𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

On a snowy Tuesday evening in Massachusetts, the local select board of Foxborough once again bared its teeth over a $7.8 million gap in World Cup security funding.

After a remarkable, and at times tetchy session at Foxborough Town Hall, FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, were left no closer to securing the entertainment license required to hold games at the Gillette Stadium during this summer’s World Cup.

The 65,000-seater venue, home to the NFL’s New England Patriots and MLS team New England Revolution, is owned by the Kraft Group, headed up by multi-billionaire Robert Kraft. The venue is scheduled to hold seven matches during the World Cup, including a round-of-32 game and a quarter-final, and the tournament is now only 99 days away.

The Kraft Group are one of several key parties. As the venue’s owners, they have, effectively, sub-licensed the venue to FIFA during the tournament, meaning it is FIFA who require the entertainment license.

Yet FIFA, despite being the applicants for the license, were not directly represented at the event. Instead, the representation came from a group called Boston Soccer 2026, which is the local non-profit host committee established to assist FIFA in the planning of the tournament. The group’s president, Mike Loynd, attended the meeting, but he also brought along two attorneys, Peter Tamm and Gary Ronan from the Boston-based Goulston & Storrs law firm. They did most of the talking on behalf of the host committee.

Along the way, they provided some indications as to who may provide the funding. They said that the Kraft Group would backstop the funding, but the board were unimpressed when attorneys suggested that the license would include a June 1 deadline for the purchasing of security equipment and materials. They considered this to be far too close to the World Cup, which begins on June 11, and risked undermining security preparations.

One select board member then accused the host committee of attempting to “nickel and dime” the local police when their lawyers appeared to suggest that the committee wished to work with the police to secure best value on equipment which needs to be procured for the chiefs during the tournament. The board insisted this process should be solely led by the police, rather than a third party.

The meeting ended in acrimony when attorney Tamm unveiled a slide deck that suggested the board may not have the authority to deny the license on financial grounds. But then the board responded in kind when Foxborough town counsel Lisa Mead joined via Zoom to say she disagreed.

The select board were then backed up by Foxborough police chief Michael Grace. “We are 99 or 100 days away from hosting the largest sporting event in the world and can’t seem to find necessary funding for necessary equipment that’s been identified in over a year and a half of planning,” he said.

By the close of the session, the five elected and non-salaried members of the Foxborough select board were left, once again, exasperated. FIFA, whose tournament it is, were nowhere to be seen.

Dr. Mark Elfman, a select board member and chiropractor by trade, told The Athletic in a short interview he had not been surprised by the lack of progress. “I was expecting the same bulls*** that that we’d gotten in the last two or three months. They didn’t give us any more information. It’s sad. It should have been done months ago.”

The Athletic asked Bill Yukna, the chair of the select board, if the attempt to undermine the authority of the board had lessened his sympathy for FIFA’s claim.

“I’m sympathetic to the citizens and taxpayers in the town of Foxborough. That’s what we are elected to represent. That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said.

A final decision is scheduled to be made in two weeks’ time on March 17, in accordance with the deadline set out by the select board for the events to be able to run safely.

Here, The Athletic sets out the unresolved issues, the fresh tensions that came to light in the meeting and how the World Cup, which FIFA president Gianni Infantino has claimed will drive over $11 billion in revenue for the organization, finds itself scrapping over $7.8 million — just over three months away from its start date.

---

What, exactly, is this all about?

OK, deep breath.

So, while the local host committee for this World Cup is officially called Boston, Gillette Stadium is in Foxborough, around 30 miles south of the city. Foxborough is a small town of only 18,000 residents and the demands of a World Cup, with heightened security, come at a major cost to local agencies.

Foxborough has calculated a cost of around $7.8 million to cover police and public safety expenses during the tournament, yet, so far, nobody has provided financial commitments to cover the full amount.

Until they do so, the select board says it will not provide a license for the games. Without a license, the games cannot go ahead. For the uninitiated, a select board sets local policy for the town and seeks to protect the interests of its citizens.

The select board have so far not provided a license for several reasons. Firstly, $7.8 million is a vast sum of money for a small town — the board say it constitutes around 10 percent of its annual budget.

The board also say the town did not agree to cover these costs as part of the original bidding process and agreement, which was made between FIFA, the Kraft Group as the owners of the stadium, and the host committee. In short, the board say they are standing up for the resident taxpayers of their town and ensuring that those with deeper pockets carry the burden.

The board are also not prepared to tolerate a situation where the town of Foxborough shell out for the costs and are subsequently reimbursed. This, they say, is because they are concerned that Boston’s host committee will cease operations after the World Cup, leaving the town with no recourse to recover its costs in the event they are not paid. Before last night’s meeting, there had also been no suggestion of any individual or group to backstop the funding. According to the board, the Kraft Group had agreed to provide some money, but not all of it.

The problem is further compounded because, while the 11 U.S. World Cup host cities last summer secured a combined $625 million in federal funding to assist security operations, this money is yet to be administered via the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency tasked with processing the grant program.

