The decision to award the World Cup final to MetLife Stadium has drawn mixed reactions. Long-time New Jersey sports columnist Steve Politi calls the venue "blah," noting its soulless design despite its $1.6bn price tag. Opened in 2010, the stadium holds 82,500 spectators and 200 luxury suites, but sits five miles west of Manhattan in East Rutherford, New Jersey, surrounded by highways with difficult transit access.

FIFA defends the choice, citing New York's status as a global media and entertainment capital. Alex Lasry of the NYNJ Host Committee emphasizes the massive regional celebration potential, with watch parties at iconic Manhattan locations. However, pitch concerns emerged during the tournament: Vinicius Jr criticized the dry, sluggish surface, while France's Didier Deschamps and Adrien Rabiot likened it to concrete.

Critics like Iain Bagwell argue Atlanta's covered, air-conditioned Mercedes-Benz Stadium would have been superior, with better transport and cheaper concessions. Yet Politi acknowledges that when full and engaged, MetLife Stadium "can rock." With rain forecast around the final, the open-air venue's exposure adds uncertainty to FIFA's high-stakes business decision.