The economics of World Cup

The answer is complex, though. Fifa expects to earn more than $11 billion from the tournament, up from the $7.57 billion in revenue generated by Qatar 2022. Broadcasting rights, sponsorships, hospitality packages, and ticket sales are all expected to set new records, of course aided by many more matches than earlier. Some studies estimate that the tournament could generate $40-80 billion in global economic activity.

Unlike Brazil in 2014 or Qatar in 2022, however, the 2026 World Cup requires relatively little investment in new stadiums. Most venues are existing NFL facilities in the US, supplemented by established stadiums in Canada and Mexico. This “asset-light” model reduces construction costs and avoids many of the “white elephant” stadiums that have burdened previous hosts.

The most immediate gains are expected from tourism. Millions of visitors are spending on hotels, restaurants, transport, shopping, and entertainment. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Toronto, Vancouver, and Mexico City are receiving global exposure that ordinary marketing campaigns could never buy. Canada alone estimated that World Cup-related activities would support more than 24,000 jobs and generate approximately CAD 3.8 billion in economic output.

The tournament was expected to boost jobs in hospitality, logistics, security, media, and event management. Better transport, digital infrastructure, and city services can pay off in the longer term. These expectations reflect what economists call the legacy hypothesis — the belief that mega-events leave behind infrastructure, stronger tourism, and a more favourable international image.

Yet many leading sports economists urge caution. Pre-tournament impact studies tend to overstate benefits and ignore opportunity costs, argue sports economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys. But tourist spending is often a substitution of spending that would have occurred anyway, rather than the creation of new wealth. Furthermore, much of the profit ends up in the hands of Fifa, multinational sponsors, broadcasters, and international hotel chains, rather than benefitting local economies.

In their comparative study of the 1998 France and 2006 Germany World Cups, Swantje Allmers and Wolfgang Maennig reached similar conclusions. Short-term increases in tourism and retail sales in Germany were recorded, but there was little evidence of longer-term gains in national income or employment. The most significant gains, they concluded, were intangible — national pride, international visibility, and social cohesion.

And while Fifa earns enormous revenues from broadcasting, sponsorship, and ticket sales, host governments usually bear much of the expenditure on security, transport, and public services. Italy exceeded its budget in 1990, adding to public debt. South Africa invested heavily in stadiums in 2010, several of which struggled to find regular use. Brazil spent nearly $15 billion on the 2014 World Cup, provoking nationwide protests over public spending. Qatar’s reported expenditure exceeded $200 billion, although much of it formed part of a wider national development programme rather than football infrastructure alone.

The US in 1994 presents a different picture. By relying largely on existing stadiums, it avoided major capital expenditure while helping launch Major League Soccer, creating a lasting institutional legacy. In many respects, the 2026 tournament follows this more sustainable approach.

Yet the economics of 2026 differ from every previous World Cup in one crucial respect: pricing. The BBC has described the tournament as perhaps the largest experiment in dynamic pricing ever undertaken in global sport. Ticket prices fluctuate according to demand, much like airline fares. Hospitality packages for premium matches have reached extraordinary levels, while Fifa now incorporates ticket resale into its own platform, enabling it to capture part of the premium previously earned by ticket scalpers.

Richard Sheehan, professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, estimated that ticket and hospitality revenues alone could reach $7.44 billion to $9 billion. The World Cup has therefore become not merely a sporting event but a sophisticated exercise in revenue maximisation, borrowing pricing strategies long employed by the NFL and the airline industry.

This commercial success, however, raises important questions. Some critics say dynamic pricing threatens to make the greatest festival of football an event increasingly reserved for wealthy spectators and corporate clients. Ordinary supporters, who have traditionally been the lifeblood of the unique atmosphere of the World Cup, may find themselves priced out of the tournament.

Another problem is the distribution of the economic benefits. The question, as many economists have said, is not whether the World Cup creates wealth but who gets it. This doesn’t mean the tournament lacks economic value. Rather, its benefits are unevenly distributed. Fifa, broadcasters, multinational sponsors, airlines, hotel chains, and hospitality companies are likely to emerge as the principal financial winners. Cities that host such events can gain tourism and international visibility, but those benefits are often more modest than headline projections suggest.

Ultimately, the 2026 Fifa World Cup illustrates the transformation of football into one of the world’s largest commercial industries, combining sport, media, tourism, and technology on an unprecedented scale. Whether it proves an economic success will depend not only on record revenues but also on whether its promised legacies — infrastructure, tourism, employment, and international reputation — endure after the final whistle. The evidence from previous World Cups offers both optimism and caution. The greatest success of the 2026 tournament may ultimately be measured not by goals scored on the pitch but by how wisely its vast economic opportunities are managed and how fairly their rewards are shared.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.