FIFA World Cup 2026 Economic Impact
FIFA World Cup 2026 economic statistics now describe the completed record of what has become the largest single economic event in North American sporting history, played out across 16 host cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada from June 11 to July 19, 2026. With the tournament finished — Spain defeating Argentina 1-0 in extra time in the final at MetLife Stadium — the real-world economic picture has come sharply into focus. On the eve of the final, Bank of America disclosed that the tournament had generated an estimated $40 billion in total global economic impact, with $20 billion of that landing inside the United States, a figure Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan shared directly with CBS News as the most current, confirmed estimate available. That number sits well below FIFA’s own earlier $80.1 billion global gross output projection, but it remains an extraordinary sum for a single six-week sporting event, and it validates — even if at a lower magnitude than originally forecast — the core argument that hosting the World Cup delivers real, measurable economic activity to host communities.
On the attendance side, the tournament didn’t just meet expectations, it obliterated them. FIFA President Gianni Infantino confirmed a final total of 6,665,825 spectators across the 104 matches, a number that already surpassed the combined attendance of the 2018 and 2022 tournaments (6,436,020 fans) put together, and nearly doubled the previous single-tournament record of 3,587,538, set at USA 1994. Average attendance landed at 65,351 fans per match, with a stadium occupancy rate of 99.7% — the highest in World Cup history. Meanwhile, Bank of America’s consumer card-spending data showed overall purchases across the 16 host cities up 6.3% year-over-year, driven by a 16.7% surge in spending from non-local visitors, giving economists a genuinely data-backed, transaction-level confirmation that real money changed hands in host communities, distinct from the more speculative pre-tournament projections. This fully updated report compiles the final, confirmed economic statistics on host city impact, job creation, hotel and Airbnb activity, attendance records, and the broader debate over how the realized numbers compare to the original forecasts.
It’s worth pausing on just how unusual it is for a major sporting event’s economic story to resolve this cleanly within days of the closing ceremony. Most previous World Cups and Olympics have taken months, sometimes years, for independent economists to reconstruct a defensible after-the-fact estimate of real economic impact, largely because host governments and organizing committees have historically had strong incentives to delay or obscure unfavorable results. What makes the 2026 tournament different is that a major US financial institution with direct access to real consumer card-transaction data across all 16 host cities chose to publish its own independent estimate before the final whistle had even blown, effectively short-circuiting the usual multi-year academic dispute over whether a World Cup “actually” delivered on its promises. That transparency is itself one of the more interesting structural legacies of this tournament, and it’s part of why this report can speak with unusual confidence about final, rather than merely projected, figures.
Interesting Facts About FIFA World Cup 2026 Economic Impact
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Total confirmed global economic impact (Bank of America, final estimate) | $40 billion |
| US share of total economic impact (Bank of America) | $20 billion |
| Original FIFA-WTO global gross output projection | $80.1 billion |
| Original global GDP boost projection (FIFA-WTO/Oxford Economics) | $40.9 billion |
| Final confirmed total tournament attendance | 6,665,825 spectators |
| Attendance vs. combined 2018 + 2022 tournaments | Exceeded 6,436,020 combined |
| Previous single-tournament attendance record (USA 1994) | 3,587,538 |
| Average attendance per match (2026) | 65,351 fans |
| Stadium occupancy rate (all-time record) | 99.7% |
| Host-city card spending growth (YoY, Bank of America) | +6.3% |
| Non-local visitor spending growth (YoY) | +16.7% |
| Global jobs created (original FIFA-WTO projection) | ~823,474 to 824,000 jobs |
| US jobs created (FIFA original projection) | 185,000 jobs |
| US tax revenue generated (FIFA original projection) | $3.4 billion |
| US share of total matches hosted | 78 of 104 matches — 75% of the tournament |
| Canada’s projected economic output (CAD) | ~CAD 3.8 billion, 24,000+ jobs |
| FIFA’s total revenue target, 2023–2026 cycle | $13 billion (revised up twice from $11 billion) |
| Kansas City visitor turnout | 650,000 visitors to a metro of just 520,000 residents |
Source: CBS News interview with Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, July 18-19, 2026 (via Cuba Headlines and wire reports); inside.fifa.com, “Gianni Infantino: FIFA World Cup 2026 has ‘exceeded all expectations'” (July 18-19, 2026); Forbes, “World Cup 2026 Drives Consumer Spending Boost In Host Cities” (June 26, 2026); Travel And Tour World (July 2026); FIFA–WTO joint economic impact study (inside.fifa.com); DocSports, “2026 FIFA World Cup Financial Statistics” (May 17, 2026)
The single most important number to emerge from this tournament’s closing days is the Bank of America $40 billion global / $20 billion US figure, because it represents the first genuinely transaction-level, bank-verified estimate of the tournament’s economic footprint, rather than a pre-event forecast built on modeling assumptions. That figure sits at roughly half of FIFA’s original $80.1 billion global projection, a gap that lines up closely with the skepticism economists had already been voicing throughout June, discussed in detail later in this article. Importantly, though, $40 billion is still an enormous confirmed number — larger than the GDP of many small countries — and Moynihan’s framing that Kansas City specifically showed faster growth and spending rates than other host cities despite being by far the smallest US market on the host list offers a genuinely interesting data point about how smaller cities can see outsized relative economic disruption from hosting even a handful of matches.
