🪙 Tossing a coin into Rome's Trevi Fountain now costs more than just a wish. As of February 2, 2026, visitors must pay a €2 (~$2.35) entry fee to get close to the world's most famous fountain. With 9 million visitors a year and daily peaks of 70,000, Rome is joining a growing global movement to put a price tag on overtourism. Here's what's happening — and why Japan is watching closely.
The Trevi Fountain Goes Behind a Paywall
Rome's Trevi Fountain — the 18th-century Baroque masterpiece immortalized in Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita — officially began charging an entry fee on February 2, 2026. The fee of €2 (approximately $2.35) applies to non-residents who want to descend the steps and get close to the basin, the spot where millions of tourists toss coins and snap selfies each year.
The fountain attracts over 9 million visitors annually, with an average of 30,000 per day and peaks reaching 70,000 during the busiest periods. Before the fee was introduced, the small piazza surrounding the fountain was often packed shoulder to shoulder, with visitors clutching gelato, jostling for photos, and occasionally even jumping into the water.
Rome residents with valid ID, children under six, people with disabilities and their companions, licensed tour guides, and holders of the Roma MIC museum card are all exempt from the fee.
How the New System Works
Tickets are open-dated — meaning there's no need to pick a specific time slot in advance. They can be purchased online through the official website, at the on-site ticket office, at tourist information centers, or at authorized sales points across the city. Both credit cards and cash are accepted at physical locations.
The ticketed area is open from 9 AM to 10 PM most days, though on Mondays and Fridays it opens later (11 AM or even 2 PM on alternate Mondays) due to coin collection and cleaning operations. After 10 PM, the barriers are removed and access is free for everyone — a deliberate nod to the fountain's romantic nighttime atmosphere.
Along with the fee, Rome has also formalized a list of prohibited behaviors in the ticketed zone: eating and drinking, smoking, sitting on the fountain's edge, throwing anything other than traditional coins, climbing the monument, bathing, washing clothes, and bringing animals into the water.
Twenty-five uniformed stewards have been hired to manage the system, check tickets, and guide visitors through the gated entrance and exit pathways. Violators of the rules face fines.
The Money Trail: Where Do the Euros Go?
City officials estimate the entry fee could generate approximately €6.5 million ($7.6 million) per year. This revenue will fund the fountain's ongoing maintenance, pay for the staffing of the new ticketing operation, and — in a notable move — expand free museum access for Rome residents. The city has announced that local citizens will gain free entry to additional municipal museums as a direct result of tourism revenue.
Meanwhile, the coins tossed into the fountain — which amount to roughly €1.5 million ($1.75 million) per year — will continue to be donated to the Catholic charity Caritas, which funds social programs for the poor. This long-standing tradition remains untouched by the new fee structure.
Early Reactions: "Tell Me It's Not Worth Two Euros!"
The response from tourists on opening day was largely positive. A Polish visitor exclaimed that the fountain was "worth thousands if not millions," calling €2 a bargain. A tourist from Morocco noted the improved experience: comfortable access, space for photos, and no crushing crowds. A British visitor appreciated getting "a decent picture without being bombarded by lots of other people."
Not everyone was convinced, however. Some Spanish tourists refused to pay and tossed their coins from outside the barriers — several missing the water entirely. An Albanian visitor felt Italians shouldn't have to pay at all (they don't — residents are exempt), while an Argentine tourist argued the fountain "should be free" for everyone.
Rome's tourism chief Alessandro Onorato was characteristically blunt, stating that if the Trevi Fountain were in New York City, "they would charge at least $100."
A Global Trend: The Price of Being Popular
The Trevi Fountain's new fee is part of a rapidly expanding international trend. Across Italy and Europe — and increasingly in Asia — popular destinations are experimenting with financial tools to manage tourist flows.
Venice, Italy: In 2024, Venice became one of the first cities in the world to charge day-trippers an entry fee. Visitors who don't stay overnight must pay €5 ($5.85) during designated peak periods. The system is aimed at making the lagoon city more livable for its shrinking resident population.
The Pantheon, Rome: Rome's ancient temple-turned-church introduced a €5 ($5.85) entry fee for tourists, breaking with centuries of free access. Like the Trevi fee, proceeds support preservation and staffing.
