided that at least one city, Chicago, withdrew during the bidding. And in some cities that moved forward, concerns have grown as the matches near. Officials in Foxborough, Massachusetts, threatened in February to withhold permits for the matches unless FIFA or the owner of the Patriots committed to paying $7.8 million in security costs ahead of time. Foxborough ultimately approved the permits after local World Cup organizers agreed to pay the bill in advance.

“At this point, I think a lot of people are looking at Chicago and thinking they were the smart ones,” Rothenberg said. “They looked at the terms of the agreement and said, ‘No, thanks.’ I don’t think anybody in the 11 host cities thought it would be as tough as it seems to be.”

FIFA did not respond to questions about those criticisms. Instead, it provided a written response stating that it is working closely with its host sponsors and expects cities to benefit.

“The FIFA World Cup 2026 is projected to generate significant economic activity across Canada, Mexico and the United States, spanning tourism, hospitality, employment and long-term global visibility,” said Jhamie Chin, a FIFA spokesperson.

The host cities use external nonprofits to organize and run the tournament’s logistics and raise money for the costs of hosting. Chris Canetti, who runs Houston’s host committee, said the city’s organizers have been able to........

© ProPublica