The attendance side of the ledger tells an unambiguously positive story, with no gap between projection and reality. FIFA’s confirmed final total of 6,665,825 spectators, delivered at a record 99.7% stadium occupancy rate, didn’t just break the single-tournament record set in 1994 — it exceeded the combined attendance of the two most recent World Cups put together. This distinction matters economically: attendance figures are hard, auditable numbers based on tickets scanned at turnstiles, unlike GDP-impact projections which rely on economic multiplier assumptions that are inherently more contestable. The fact that in-stadium demand outperformed even the most optimistic historical benchmarks, while the broader macroeconomic GDP figures landed below initial forecasts, suggests the tournament’s core football product succeeded even more than expected, even as the wider “economic windfall” narrative proved more nuanced once real spending data replaced pre-tournament modeling.
US Host City Economic Impact: Projections vs. Final Tournament Reality
Projected Economic Impact by Select US Host City (2026 World Cup)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
New York/New Jersey │████████████████████████████████ $3.3 billion
Dallas/Fort Worth │██████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░ $1.5–2.1 billion
Atlanta │███████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ $1.0 billion
Boston/New England │███████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ $1.1 billion
Kansas City │██████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ $653 million (outperformed on growth rate)
Philadelphia │███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ $500+ million
└──────────────────────────────────────
(Source: DocSports 2026 Financial Statistics,
May 2026; Bank of America final commentary, July 2026)
| Host City | Projected Economic Impact | Key Stats |
|---|---|---|
| New York / New Jersey | $3.3 billion | 8 matches incl. Final; 26,000+ jobs; 1.2M+ visitors; $432M state/local tax revenue |
| Dallas / Fort Worth | $1.5–$2.1 billion | 9 matches incl. semifinal; AT&T Stadium seats ~94,000; ~$3.5M sales tax revenue (city estimate) |
| Atlanta | ~$1.0 billion | 8 matches incl. semifinal; new US Soccer National Training Center established |
| Boston / New England | $1.1 billion | 7 matches; 5,000 jobs; $60M tax revenue; $189M Airbnb activity regionally |
| Kansas City | $653 million | 650,000 visitors vs. 520,000 residents; confirmed by Bank of America as fastest-growing spend market |
| Philadelphia | $500+ million | 6 matches; July 4 Round of 16 game aligned with America’s 250th anniversary |
| Miami / South Florida | Multi-hundred-million | 7 matches incl. Bronze Final (July 18); Hard Rock Stadium; FIFA Fan Festival at Bayfront Park |
Source: DocSports, “2026 FIFA World Cup Financial Statistics” (May 17, 2026); FIU News, “World Cup 2026 impact could reach beyond tourism” (May 18, 2026); CBS News/Bank of America final tournament commentary (July 18-19, 2026)
The city-by-city breakdown illustrates how unevenly this tournament’s economic benefits were always going to be distributed, largely tracking each city’s number of assigned matches and the prestige of those fixtures. New York/New Jersey’s $3.3 billion projection stood well clear of every other market, a figure directly tied to hosting 8 matches including the tournament’s marquee final, alongside an estimated 1.2 million-plus visitors and $432 million in state and local tax revenue. Dallas/Fort Worth’s $1.5-to-$2.1 billion range, tied to 9 matches including a semifinal at AT&T Stadium’s 94,000-seat capacity, represented the second-largest projected impact among individually profiled cities, while Miami’s slate of 7 matches, capped by the July 18 Bronze Final at Hard Rock Stadium, added a substantial though less precisely quantified contribution to South Florida’s regional economy.
