The 2026 World Cup has been bigger than any tournament before it. More countries taking part and more matches mean more eyeballs on the action – as well as more opportunities to make money. As the planet’s footballing stars create historic moments on the pitch, billions of dollars are being generated off it. The dramatic expansion of World Cup commercial revenues has triggered record corporate windfalls whilst inflicting severe deficits on host cities. However, not everyone is raking in the big bucks, so while there are some big winners, there are also some financial losers.
World Cup Financial Divide: Winners vs. Losers
CORPORATE WINNERS:
- FIFA Institutional Revenue: ~$13bn
- Projected Global Betting: ~$50bn
- Fox Sports Ad Slots: Up to $750,000
LOCAL & CONSUMER LOSER:
- Host City Long-Term Wealth: Minimal
- US Hotel Bookings: Below Forecast
- Fan Costs: Squeezed by Dynamic Pricing
FIFA – winner
The amount of money world football’s governing body Fifa makes from the World Cup is astronomical. It generated a record $7.6bn (£5.6bn) from Qatar 2022 and is expected to top that in the US, Canada and Mexico 2026, especially with the expanded 48-team tournament.
Marion Laboure, senior strategist at Deutsche Bank Research, says Fifa is “without question” the main winner, with its revenues over the four-year cycle period approaching $13bn.
Fifa’s income comes from the sale of broadcasting, licensing and hospitality rights, sponsorship deals and ticket sales.
“FIFA also moved into the secondary market with its official resale marketplace, taking a 15% fee from both buyer and seller,” adds Laboure.
We should expect more of this in tournaments to come, with FIFA considering expanding the tournament yet again to 64 teams, which could include the likes of China and India – and the billions more viewers that come with it.
Fans – losers
While fans may have achieved lifelong dreams, financially speaking, this tournament has been tough.
The vast sums being forked out to pay for the tickets alone and criticism of Fifa’s dynamic pricing strategy, which raises prices when demand is high, have been well-documented.
Even US President Donald Trump admitted he “wouldn’t pay” when asked about the potential $1,000 ticket price for his country’s tournament opener against Paraguay.
Tickets for the final at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium were officially offered at $32,970, while some resale tickets have been listed for more than $2m.
Fifa president Gianni Infantino defended ticket costs, arguing they were in line with other US sporting events.
Away from tickets, fans have also been squeezed through flights, food and accommodation.
One example that hit the headlines was the hike in New Jersey Transit train tickets. A 30-minute train journey to the MetLife Stadium rose to $150 for the tournament from the usual $12.90 for a return fare. A backlash led to prices being cut, but they remained higher than normal.
Broadcasters and sponsors – winners
While broadcasters have had to spend a fortune to televise the tournament, the viewing figures – and sponsors wanting their brands on show – mean they are also likely to make a killing in selling advertising slots.
FIFA brought in the much-talked-about hydration breaks for this World Cup – a move Infantino said was “purely a sporting matter” with no additional revenue for the governing body.
However, the three minutes for players to get fluids on board have provided a new commercial opportunity for broadcasters and sponsors.
Fox Sports, which reportedly paid $485m for the US broadcast rights, introduced the breaks as “sponsored by” a brand.
According to experts, an average 30-second World Cup advertising slot on Fox costs between $200,000 and $300,000. It reached as high as $750,000 during the US matches’ final stages.
“The hydration breaks are pure advertising inventory. I’d be extremely surprised if they disappear. The expanded format will stay because scale is now FIFA’s business model,” says Laboure of Deutsche Bank Research.
Fans in the UK watching games on the BBC or ITV have been shielded from hydration break adverts due to the former not using any advertising and the latter being restricted by regulator rules on the amount of commercials used in 60 minutes.
The official sponsors of the World Cup pay eye-watering sums to associate brands with the competition, but no doubt end up benefiting financially, with the likes of Adidas and Coca-Cola plastered everywhere.
The German sportswear brand has been locked in a battle with its arch-rival Nike, spending some £50m on its “backyard legends” ad featuring Lamine Yamal, Jude Bellingham and Lionel Messi.
However, some unofficial brands have also benefited from Fifa trying to make sure fans see less of them, such as the Levi’s logo outside Levi’s Stadium in San Francisco being covered up.
David Beckham – winner
Adidas’s main ad also features an AI version of Sir David Beckham – who, to be honest, might not have had time to attend filming in person.
The UK’s first billionaire sportsman has been in so many adverts from Home Depot to Bank of America, you could be forgiven for forgetting what brand he is actually representing.