The Louvre, Paris: France announced a 45% price hike for the Louvre, raising tickets to €32 ($37) for most non-European visitors — one of the most aggressive pricing moves by any major museum.
New Zealand: The country tripled its International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL) to NZ$100 (roughly $60), making it one of the highest national tourism taxes in the world.
Bhutan: The Himalayan kingdom charges a daily Sustainable Development Fee of $100 per visitor per day, positioning itself as the gold standard for high-value, low-volume tourism.
Japan's Overtourism Battle: A Familiar Story
Japan is watching these developments with intense interest — and for good reason. The country welcomed a record 42.68 million international visitors in 2025, spending ¥9.5 trillion (approximately $63 billion). While this represents an economic windfall, it has also fueled overtourism crises in popular spots.
Kyoto, where foreign visitors now reportedly make up 80% of crowds at some landmarks, has become a symbol of the struggle. Residents complain about overcrowded buses, noise in residential areas, and the displacement of local culture by tourism-focused businesses. In Kamakura, the famous "Slam Dunk" railroad crossing has drawn such massive crowds of international fans that residents have faced noise, litter, and even threats.
Japan's government has responded with a comprehensive "Overtourism Prevention Package" and allocated ¥100 billion (~$660 million) in 2026 for related measures — an 8.3-fold increase from the previous year. Strategies include traffic regulation at congested sites, dispersal of tourists to regional areas, multilingual signage, and exploration of accommodation taxes.
Mount Fuji introduced a ¥2,000 (~$13) climbing fee and a daily cap of 4,000 hikers in 2024. The iconic "Convenience Store Fuji" photo spot in Fujikawaguchiko installed a black screen to block the view after dangerous behavior by tourists became unmanageable.
The Bigger Question: Can You Put a Price on Cultural Heritage?
The Trevi Fountain's €2 fee raises a philosophical question that resonates far beyond Rome: should iconic public spaces be free for everyone, or does preservation require financial gatekeeping?
Supporters argue that modest fees improve the visitor experience, fund conservation, and create a psychological barrier against careless behavior. The data from Rome's 2024-2025 crowd control trial supports this — when barriers and queuing systems were introduced, the number of people willing to wait for close-up access dropped significantly, reducing damage and disorder.
Critics counter that monetizing public cultural heritage creates a two-tiered system where wealthier tourists get the full experience while budget travelers are excluded. There's also the slippery slope concern: if the Trevi Fountain charges €2 today, what stops it from charging €10 or €20 tomorrow?
For now, Rome appears to have struck a balance that most visitors find reasonable. The true test will come during the summer peak, when tens of thousands of daily visitors collide with Roman heat and limited piazza space.
What About Your Country?
In Japan, the conversation about pricing and access to cultural sites is intensifying as the country prepares for even more visitors in the years ahead. The government's goal of 60 million annual visitors by 2030 will require creative solutions — and Rome's Trevi experiment will be closely studied as a model.
What do you think? Should famous landmarks and public spaces charge entry fees to fight overtourism? Has your country introduced similar measures? We'd love to hear how different cultures are approaching this global challenge. Share your perspective in the comments!
References
- https://www.travelvoice.jp/20260205-159204
- https://www.npr.org/2026/02/03/g-s1-108471/trevi-fountain-fee-takes-effect
- https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/02/travel/trevi-fountain-rome-fee-overtourism
- https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2026/0202/1556370-trevi-fountain-charge/
- https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/seisaku_seido/kihonkeikaku/jizoku_kankochi/jizokukano_taisei/overtourism.html
Reactions in Japan
The Trevi Fountain is charging now. Well, at about $2, it's basically what you'd throw in as a coin anyway. If it means a more comfortable experience, I'm totally fine with it.
Charging admission for an outdoor public space still feels weird to me. I get it for indoor venues, but… is the Spanish Steps next?
Charging at tourist spots is the global trend now. Kyoto should consider area entry fees for Arashiyama and Kiyomizu-dera too, not just accommodation tax. We need to protect local residents' daily lives.