What the final Bank of America commentary specifically validated, though, is the smaller-market outperformance story that analysts had been watching all tournament: Kansas City, despite its comparatively modest $653 million projection, was singled out by name by Bank of America’s own CEO as showing faster growth and spending rates compared to other locations — a genuinely notable outcome for a metro area of just 520,000 residents that welcomed roughly 650,000 visitors, a visitor-to-resident ratio unmatched by any other host city on the list. This pattern — where smaller cities see outsized relative economic disruption even with smaller absolute dollar projections — is echoed throughout the short-term rental data discussed later in this article, confirming that the tournament’s economic benefits, while concentrated in dollar terms in the largest metros, were often felt most intensely, relative to local economic baselines, in the smaller host markets.
Economist Skepticism vs. Final Confirmed Results for the World Cup 2026
| Claim / Projection | Final Reality-Check Finding |
|---|---|
| $80.1B global gross output (FIFA-WTO projection) | Confirmed final figure: $40 billion (Bank of America) — landed near the lower half of the original range |
| $17B US GDP boost (FIFA projection) | Confirmed final figure: $20 billion (Bank of America) — broadly in line with, slightly above, the original US-specific estimate |
| Dallas: $1.5–$2.1B economic boost | SMU economist: city sees “little boom…then goes back to where it was” — pattern consistent with final data |
| Hotel demand assumed strong across all cities | Confirmed ~80% of hotels across 11 US host cities tracked below initial forecasts during June |
| Host-city consumer spending overall | Confirmed +6.3% YoY, with +16.7% specifically from non-local, tournament-driven visitors |
| Attendance record: could 2026 beat 1994’s 3.59M? | Confirmed: Yes, dramatically — final total of 6,665,825 nearly doubled the previous record |
| “Trump slump” cited as a dampening factor (WEF/Financial Times) | Ticket pricing and inflation fears did measurably soften early hotel and Airbnb bookings in several cities |
Source: NPR, “How much of an economic boom is the 2026 FIFA World Cup for the U.S. hosting cities?” (June 15, 2026), featuring SMU economics professor Cullum Clark; World Economic Forum, “How the World Cup could boost the growing sports economy” (April 30, 2026); CBS News/Bank of America, final tournament economic commentary (July 18-19, 2026); inside.fifa.com attendance confirmation (July 2026)
With the tournament now complete, the gap between official pre-tournament economic projections and the final confirmed reality has resolved into a clearer, more nuanced picture than either the boosters or the skeptics fully anticipated. NPR’s June 15, 2026 reporting, which quoted Southern Methodist University economics professor Cullum Clark predicting cities would see “something of a little boom in sales tax revenue to last for a few weeks, and then it just goes back to where it was before”, has been broadly validated by the final numbers: the confirmed $40 billion global economic impact figure landed at roughly half of FIFA’s own original $80.1 billion projection, a meaningful downward revision that supports Clark’s broader argument that projections from major sporting events are generally exaggerated relative to what independent, bank-verified spending data ultimately shows.
At the same time, the final numbers should not be read as evidence the tournament was an economic disappointment. A confirmed $40 billion in global economic activity and $20 billion inside the United States, backed by actual card-transaction data rather than economic-multiplier modeling, represents genuine, real-world spending that flowed through host communities — and the $20 billion US figure came in essentially at or slightly above FIFA’s own original $17 billion projection specifically for the United States, even as the larger global figure fell well short of the most optimistic WTO-cited estimates. Combined with the record-shattering 6,665,825 total attendance figure and 99.7% stadium occupancy rate, which exceeded every historical benchmark without any caveat or downward revision, the final picture is one of a tournament that outperformed on fan turnout and stadium demand while landing at a more modest, though still historic, level on the broader macroeconomic multiplier effects that economists had always been most skeptical of in the first place. Readers interested in how this attendance surge compares across World Cup history can find the complete historical breakdown in our dedicated Soccer World Cup attendance statistics report.