It may not come imminently, either, due to a partial federal government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which has in turn reduced operations at FEMA.

While Boston is entitled to a $46 million slice of this funding, the select board has previously warned Foxborough’s share will not cover the entire cost of the $7.8 million security operations in its town, because the money will go via the state of Massachusetts and be shared across different agencies, leaving an unspecified funding gap.

During the previous meeting of the select board in February, its members were deeply unimpressed by an appearance by Boston host committee lead Loynd and Kevin Clark, FIFA’s venue operations director for Boston. Neither man was able to say which party was ultimately responsible for the funding and the select board were furious.

Vice-chair Stephanie McGowan made very clear that her board were prepared to refuse the license unless all of their concerns and conditions were met. She also claimed that the vaunted economic impact of hosting the World Cup (FIFA cite reports of a $30 billion boost to the U.S. economy) is a myth, at least in Foxborough. She said besides for a slight uptick in meals tax and hotel tax, “it is probably more of a headache than it is worth.”

Elfman said he was “pissed” and “flabbergasted” at what he heard, saying his neighbors were questioning how an event run by a billion-dollar organization such as FIFA in a venue owned by the Kraft Group could be relying on grant money from the federal government.

Did FIFA or the Boston host committee offer any solutions at Tuesday’s meeting? 

The meeting began in promising fashion. The Boston host committee appeared more professional, enlisting two legal professionals from Goulston & Storrs to make representations before the board.

Attorney Tamm began by making clear that while FIFA is the licensee, the host committee is responsible for funding public safety, which suggests the funding gap must be made up by Boston Soccer 2026.

This also fits with the broad terms of the original hosting agreements. These said that while FIFA take home the income from tickets, broadcast, sponsorship and parking fees, the cities still carry the burden for “safety, security and protection,” which also includes medical services, fire protection, police escorts for participants and transport hubs.

If the $7.8 million cost seems high, it is also because FIFA agreed an exclusive use period over the stadium from late May stretching through to the final game scheduled at the venue on July 9. FIFA require the venue to be secured throughout that time, even on non-gamedays.

Tamm’s colleague Ronan set out what appeared to be a breakthrough. He said that the Boston host committee was happy to be described as a “supporting partner” and have obligations placed upon it within the license, even though FIFA is the licensee.

He said: “The answer to your question about who is going to backstop this obligation: Boston Soccer 2026 is willing to commit to backstop those obligations and pay for everything that the (police) chiefs have said is necessary to hold these events safely.”

In the previous meeting, Boston host committee lead Loynd had suggested the non-profit did not have very much money.

Ronan addressed this.

“What is this Boston Soccer 2026?,” he said. “Does it have money? Yes. Boston Soccer 2026 actually has a substantial amount of money in the bank right now that it is using to facilitate its work at the event. In addition, Boston Soccer 2026 has a commitment from Kraft Sports and Entertainment (KSE) to fund any shortfall that Boston Soccer 2026 may have that would allow it to meet its obligations.”

He said a letter of commitment would follow from KSE.

Ronan added: “It will say that if you have any shortfall, we’re going to give you the money so you can pay the team. That is your security because you have legitimate concerns about making sure the taxpayers of this town are not footing the bill. That’s totally fair.”

By now, members of the select board were nodding. Ronan continued, saying that the host committee would commit to paying any invoice it received from the police within two days, which is an improvement on the usual 30-day process. They also invited the select board to include a clause in the license to say it could be withdrawn if a payment is not made on time.

---

So, what went wrong? 

Just as the attorneys appeared to be striking a deal, a twist emerged.

This came when they said the host committee would ensure that the equipment for police is “there and available by June 1st, which is about two weeks in advance of the first event.”

Immediately, heads were shaking among the select board.

Chair Yukna said this would be “unacceptable”, as police chiefs need materials sooner for installation, programming and training.

“We have clearly put out when that list has to be acquired by,” he said. “Quite honestly, some of it is already past the dates. The balance of it will be due just before March 17. Waiting to June 1 is unacceptable.”

The attorneys attempted to push back, saying June 1 was the latest date the materials would be provided. Then they suggested that the host committee would work with the police to “identify the best source for every piece of material or equipment.”

The attorneys then implied that the select board was overreaching its remit by concerning itself about the specifics of police procurement. They said the board ought to remember this is merely an event license.

Tamm said: “I don’t think the board needs to… I don’t want to use the word micromanage, but no other words are coming to mind, on every detail about what you would order as equipment.”

This did not go down well. Chair Yukna countered. He said that the host committee has no substantive role in the security plan for the games and said it would be inappropriate for them to determine whether police equipment is satisfactory.

“It is strictly in the guise of our police chiefs for the public safety security plan,” Yukna said. “They are the ones who will dictate the requirements.”

His select board colleague Elfman appeared to read between the lines, sensing that the host committee may be seeking a role in sourcing and acquiring police materials in order to reduce the cost incurred by them or the Kraft Group.

