Best and Worst Airports for 2026 World Cup Travelers

Key takeaways:

• The best overall World Cup airport is Ontario (ONT), ranking No. 1 with an overall score of 76.1.
• The worst overall World Cup airport is JFK, ranked last with an overall score of 16.2.
• LaGuardia (LGA) has the highest cancellation rate among the 25 World Cup airports, with 3.0% of scheduled departures canceled.
• Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) has the highest share of departures delayed 15 minutes or more, at 28.6%.
• San Francisco International (SFO) has the highest average domestic fare, at $490.84.
• JFK had the longest average taxi-out time, at 28.8 minutes from gate departure to takeoff.

The stakes are high. More than 10 million people are expected to visit the U.S. for the World Cup this summer, according to reporting on host-city preparations, and airports will be one of the first pressure points for fans arriving from across the country and abroad.

A Look at the Top-Ranked FIFA Airports

1. Ontario International Airport — Los Angeles/Inglewood

Ontario International Airport ranks No. 1 among the 25 airports in this analysis, giving the Los Angeles region an unexpected leader. ONT scored 76.1 overall, powered by a strong efficiency score and solid reliability. In 2025, 82.6% of departures left on time, the average departure delay was 13.0 minutes and the average taxi-out time was 14.1 minutes. The airport also had a relatively low cancellation rate of 0.9%.

That soccer demand could make LAX the natural choice for many international fans, but ONT may be appealing for domestic travelers or visitors staying east of Los Angeles. It is not necessarily the most convenient airport for Inglewood, but it looks like one of the region’s least operationally painful options. For travelers who can manage the ground transportation tradeoff, Ontario offers a cleaner performance profile than LAX, SNA or BUR in this ranking.

2. Long Beach Airport — Los Angeles/Inglewood

Long Beach ranks No. 2 overall and may be the most traveler-friendly airport in the Los Angeles cluster. LGB scored 76.0 overall and had the best efficiency score among the top five, with an average taxi-out time of just 12.4 minutes and an average taxi-in time of 4.2 minutes. Its reliability numbers were also strong: 84.3% of departures and 83.1% of arrivals were on time, and the average departure delay was just 9.6 minutes.

For World Cup purposes, LGB is a useful reminder that the best airport is not always the largest gateway. Los Angeles ranked as the country’s top city for soccer fans in WalletHub’s soccer-fan analysis, and the local host committee is planning fan festivals and events across the region. That fan energy will increase pressure on the region’s transportation network. For travelers who can fly into Long Beach, the airport’s smaller scale could be an advantage.

3. San Jose Mineta International Airport — San Francisco Bay Area/Santa Clara

San Jose ranks No. 3 among FIFA airports and stands out as the best-performing airport in the Bay Area group. SJC scored 65.6 overall, with especially strong reliability and efficiency. In 2025, 83.3% of departures and 82.0% of arrivals were on time, and average departure delay was 10.6 minutes. Its average taxi-out time, 14.3 minutes, was much lower than SFO’s 21.2 minutes.

San Jose also has a practical World Cup advantage: it is the closest major airport to the Santa Clara stadium. The Bay Area will host group-stage and Round of 32 matches from June 13 to July 1, and travelers choosing among SJC, SFO and OAK will face a classic tradeoff between convenience, route availability and airport performance.

4. Dallas Love Field — Dallas/Arlington

Dallas Love Field ranks No. 4 overall and clearly outperforms Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in this World Cup ranking. DAL scored 65.1 overall, with a particularly strong efficiency score and affordability score. Its average domestic fare was $351, compared with $434 at DFW, and its average taxi-out time was 13.2 minutes, compared with 19.6 minutes at DFW.

Love Field’s limitation is that it is much less internationally connected than DFW. It is likely to be more useful for domestic fans, especially those flying Southwest-heavy routes. But for U.S.-based travelers, the ranking suggests DAL may be the smoother North Texas gateway. Travelers heading to Arlington should still account for ground transportation: the airport may be easier than DFW, but the stadium is not in Dallas proper.

5. William P. Hobby Airport — Houston

Houston Hobby ranks No. 5 and is the better-performing of the two Houston airports in this analysis. HOU scored 64.8 overall, compared with 41.1 for George Bush Intercontinental. Hobby’s strengths were efficiency and solid affordability. In 2025, it had a 76.4% departure on-time rate, a 79.6% arrival on-time rate, an average departure delay of 14.1 minutes and an average taxi-out time of 13.0 minutes.

For travelers, the choice between HOU and IAH depends heavily on origin. IAH has more connectivity, with 109 nonstop destinations in the dataset, compared with 69 at HOU. But HOU performed much better operationally, especially on taxi times and affordability. Domestic fans who can route through Hobby may find it the easier Houston option; international visitors may have fewer alternatives to IAH.