Hotels vs. Airbnb: The Accommodation Economy Split for the World Cup 2026
Host City Short-Term Rental Fill Rates vs. Hotel Performance (May-June 2026)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Kansas City STR fill rate │████████████████████████████ 62%
Kansas City hotels │████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Called "non-event" early on
Dallas STR fill rate │███████████████████░░░░░░░░░ 43%
Dallas STR avg daily rate │████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░ $363
Hotels below forecast (11 US │██████████████████████████░░ ~80% of hotels (June survey)
host cities, overall) │
└──────────────────────────────────────
(Source: AirROI / American Hotel & Lodging
Association survey, May 2026; final tournament
spending data confirms overall recovery, July 2026)
| Accommodation Metric | Data Point |
|---|---|
| Hotels reporting below-forecast occupancy (11 US host cities, June survey) | ~80% (AHLA survey of 200+ hotels) |
| Airbnb/STR fill rate surge vs. baseline during match weeks | 100% to 187% above baseline (AirROI pacing data) |
| Kansas City STR fill rate | 62% — hotels initially described tournament as a “non-event” |
| Dallas STR fill rate / average daily rate | 43% fill rate, $363 average daily rate |
| Kansas City booked ADR range during match weeks | $430–$508 (100–140% premium over baseline) |
| Houston booked ADR during peak match periods | $263–$307 |
| Airbnb geographic coverage advantage | Present in 67% of host city zip codes vs. 38% for hotels |
| Airbnb “Reserve Now Pay Later” share of Q1 2026 bookings | 20% of global gross booking value; 70%+ adoption among eligible US bookings |
| First-time Airbnb guests during the tournament | ~1 in 6 guests in Canada, Mexico, and the US |
| Average projected Airbnb host earnings (11 US cities) | $3,000–$4,000 per host over the tournament window |
| Top-earning host market (New York–NJ) | $5,700 projected per host |
| Lowest-earning host market (Philadelphia) | $1,900 projected per host |
| Total projected Airbnb guest spending on accommodations (US) | $327 million |
| Final host-city consumer spending growth (all categories, confirmed) | +6.3% YoY, +16.7% from non-local visitors |
Source: AirROI, “World Cup 2026 Hotels vs. Airbnb: AirROI Data Shows Where Demand Is Actually Going” (May 13, 2026), citing American Hotel & Lodging Association survey data; AirROI, “World Cup 2026 Airbnb Earnings” (May 7, 2026); CBS News/Bank of America final tournament data (July 18-19, 2026)
The accommodation sector data, now viewed alongside the final confirmed spending figures, provides strong evidence that this tournament’s economic activity was real but redistributed across categories and channels rather than simply failing to materialize as the mid-tournament hotel-occupancy headlines might have suggested in isolation. AirROI’s analysis, published mid-tournament, framed this explicitly: “the accommodation battle between hotels and Airbnb is not a demand story — it is a structural realignment.” While roughly 80% of hotels across the 11 US host cities reported occupancy tracking below initial forecasts in a June survey, short-term rental platforms were simultaneously recording fill rates surging 100% to 187% above baseline in the very same markets during match weeks, and by the tournament’s final weeks, overall consumer card spending across all 16 host cities had climbed a confirmed 6.3% year-over-year, suggesting the dollars that hotels weren’t capturing were flowing through short-term rentals, restaurants, retail, and entertainment spending instead.
Kansas City again offers the starkest individual example of this pattern playing out end-to-end: local hotel operators described the World Cup as effectively a “non-event” in the tournament’s early weeks even as short-term rentals in the same city hit a 62% fill rate, and yet by the tournament’s conclusion, Bank of America specifically singled out Kansas City as showing faster growth and spending rates than every other host city — direct confirmation that the city’s overall economic activity, once measured through actual bank transaction data rather than hotel-occupancy surveys alone, told a considerably more positive story than the mid-tournament hospitality-sector headlines implied. With average projected host earnings ranging from $1,900 in Philadelphia up to $5,700 in New York–NJ, and roughly 1 in 6 guests across Canada, Mexico, and the US booking with Airbnb for the first time specifically because of the tournament, this World Cup appears to represent a genuine, lasting structural shift in how major sporting events distribute their accommodation-sector economic benefits.
