The FIFA Caravan: Did Burlington manage an opportunity or was the city managed by it?

SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE

By Joe Gaetan

December 17^th, 2025

BURLINGTON, ON

Burlington might become involved in the FIFA 2026 World Soccer Games in a small way.  City Council approved the spending of up to $160,000 to have the Caravan, a traveling exhibit that will visit 15 Ontario cities.

When two Ontario municipalities approve public funding for the same FIFA Canada’s Caravan activation, one might expect broadly similar decision-making paths. Yet a closer look at how Chatham-Kent and Burlington each arrived at their approvals reveals starkly different approaches to process, disclosure, and fiscal clarity – differences that matter, particularly when public dollars and compressed timelines are involved.

The word “activation” was new to me – I think it means to make something happen.

Soccer teams are popping up all over the place. The FIFA games will drive thousands of kids to the sport, and for a few days in June of 2026, the world will slow down to watch the “beautiful game”

Both councils ultimately said “yes.” How they got there, however, could not be more different.

Timing and Agenda Discipline

Chatham-Kent approved its funding on December 15, 2025, through a normal agenda item. Burlington, by contrast, approved its funding earlier, on December 9, 2025, but did so under the Urgent Business section of Council’s agenda.

That distinction is more than procedural trivia. Burlington’s own by-law is explicit: urgent business is reserved for time-sensitive staff reports and must clearly indicate why the recommendation is urgent. It also requires review by both the Clerk and the City Manager to determine whether the matter truly belongs on a Council agenda or should be referred to a standing committee.

Chatham-Kent’s approach suggests a process that allowed for ordinary notice, documentation, and deliberation. Burlington’s urgent route raises an immediate governance question: was the urgency inherent to the opportunity, or did it arise from late awareness and compressed internal timelines?

Initial Awareness and Lead Time

Emilie Core, Director of Recreation, Park and Culture

Here the contrast sharpens.

Chatham-Kent formally became aware of the FIFA opportunity on November 1, 2025, when it received a Letter of Intent (LOI) from FIFA outlining the activation of Canada’s Caravan. Use of the description Letter of Intent is a bit confusing – it appears to mean that they are going to talk about something.

That document was attached to the staff report, giving Council a clear reference point: what FIFA was proposing, what was being requested, and what the municipality was being asked to commit to.

In Burlington, the timeline appears far more reactive. When Councillor Bentivegna asked when staff first learned of the opportunity, the response was candid: “we literally found out Nov. 29,” facing a December 1 deadline, for which staff then requested an extension and brought the report to council under “Urgent Business”.

Two municipalities, the same national activation- yet one had nearly six weeks of awareness with formal documentation, while the other had mere days and no L.O.I. presented to Council.
That difference alone might explain why one item moved routinely and the other was deemed “urgent.”

The Role of the Letter of Intent

Chatham-Kent’s LOI matters because it anchored the discussion in specifics. FIFA required an activation fee of $50,000 per LOI, a figure that was clearly disclosed and understood by Council before any vote was taken.

In Burlington, no such clarity was provided. No LOI was produced, and no specific activation fee from FIFA was requested by Council or offered by staff during deliberations. As a result, Council approved a funding envelope without the benefit of knowing what portion, if any, was contractually required by FIFA versus locally determined.

From a governance standpoint, that is a significant divergence. One council approved funding with a defined external obligation on the table; the other approved a lump sum, absent a documented request from the organizing body.

Dollars Approved – and How They Were Explained

The financial contrast is perhaps the most striking.

Chatham-Kent approved $75,000, broken down clearly:
$50,000 activation fee payable to FIFA, plus
$25,000 for municipal event delivery expenses.

Burlington approved $160,000, more than double the Chatham-Kent amount, plus the cost of half of a staff position, with no dollar figure specified for that staffing component.

In Burlington’s case, the funding was presented as a lump sum, without a detailed breakdown comparable to Chatham-Kent’s.  Council – and by extension the public – is left without a clear understanding of how much of the $160,000 was externally required, how much was discretionary, and how staffing costs would ultimately be absorbed.

Scrutiny Isn’t Opposition – It’s Stewardship

None of this is an argument against hosting the FIFA Caravan. Communities rightly want to participate in national and international events that promote sport, tourism, and civic pride. The issue is not what was approved, but how.

Chatham-Kent demonstrated a process marked by early awareness, documented requests, transparent cost breakdowns, and use of the regular agenda. Burlington’s process, by comparison, relied on urgency, incomplete documentation, and broad financial approval under tight time pressure.

That difference matters because process is policy in action. When councils normalize urgent items for non-emergency spending decisions, or approve significant funds without full cost transparency, they set precedents that extend far beyond a single event.

A Tale of Two Approaches

In the end, these two approvals tell a larger story about municipal governance. Chatham-Kent treated the FIFA Caravan as a planned investment, while Burlington treated it as a last-minute opportunity requiring expedited approval.

Residents are entitled to ask whether urgency was unavoidable – or whether earlier awareness, clearer documentation, and committee-level scrutiny might have produced a more measured and transparent decision.

In municipal government, the difference between those two paths is not procedural nitpicking. It is the difference between managing opportunity and being managed by it.