Elfman said: “It seems to me, a simple little board member that I am, that the experts are telling you what they need. And you’re trying to nickel and dime them down. These guys need it now.”

The attorneys denied this.

But Yukna continued: “We stated this since the beginning. This is the chiefs’ determination to buy, their responsibility to buy. They need to get exactly what they need. They don’t need something to show up that doesn’t meet their needs. I’m a little frustrated with the fact that a third party wants to be involved with the acquisition of this stuff. That’s not what we’re going to allow.”

Paige Duncan, the Foxborough town manager, agreed. She said a security plan had been drawn up with FIFA for over a year alongside the town police chiefs and no shortcuts should be tolerated. “This is building a plan in an extremely scary world, getting scarier by the weekend,” she said, referring to global events in the Middle East last weekend.

The board also disapproved of the suggestion that, should the materials not be in place by June 1, the license could be revoked. The board sensed this would place them in an impossible position so close to the tournament, where they would risk either allowing the event to continue with imperfect preparations or being cast as villains for cancelling the games.

---

How did the meeting conclude? 

Not well! At the close of the session, Boston host committee attorney Tamm said he wished to outline potential consequences of an agreement not being reached by the March 17 deadline.

Having failed to convince the select board, he detonated the nuclear approach. He pulled up a slide, arguing that the select board’s discretion is limited by Massachusetts statutes and Foxboro’s town stadium regulations.

He said the board should consider only public safety, health, order and nuisance issues, claiming that holding out for an advanced payment — rather than a reimbursement — would be a municipal finance issue, rather than a matter for the select board, and that it would not be supported by Massachusetts law.

The select board responded, dialling in Foxborough town’s legal counsel Lisa Mead. “With all due respect to Mr Tamm,” she began, “The board has broad discretion on this license. Their determination of whether or not the applicant will be able to fulfil the public safety requirements, protect the health and welfare of those people attending the event… how they make that determination is fully at the discretion of the board.”

With legal flags planted in the ground, there was time for one more speaker. Up came Foxborough police chief Grace, a veteran of over 100 stadium events, who delivered a firm rebuke for the Boston host committee and, by extension, FIFA.

He said: “We are 99 days away from hosting the largest sporting event in the world, and we’re deciding, or can’t seem to find, necessary funding for necessary equipment that’s been identified in over a year and a half of planning with thousands of hours in 14 working groups throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“To the board, I do have to say: waiting until June 1 is unacceptable. Please do not do that to me.

“The solution is very simple — fund what we need funded and this issue is over tomorrow.”

---

What did the Boston host committee and their attorneys say after the session?  

The attorneys did not make themselves available to media. Boston host committee president Loynd stopped to give comment after being asked to do so by The Athletic.

“Boston Soccer 2026 is absolutely in lockstep with the requirements that the chiefs have laid out,” he said. “We think this team here, the security team, the state police, the stadium team… is one of the best teams in the world.

“We understand what they need. We totally agree with the requirements and are working through the details. I am still convinced we will get through that piece.

“Secondly, on the funding… we are very confident now… last time I was a little apprehensive because we were working through the details but now with the support of KSE (Kraft Sports & Entertainment), we are very confident we can meet the financial requirements of this event. What we have now is a hard 10 days of work.”

Loynd was then asked by The Athletic if he believes FIFA — who are projecting over $11 billion in revenues from this tournament (which they say will largely be reinvested across global soccer) — might wish to play a role in helping to cover the funding gap.

Loynd said he would not make any further comment and exited for the car park. FIFA did not appear to have representation present.

---

How did the select board react? 

Amid significant media interest, select board chair Yukna took several questions from journalists who attended the session. He bristled at suggestions that the board do not have the authority to refuse the license.

He said: “We have full authority and ability to make whatever decision is in the best for public safety and for the town. They can say what they can say, but we also have counsel that can tell us what we have the right to do.”

The select board are entitled only to a $90 stipend per month for their roles, but Yukna declines to take it.

He warned that while the host committee had presented “some potential concepts… we’ve seen nothing in writing.” He added that he did not believe sufficient progress had been made but “hopes” an agreement may still be reached.

As for the attack on the board’s authority, did he expect that level of aggression from the attorneys? “Everybody has an option to do what they want. And they presented themselves the way they wanted to.”

Did it make him less sympathetic to the host committee’s request? “I’m sympathetic to the citizens and taxpayers in the town of Foxborough. That’s what we are elected to represent. That’s what we’re supposed to do. ”

Elfman said that the residents of Foxborough support the board’s decision to drive a hard bargain for the local taxpayer.

“One hundred per cent,” he said. “The community is behind us. The feedback I’ve gotten from people around town… I went and picked up a sub the other day. The kid behind the counter said, ‘Hey, you’re the one that was on TV. Good for you guys.’ So we are staying strong. As a chiropractor, I treat a lot of patients in town. The feedback I’m getting with patients that are coming through my door is phenomenal.”