Canada & Mexico Economic Impact Statistics for the World Cup 2026
Canada & Mexico — Projected World Cup 2026 Economic Contribution
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Canada: Economic output (CAD) │████████████████████████ CAD 3.8 billion
Canada: Jobs supported │████████████████████░░░░ 24,000+ jobs
Vancouver: Accommodation gap │██████████████████████░░ 70,000-night shortfall
Monterrey: STR rate premium │████████████████████████ +349% (avg., match days)
Guadalajara: STR rate premium │██████████████████░░░░░░ +230% (avg.)
└──────────────────────────────────────
(Source: sportanddev.org; AirROI, May 2026)
| Country / City | Economic Indicator | Figure |
|---|---|---|
| Canada (national) | Projected economic output | ~CAD 3.8 billion |
| Canada (national) | Jobs linked to World Cup activities | 24,000+ jobs |
| Vancouver | FIFA hotel room block cancellations | 70–80% (~15,000 nightly rooms) |
| Vancouver | Projected accommodation shortfall | 70,000 nights |
| Monterrey, Mexico | Average short-term rental rate premium (4 match-days) | +349% (single-match peak: +387%) |
| Guadalajara, Mexico | Average short-term rental rate premium | +230% |
| Mexico City | Hosted tournament opener (June 11); hotel room block reduction | ~800 rooms affected |
| Global tournament tourism spending (Allianz Trade estimate) | Total spending across US, Mexico, Canada | ~$8 billion (US $5.4B, Mexico $1.4B, Canada $1.2B) |
Source: sportanddev.org, “FIFA World Cup 2026: Economic benefits beyond the pitch” (2026); AirROI, “World Cup 2026 Short-Term Rental Data” (May 7, 2026); Allianz Trade, “From kickoff to cash flow” (June 10, 2026)
Canada and Mexico’s economic data reveal a tournament experience meaningfully different from the US host-city pattern, shaped heavily by genuine supply constraints rather than soft demand. Canada’s projected CAD 3.8 billion in economic output and over 24,000 supported jobs reflects a more modest, two-city footprint compared to the 11-city American host slate, but Vancouver’s accommodation situation specifically stood out as a genuine capacity crunch throughout the tournament: with FIFA cancelling 70-to-80% of the city’s group hotel room blocks, representing roughly 15,000 nightly rooms, Vancouver projected a 70,000-night accommodation shortfall across the tournament window — a supply problem fundamentally different from the soft-demand story playing out in several US markets, since this gap reflects rooms FIFA itself withdrew from the market rather than a lack of traveler interest.
Mexico’s two smaller host cities, Monterrey and Guadalajara, showed the most extreme short-term rental pricing premiums recorded anywhere in this entire economic dataset: AirROI’s data documented Monterrey averaging a 349% rate premium across its four match-days, with a single-match peak of 387%, while Guadalajara averaged a 230% premium — both dramatically higher than the premiums seen in major US metro markets like New York, Los Angeles, or Miami, which AirROI described as “absorbing demand smoothly” with comparatively minimal price spikes thanks to their naturally larger baseline accommodation supply. Independent research firm Allianz Trade separately estimated total cross-border tourism spending across all three host nations at approximately $8 billion, split roughly $5.4 billion in the US, $1.4 billion in Mexico, and $1.2 billion in Canada, a figure that sits comfortably within the range implied by Bank of America’s own final $40 billion global impact estimate once broadcasting, sponsorship, and non-tourism spending categories are factored in separately. For a fuller picture of how this compares to FIFA’s own broadcast and commercial revenue for the tournament, see our companion report on FIFA World Cup broadcast rights and TV channel statistics.