Apparently some people tried to throw coins from outside the barriers and missed lmao. Pretty sure your wish isn't getting granted that way 😂
When I went to Rome last year, the Trevi Fountain was so packed I couldn't even take a decent photo. If the paid system means crowd control, I'm actually happy — next time I can take my time.
The quote about 'if this were in New York, they'd charge $100' — that's such Italian humor lol. But honestly, kind of a fair point.
As a Japanese person, I find the European trend of charging at tourist sites very informative. Japan had lots of debate over the ¥2,000 Mt. Fuji fee, but the Trevi Fountain could become a successful model.
Both Venice's entry tax and the Trevi fee are just treating symptoms. I don't think they address the root cause. Building proper tourism infrastructure and cultural education seems more important.
I like that the revenue goes toward free museum access for residents. You can see the cycle: tourists → revenue → benefits for locals. Japan's accommodation tax should show clear usage like this.
I support the fee, but isn't €2 too cheap? Make it a bit higher and ensure a more relaxed experience — that would actually increase the value of the visit.
If it's for cultural preservation, entry fees are acceptable. People visiting for free and littering is the real problem. The act of paying itself raises awareness about proper behavior.
The Louvre charges $37 and the Trevi is just over $2. What's up with that gap? Considering location and maintenance costs, the Trevi might actually be the better deal.
Love that it's free after 10 PM. The illuminated Trevi Fountain at night is romantic — you can enjoy it like a scene from the movies.
Overtourism is largely driven by social media, right? See it on Instagram → want to go → overcrowding → paid entry. We need to realize we're part of the problem.
Japan needs to bite the bullet and introduce entry fees for Kamakura and Shirakawa-go. It'll be too late if residents can no longer live there. Take Rome's example seriously.
But the beauty of a public square was that anyone could casually stop by because it was free. Doesn't charging a fee kind of negate that culture? I have mixed feelings.
As a Roman citizen, I'm glad the city finally acted. The Trevi used to be pure chaos — pickpockets, trash, screaming. Now it feels just a tiny bit like the old Rome again.
Overtourism is a serious issue on Jeju Island in Korea too. There's an ongoing debate about whether to introduce an island entry tax, and Rome's €2 model could be a useful reference.
In the UK, the British Museum is still free, and that's a point of national pride. The paid entry debate comes up regularly but always gets rejected. Different context from the Trevi, though.
From a Danish perspective, €2 is cheap. The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen is free but famously disappointing. Charging a fee and improving the experience feels more honest.
Mexico's Teotihuacán ruins face similar issues. There's an entry fee, but management can't keep up. Having the budget to hire proper staff like Rome might be a developed-country luxury.
India's Taj Mahal has long had different fees for foreigners (~$12) and Indians (~$0.60). The dual-pricing system works, but it's always been controversial.
As an American, I genuinely don't understand the fuss over $2. The Empire State Building costs over $40, and the Statue of Liberty crown is reservation-only and paid. Rome is being way too generous.
Most tourist sites in China charge admission, and it's normal for World Heritage sites to cost the equivalent of tens of dollars. I'm more surprised the Trevi was free until now.
I'm a foreigner living in Italy. Rome residents are exempt, but Italians from other cities have to pay. Feels a bit unfair to have that distinction within the same country.
In Dubai, most tourist attractions are designed to be paid from the start. The Burj Khalifa observation deck is over $50. Building the revenue model in from day one avoids all this confusion.
I'm a tourist from Germany. Visited the Trevi last week and it was indeed more comfortable than before. But there was some queuing at the QR code scanning point — not the smoothest operation yet.
From a backpacker's perspective, €2 is fine, but if this spreads everywhere, travel costs keep piling up. €2 here, €5 there… before you know it, it's a significant amount.
In Rio, visiting Christ the Redeemer costs about $20. But the crowds are still insane. Charging money alone doesn't work — you need crowd limits too.
I'm Japanese living in Italy. I visited the Trevi after the fee was introduced. The chaos from before was gone — I could finally appreciate the sculptures properly. Personally, I think it's a huge success.
Ha Long Bay in Vietnam charges entry too, but it's unclear where the revenue goes. Rome's approach of clearly stating it funds free museum access for residents builds trust.