Despite hanging up his boots more than a decade ago, Beckham continues to be the face of US soccer, with the American club he co-owns, Inter Miami, estimated to be Major League Soccer’s most valuable franchise at $1.45bn.
He may not have managed to win the World Cup on the pitch, but he’s arguably won the commercial game off it.
Host cities – losers
The 16 host cities across the US, Canada and Mexico have been welcoming an influx of fans and tourists, boosting hospitality, hotels and local businesses.
But while the Scots drank Boston dry and have won the heart of the city and its people, experts say the long-term economic benefits are minimal.
FIFA estimated some $41bn would be added to the global economy, of which $17bn would boost the US economy alone, with 185,000 jobs created, mostly in hospitality and accommodation.
But Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of project management company Oxford Global Projects, says the long-term economic benefits of hosting such a big sporting event just do not materialise.
Host cities actually typically see a big drop in visitors, he says, as many seek to avoid the tournament chaos.
And while there may be a spike in hiring, he argues it is typically only for lower-paid jobs in hospitality. “It creates jobs, but it does not create wealth,” he says.
Official figures show that hiring in US pubs, bars and restaurants ramped up ahead of the tournament in May, but the boom was short-lived.
The only “worthwhile” economic benefit, Budzier argues, is the regeneration projects that can be done, such as the redevelopment and housing built in Stratford in London following the 2012 Olympic Games.
But due to much of this World Cup using existing stadia, hotels, training complexes and travel infrastructure, “there won’t be any economic benefits from development”.
Merchandise sellers – winners
The enthusiasm of fans has fuelled sales of team kits across the world.
Nike says its national team kit sales this year were more than twice as high as in the 2022 World Cup. England was its top-selling kit, followed by France, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the US, it says.
For Adidas, the Mexico jerseys came out top.
JD Sports says it’s seen a record-breaking year for England shirt sales. While earlier in the competition sales of the national kit were outperforming UK sales of kits from every other country, it said Scotland can claim the best-selling jersey overall.
Sales of Germany, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina kits also surged, it adds.
Cee Valentina, a culture journalist who talks about football fashion on TikTok and Instagram, says she isn’t surprised by the popularity of merchandise.
She tells BBC Newsbeat football shirts have “become an everyday streetwear staple”, with Gen Z’s desire for nostalgia trickling into demand for retro shirts, and custom shirts designed for women taking on a new life as well.
The flipside is the thousands of counterfeit items on sale.
Valentina says when items such as football shirts become a fashion trend, they become more expensive, “but there’s always going to be the counterfeits because accessibility is an important part of football culture overall”.
Hotels – losers
The expected demand for hotel rooms did not materialise, with industry bodies reporting lower bookings in host cities this year than last.
The British Columbia Hotel Association says that while final booking figures are yet to be confirmed, June and July were “pacing well behind previous years”, despite Vancouver hosting seven of the games in Canada.
It says tournaments “do not create 40 straight days of sold-out hotels”, but rather lead to high-demand around specific dates.
For American hoteliers, the pre-tournament buzz also did not deliver.
The American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) accused Fifa of block-booking too many rooms for its own use and creating false demand. Fifa has said it does not recognise the accusation.
Laboure of Deutsche Bank Research says the same thing happened in France in 1998 when demand did not meet expectations.
“By April, 80% of US hotel operators said bookings were tracking below their initial forecasts – two-thirds of New York hoteliers reported softer-than-expected bookings, and in Seattle nearly 80% did, with many calling the tournament a ‘non-event’,” she adds.
Betting companies – winners
The 2026 World Cup is on track to be the biggest gambling event of all time, with an estimated $50bn placed in bets – around $500m wagered per match, according to financial services firm Macquarie, which has interests in the gambling industry.
It says this is primarily down to the expansion in teams, meaning there will be more than 100 matches played, up from 64 in 2022.
Flutter Entertainment, which owns Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Bet, forecast the amount placed in bets would be double that of the previous tournament because of growth in the US and also Brazil.
Chad Beynon, an analyst at Macquarie, says in-play betting has taken over from the more traditional pre-match punt.
“Now it’s all about reacting to what you’re seeing on the field, adjusting your views, whereas before it was kind of sit, watch, wait – you had to place your bet before the match,” he says.
Sports betting in the US is still a relatively new industry. Until 2018, betting on sports was only legal in Nevada, the home of Las Vegas, but a Supreme Court ruling paved the way for many states to legalise it.
However, there are still some states where it remains illegal, including California and Texas. In those areas, there has been big engagement in prediction markets – a fast-growing, billion-dollar industry popular with young men – which are not classimarkets – gambling, meaning they can be used to place bets on sport regardless of which state someone is in.
