Toronto is facing mounting criticism over significant cost overruns and questionable spending priorities as it prepares to host matches for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. A recent invoice revealed that Toronto Public Health is allocating nearly $200,000 to purchase 576,000 branded condoms and 200,000 individual packages of lubricant, a move that has sparked outrage among taxpayers and fiscal watchdogs.
The expenditure, intended to mitigate the spread of sexually transmitted infections during the tournament, comes as the overall cost of hosting six World Cup games in Toronto has ballooned to $380 million – a 750% increase from the initial estimate of $30-45 million. The revelation has fueled accusations of fiscal mismanagement and a misallocation of public funds.
According to a report by the Toronto Sun, the purchase includes 12,500 female (internal) condoms and 16,000 dental dams, alongside the branded male condoms. The condom wrappers themselves will feature six different designs, seemingly aimed at appealing to collectors. While officials at Toronto Public Health state the initiative is intended to combat rising rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in the city, critics argue that the spending is frivolous given the existing budgetary pressures.
Noah Jarvis, Ontario Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, sharply criticized the expenditure, stating that such bills would be more expected from Hugh Hefner than from city hall. Jarvis highlighted the broader financial burden the World Cup is placing on taxpayers, noting that Toronto residents are contributing $178.7 million towards the event, with the Ontario and federal governments adding $97 million and $104.3 million respectively.
The controversy extends beyond the cost of condoms and lubricant. Reports indicate that FIFA is demanding preferential treatment for players and VIPs, including bypassing standard immigration, customs, and security procedures. This includes dedicated airport pick-up areas, special waiting rooms, priority luggage handling, and even road closures with police escorts – all at the expense of Toronto taxpayers.
Further exacerbating concerns, the city recently increased the Municipal Accommodation Tax by 41.7%, adding to the financial strain on hotel owners and potentially impacting tourism. This decision, coupled with significant property tax hikes, has drawn criticism from industry representatives who argue that it will make Toronto less competitive as a destination.
The escalating costs and perceived preferential treatment for FIFA officials have ignited public discontent, with recent polling suggesting that 56% of Ontarians oppose using public funds to support the World Cup. The situation raises questions about the long-term economic benefits of hosting the tournament and whether the financial burden outweighs the potential gains.
The debate over Toronto’s World Cup spending comes amid broader concerns about fiscal responsibility and the allocation of public resources. As the city grapples with rising costs and competing priorities, the decision to spend $200,000 on condoms and lubricant has become a symbol of perceived government overreach and a disconnect from the needs of ordinary citizens.
The situation in Toronto mirrors similar concerns in Vancouver, which is also hosting World Cup matches and facing significant cost overruns. The combined financial burden on Canadian taxpayers raises questions about the overall economic viability of hosting the tournament and the need for greater transparency and accountability in the allocation of public funds.
As the 2026 FIFA World Cup draws closer, the focus is likely to intensify on the financial implications of hosting the event and the potential impact on local communities. The controversy in Toronto serves as a cautionary tale for other host cities and underscores the importance of careful planning, responsible spending, and a commitment to transparency.
