Fans all say the same thing about ‘trash’ MetLife Stadium ahead of World Cup Final

MetLife Stadium will host the World Cup final on Sunday, but some fans are convinced soccer’s biggest game should be played elsewhere.

Renamed the New York New Jersey Stadium for this summer’s tournament, to comply with FIFA’s strict branding policy, the building in East Rutherford, New Jersey, has come under a global spotlight.

Getty

High ticket prices, the cost of food and drink, being a transit nightmare, and even the overall aesthetics of the ‘hideous’ venue which has caused several NFL injuries, have already been slammed by fans in the build up to Spain‘s colossal clash with Argentina in the 2026 World Cup Final.

‘Trash’ MetLife Stadium slammed by World Cup viewers

“No soul. Give me a crumbling San Siro any day,” one wrote of MetLife Stadium — home to the NFL‘s New York Giants and New York Jets — on X.

“We literally hate this stadium with a passion in NY. Location, aesthetics — one of the worst in the country,” another said.

“It’s hard to imagine spending a billion dollars on such a soulless piece of s***,” a third said.

“That stadium is trash. Probably the worst I’ve ever visited,” a fourth concluded.

Even the controversial field turf, which has been replaced for the World Cup, has caused concern amongst players during the tournament.

“The pitch… I don’t even know if you can call it that,” France star Adrien Rabiot said, after his nation kicked off their campaign with a 3-1 win against Senegal.

“It felt more like an artificial surface – quite hard and quite rigid.”

Brazil forward Vinicius Junior also claimed the pitch was a key reason why his side failed to overcome Morocco in their 1-1 opening group match game on June 13.

“Because of the weather and the heat, the grass dries out quickly and the game ends up being very slow,” Vinicius Jr told TNT Sports Brazil. “We can’t build up a rhythm.

“That makes things difficult because we want to play. We want to move the ball from one side to the other, and this disrupts our game. But we have to adapt because I believe it will be like this all tournament. Everyone will have to play on the same surfaces.”

Getty

Getty

But while MetLife has drawn mixed reviews from players and fans, other stadiums across the US, Canada and Mexico, have starred.

The USMNT played their opener, a 4-1 win against Paraguay, at the $6 billion SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles.

Soccer fans unfamiliar with the 70,000-seater home of the NFL’s Rams and Chargers, which opened six years ago, took to social media to label it the ‘best sports stadium in the world’ and suggested the US was already ‘living in 2050’.

Fans begged FIFA to make big change to World Cup final venue

Even older buildings, like Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, Gillette Stadium in Boston, and Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta have impressed fans, some of whom are struggling to believe they’re the same sites that regularly host NFL action.

Such has been the spectacle at stadiums such as AT&T in Dallas, SoFi in LA and the Linc, that numerous fans begged FIFA to move the World Cup final away from MetLife to somewhere more ‘deserving’.

“I think that choosing MetLife was a horrible decision by FIFA to host the final. The pitch is in bad condition and the stadium is mid.” one said.

“The final should’ve been at SoFi or AT&T, not antiquated MetLife,” a second said.

“Giants and Jets fans want MetLife to spontaneously combust. Stadium has no business being the site for the final,” a third claimed.

Getty

Getty

“Whoever chose MetLife to host the final should get fired. Stadium presentation doesn’t fit the World Cup at all. So many better they can pick from,” a fourth said.

A fifth wrote: “NYC is obviously a major draw, but I’m surprised FIFA went with MetLife for the World Cup final. SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. Mercedes-Benz in Atlanta. AT&T in Dallas. The US has so many cool new stadiums, and they chose the least interesting option.”

Some were even so impressed by Mexico City’s Azteca Stadium, which hosted the World Cup opening game and England’s incredible Round of 16 victory against the co-hosts, that they urged FIFA to move the final across the border.

“DEEPLY frustrating that the 2026 World Cup Final won’t be at the Azteca. Look at it. It’s a football cathedral,” one posted.

Coming to America

How the 1994 World Cup changed soccer in USA – from tourists in Italy to better than England and MLS

Ranking the World Cup venues – from New York to Los Angeles, a string of spectacular venues will play host to the 2026 World Cup

The $9bn pitch built for Ronaldo’s last World Cup – ‘Forever’ grass, artificial sunlight and closed roof

“It’s INCREDIBLE that the AZTECA STADIUM won’t host the World Cup FINAL,” another wrote.

“Still time to save this World Cup. Move the final to the Azteca,” a third said.

“It’s a disgrace to the sport that this piece of s*** is hosting the World Cup final over the Azteca,” a fourth concluded, sharing a photo of MetLife Stadium.

Regardless of what fans think, FIFA’s showpiece event will, of course, be played in New Jersey on Sunday as planned.

In true American fashion, a a star-studded, Super Bowl-esque half-time show will take place featuring the likes of Justin Bieber Madonna, Shakira, and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin.

Stay up to date on all things World Cup across our talkSPORT platforms – subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest news, opinion, exclusive interviews and our daily unfiltered, unscripted show ‘The S* Word, from 8am ET.