FIFA’s Own Commercial Revenue vs. Host-City Economic Impact in 2026
FIFA Commercial Revenue Trajectory vs. Host-City Economic Impact
==================================================================
FIFA 2019-2022 cycle revenue |███████████████ | $7.6B
FIFA 2023-2026 cycle target |██████████████████████| $13.0B (+72%)
World Cup 2026 alone (FIFA share) |█████████████ | $8.9B
Host-city global impact (BofA) |██████████████████████| $40.0B
------------------------------------------------------------
FIFA's revenue and the wider host-economy impact are separate pools of money
Source: FIFA Financial Reports; Bank of America/CBS News, July 2026
| Revenue Stream | Figure |
|---|---|
| FIFA 2019–2022 cycle total revenue | $7.6 billion |
| FIFA 2023–2026 cycle revenue target | $13 billion (+72% cycle-on-cycle) |
| FIFA revenue attributable to World Cup 2026 alone | ~$8.9 billion |
| FIFA broadcast rights revenue (2026 cycle) | $3.92 billion |
| FIFA sponsorship revenue forecast (2026 cycle) | ~$2.4–2.8 billion |
| FIFA prize money pool paid to teams | $871 million (record) |
| Host-city / broader economic impact (Bank of America, final) | $40 billion global / $20 billion US |
| Ratio of host-economy impact to FIFA’s own World Cup revenue | Roughly 4.5x |
Source: FIFA Financial Reports and Revised 2023–2026 Budget; The Global Statistics, FIFA World Cup Revenue Statistics (April 2026); CBS News/Bank of America, July 18-19, 2026
One of the most important distinctions in evaluating this tournament’s full economic story is that FIFA’s own commercial revenue and the broader host-city/national economic impact figures are two entirely separate pools of money that are frequently conflated in casual reporting. FIFA’s organizational revenue for the 2023–2026 cycle, targeted at $13 billion, represents money that flows directly to FIFA itself through broadcast rights, sponsorship, ticketing, and licensing — of which roughly $8.9 billion is attributable specifically to the 2026 World Cup. This is a fundamentally different figure from the $40 billion in broader economic activity that Bank of America identified across host communities, which captures the much wider ripple effect of tourism spending, hospitality revenue, transportation, retail, and local business activity that the tournament generated, largely independent of FIFA’s own balance sheet. For the complete breakdown of exactly how FIFA’s commercial revenue is structured across broadcasting, sponsorship, and ticketing, our dedicated FIFA World Cup revenue statistics report covers the full financial architecture in detail.
Viewed through this lens, the ratio between host-economy impact and FIFA’s own tournament-specific revenue works out to roughly 4.5-to-1 — meaning for every dollar FIFA itself collected from the 2026 World Cup, host communities across the three co-hosting nations generated approximately $4.50 in broader economic activity. This ratio is a genuinely useful way to think about the often-contentious debate over “who really profits” from hosting a World Cup: while FIFA captures a large, concentrated, and highly predictable revenue stream through its centralized broadcasting and sponsorship deals, the much larger, more diffuse economic benefit flows outward into thousands of individual hotels, restaurants, rideshare drivers, retailers, and short-term rental hosts across 16 host cities — even if, as the economist skepticism section above details, that diffuse benefit landed at roughly half of the most optimistic pre-tournament WTO projections once the final, bank-verified numbers came in.
Taken together, the full arc of this tournament’s economic story — from the earliest FIFA-WTO projections floated back in 2025, through the mid-tournament hotel-occupancy shortfalls and economist skepticism that dominated coverage in June, to the final Bank of America figures and record-shattering attendance numbers confirmed in the tournament’s closing days — offers a genuinely instructive case study in how major sporting event economics actually unfold in real time. The headline lesson is not that the World Cup was an economic failure, nor that it was the unqualified windfall FIFA’s earliest projections promised, but something more textured: a tournament that dramatically outperformed on attendance and fan engagement, delivered real, bank-verified consumer spending growth concentrated heavily in non-local visitor activity, while landing on the broader macroeconomic GDP and jobs figures at a meaningfully more modest level than the most ambitious pre-tournament forecasts suggested. For host cities, policymakers, and future World Cup bidders alike, that combination — spectacular on-field and in-stadium success paired with a more moderate, though still historic, macroeconomic footprint — is likely to become the template against which the next FIFA World Cup cycle, and future mega-events more broadly, will be measured.
Disclaimer: The data research report we present here is based on information found from various sources. We are not liable for any financial loss, errors, or damages of any kind that may result from the use of the information herein. We acknowledge that though we try to report accurately, we cannot verify the absolute facts of everything that has been represented.
