Prof. DM Deshpande
The FIFA World Cup 2026 is, without doubt, a sporting extravaganza. It beats all previous records in terms of size, revenues and earnings.
FIFA, the world football federation, has expanded the number of participating nations to 48 from the previous 32. Why not? Football is globally the most spectacular and popular sport. It beats the other team games by a wide margin.
The mega event is co-hosted by three nations- the United States, Canada and Mexico. The tournament features 104 matches as against 64 in the previous edition of the World Cup held in Qatar in 2022. Aided by more games, revenues too will go up in terms of ticket sales, broadcasting rights, sponsorships and hospitality. Global viewership is expected to exceed six billion. It means two out of every three people in the world will view the matches, watch the highlights or follow the tournament on social media.
While the talk of the town is goals, wins, big upsets and even bigger names among players, the economics too makes an interesting case study. According to a Deutsche Bank report, there are striking parallels between World Cup football and financial markets. Both are driven by huge expectations, changing narratives, scarcity- perceived or real- and a tendency that the winner takes it all; that is, a disproportionately larger share of the cake.
Contrary to the popular perception and the accompanying hype, most World Cup events have resulted in losses for the hosting nations. Research on previous World Cups shows that in 12 out of 14 tournaments, host nations incurred losses. Some countries spent huge amounts on building infrastructure such as giant stadiums that were not put to efficient use later.
Brazil in 2014 and Qatar in 2022 built large stadiums that later proved to be white elephants. Brazil’s nearly $15 billion expenditure led to widespread public protests. Qatar’s bill was much higher at about $200 billion, though this included a broader economic development plan and not merely building football infrastructure. Visa and entry restrictions also came in the way of fans’ enthusiasm to travel to match venues in some of the earlier World Cup events. Hence, the revenues took a hit.
The 2026 World Cup, however, promises to be different. The host nations already possess most of the required infrastructure in the form of stadiums, airports, highways and hotels. A light asset model is likely to result in positive returns. Canada alone has estimated that the World Cup will generate around 24,000 jobs and create CAD 3.8 billion in economic value.
FIFA itself is expected to be the biggest beneficiary. It expects to earn more than $11 billion during this tournament cycle as against $7.57 billion in Qatar. Most of its revenues come from selling broadcasting rights, sponsorship rights and ticket sales. Studies vary widely in their estimate of the total global economic value generated by the tournament, placing it between $40 billion and $80 billion.
However, the issue is not merely how much wealth is created but also who benefits from it and by how much. Economic success is not just about profits and revenue maximisation; it is also about how wealth is distributed.
For the first time, FIFA is adopting a dynamic pricing model for entry tickets on the lines of civil aviation and ride-hailing platforms. In addition, it is also facilitating resale of tickets, for a commission, though. The BBC has described this as perhaps the biggest ever experiment in dynamic pricing in a global sport that enjoys unparalleled popularity. While economically it may be rational, it is socially regressive.
The new model has reportedly resulted in substantial hikes in average ticket prices for most matches. At the time of writing, the cost of a bare final match ticket, without hospitality, has risen to around $7,000 to $8,000, while premium tickets are touching $35,000. FIFA expects some final match tickets to exceed $11,000, nearly seven times the corresponding price four years ago in Qatar.
Skyrocketing ticket prices, rising hotel tariffs and airline costs have attracted criticism from sports lovers and civil society groups. From being a socially inclusive and democratic sporting event, global football is increasingly moving towards becoming a luxury experience reserved for the affluent, much like Formula One racing or professional boxing.
The commercialisation of football does not stop with stadium tickets. Broadcasting rights too have been sold at phenomenal rates and have steadily moved from free access to expensive subscription models. Initially, there were no takers for broadcasting rights in two of the most populous nations, India and China, partly because many matches are played late at night in Asian time zones, making it difficult to attract viewership and advertising revenue.
FIFA’s discernible shift towards politics and politicians has also attracted attention from cross sections of society. Its earnings have ballooned while it shares little or none of the costs borne by host nations and cities. Not everyone notices the enormous expenditure on security, logistics, law and order, transport and public services that accompanies such mega events.
Whether hosting nations and cities benefit in the long run therefore remains an open question. Studies show that much of the increase in tourism numbers does not continue for long after the event. Even the infrastructure left behind is often not put to efficient use. Yet governments vie with one another to host the event due to its invisibles-prestige, international image and standing.
FIFA 2026 is well on its way to becoming by far the richest sporting event in the world. The commercial success will undoubtedly bring enormous fortunes to FIFA, multinational hospitality companies, sponsors, broadcasters and airlines. Yet it also raises disturbing questions about a tournament that is gradually moving away from the common man.
Football remains the world’s game and perhaps the most democratic sport to play. But increasingly, experiencing the World Cup from inside the stadium appears to be turning into a privilege of wealth rather than passion. The goals and trophies will eventually fade into memory. The economic lessons of FIFA 2026, however, may continue to be debated long after the final whistle is blown.
The author has four decades of experience in higher education teaching and research. He is the former first vice-chancellor of ISBM University, Chhattisgarh