A Look at the Worst-Ranked FIFA Airports

25. John F. Kennedy International Airport — New York/New Jersey

JFK ranks last among the 25 FIFA airports, despite serving the region that will host the World Cup Final. The airport scored just 16.2 overall, dragged down by the weakest efficiency score in the ranking and low affordability. In 2025, JFK’s average taxi-out time was 28.8 minutes, the highest among the 25 airports, and its average domestic fare was $462. Its reliability numbers were not catastrophic — 78.8% of departures and 77.3% of arrivals were on time — but they were not strong enough to offset the airport’s operational and fare disadvantages.

The timing is also difficult. JFK is in the middle of a major redevelopment program, including new terminals and an overhauled roadway network. The Port Authority says the redevelopment includes a new Terminal 1, Terminal 6 and roughly 4 million square feet of new or modernized space, with the first new terminal gates scheduled to open in 2026. JFK’s own construction guidance warns that, because of construction and record passenger levels, travelers arriving by car should expect significant delays, reroutes or roadway detours.

24. Philadelphia International Airport — Philadelphia

Philadelphia International Airport ranks 24th among FIFA airports, with an overall score of 28.6. PHL’s greatest strength is connectivity: it served 88 nonstop destinations and had one of the stronger connectivity scores in the ranking. But the airport performed poorly on reliability, efficiency and affordability. In 2025, 76.1% of departures and 75.5% of arrivals were on time, the average departure delay was 20.8 minutes and the average taxi-out time was 22.1 minutes.

Philadelphia will host matches from June 14 through July 4, including group-stage games and a Round of 16 match. The city is directing fans toward SEPTA service to reach Lincoln Financial Field, with the Broad Street Line described by the city as the quickest way to the stadium from Center City.

23. Newark Liberty International Airport — New York/New Jersey

Newark ranks 23rd, making the New York/New Jersey region the only host market with two airports in the bottom three. EWR scored 29.4 overall, with low efficiency and affordability scores. The airport’s 2025 arrival on-time rate was 72.8%, and average taxi-out time was 25.9 minutes. Average domestic fare was $449.

Newark’s recent operational problems are well documented. The FAA said in 2025 that it had been slowing arrivals and departures at Newark because of runway construction and staffing and technology issues at the Philadelphia TRACON facility that guides aircraft in and out of the airport. The FAA later extended significant flight reductions at Newark through October 2026, citing controller shortages and congestion, according to Reuters.

That makes EWR a complicated World Cup airport. On one hand, Newark is geographically useful for MetLife Stadium, especially compared with JFK. On the other hand, its recent history of air-traffic constraints raises the risk of disruptions. Travelers attending the final or other New York/New Jersey matches may be better served by choosing flights with extra schedule padding, avoiding tight connections and comparing EWR against LGA or JFK depending on route, price and ground transportation.

22. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport — Dallas/Arlington

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport ranks 22nd, despite being the dominant international gateway for one of the World Cup’s most important U.S. host regions. DFW had the strongest connectivity profile in the ranking, with 185 nonstop destinations, but its operational numbers were weak. In 2025, only 71.4% of departures left on time, the lowest departure on-time rate among the 25 FIFA airports. Average departure delay was 21.8 minutes, and average taxi-out time was 19.6 minutes.

The contrast with Dallas Love Field is stark. DAL ranked fourth overall, had a much lower average fare and posted much stronger efficiency numbers. DFW may still be unavoidable for many international fans and long-haul travelers, but domestic visitors should compare both airports closely.

21. John Wayne Airport — Los Angeles/Inglewood

John Wayne Airport ranks 21st among FIFA airports. SNA’s reliability was not the problem: 80.8% of departures and 81.5% of arrivals were on time in 2025. Its weakness was affordability and connectivity. The airport’s average domestic fare was $443, and it served 33 nonstop destinations, giving it a much narrower network than LAX.

For World Cup travelers, SNA may be useful for visitors staying in Orange County or fans combining the tournament with Southern California tourism. But it is not an obvious first choice for matches in Inglewood. It also ranked below every other Los Angeles-area airport included in the analysis: ONT, LGB, LAX and BUR.

What the Ranking Shows

The clearest pattern is that secondary airports often outperform flagship hubs. Ontario, Long Beach, San Jose, Dallas Love Field and Houston Hobby all ranked in the top five. Each has limitations, especially in international connectivity, but they generally performed better on reliability, taxi times or fares.

The biggest airports remain essential. LAX, ATL, DFW, JFK, EWR, SFO, MIA and IAH will carry much of the international World Cup traffic because they have the route networks global travelers need. But a bigger airport can also mean longer taxi times, more congestion, higher fares and more exposure to systemwide delays.

For World Cup travelers, the ranking points to three practical takeaways. First, metro areas with multiple airports deserve comparison shopping, especially Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Houston, Miami and the Bay Area. Second, fans should avoid tight connections when using lower-ranked airports with weaker on-time or taxi-time performance. Third, travelers should pay attention not only to flight price, but to the full trip: airport reliability, stadium access, local transit plans and the likely surge of soccer fans on match days.

The World Cup will not hit every airport equally. But for millions of travelers, the tournament experience will begin long before kickoff — at the airport curb, the security line, the taxiway and the gate.

Methodology

This analysis ranks U.S. airports likely to serve 2026 FIFA World Cup host regions using publicly available federal aviation data and manually appended World Cup host-region information. The core airport performance measures come from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, specifically the BTS Airline On-Time Performance data for calendar year 2025. We downloaded all 12 monthly BTS on-time files for 2025 and aggregated flight-level records to the airport level. BTS describes these data as airline-reported on-time statistics covering scheduled departures and arrivals, cancellations, diversions, taxi-out and taxi-in times, and related flight-performance measures; BTS also defines a flight as on time if it departs from or arrives at the gate less than 15 minutes after its scheduled time.

The ranking uses four category scores: reliability, efficiency, connectivity and affordability. Each underlying measure was converted into a percentile score from 0 to 100 within the airport’s size peer group. For measures where higher values indicate better performance, such as on-time rates, nonstop destinations and carrier count, airports with higher raw values received higher percentile scores. For measures where lower values indicate better performance, such as cancellation rate, diversion rate, delay minutes, taxi time and average fare, the scoring was reversed so that lower raw values received higher percentile scores. Category scores were calculated as the average of their available measure-level scores, and the overall score was calculated as the average of the available category scores. The overall rank orders airports by that overall score, with rank No. 1 representing the highest-scoring airport in the analysis.

The overall score is the average of the available category scores: reliability, efficiency, connectivity and affordability. A higher overall score indicates stronger combined performance across the categories.

The reliability score measures how consistently flights operated as scheduled in 2025. It is calculated as the average of six peer-group percentile scores: departure on-time score, arrival on-time score, cancellation score, diversion score, departure delay score and arrival delay score. Departure on-time rate is calculated as one minus the airport’s departure delay rate, where the departure delay rate is the mean of the BTS DepDel15 field for flights departing the airport. In practical terms, it is the share of departing flights that were not delayed by 15 minutes or more. Arrival on-time rate is calculated the same way for arriving flights, using one minus the mean of the BTS ArrDel15 field for flights arriving at the airport. Cancellation rate is the mean of the BTS Cancelled field for flights departing the airport, so it represents the share of scheduled departures that were canceled. Diversion rate is the mean of the BTS Diverted field for flights departing the airport, representing the share of departures that were diverted from their scheduled destination. Average departure delay is the mean number of departure delay minutes for flights departing the airport, using BTS DepDelayMinutes. Average arrival delay is the mean number of arrival delay minutes for flights arriving at the airport, using BTS ArrDelayMinutes.

The efficiency score measures how efficiently aircraft moved between gates and runways in 2025. It is calculated as the average of two peer-group percentile scores: taxi-out score and taxi-in score. Average taxi-out time is the mean BTS TaxiOut value for flights departing the airport, measured in minutes from gate departure to takeoff. Lower taxi-out times receive higher scores. Average taxi-in time is the mean BTS TaxiIn value for flights arriving at the airport, measured in minutes from landing to gate arrival. Lower taxi-in times receive higher scores.

The connectivity score measures the amount of scheduled air-service access and traveler choice represented in the 2025 BTS on-time data. It is calculated as the average of four peer-group percentile scores: departing flights score, arriving flights score, destination score and carrier diversity score. Departing flights is the count of BTS on-time records in which the airport was the origin. Arriving flights is the count of BTS on-time records in which the airport was the destination. Nonstop destinations is the number of unique destination airport codes served from the airport in the BTS on-time records. Reporting carriers is the number of unique reporting airlines associated with departing records at that airport. These measures do not capture every possible form of airport connectivity, but they provide a consistent public-data proxy for scale, network breadth and carrier choice.

The affordability score measures the relative cost of flying from an airport, using BTS average domestic itinerary fare data where available. We scraped the BTS Average Domestic Airline Itinerary Fares page and joined fares to airports by airport code. BTS defines itinerary fare as the average domestic itinerary fare for round trips or one-way trips where no return is purchased, based on the total ticket value charged by airlines plus taxes and outside fees at the time of purchase. BTS notes that these fares do not include optional fees such as baggage fees paid at the airport or onboard, and that averages exclude frequent-flyer or zero fares and some abnormally high reported fares.