The World Cup has concluded and FIFA was “always certain to emerge as the financial victor of the tournament” as they presided over the “most lucrative sporting event in history,” according to Joseph Wilkins of CNBC.com. FIFA reportedly is expected to see $15B in revenue from the tournament, the first to consist of 48 teams. North America “appeared to be the perfect sandbox to test out” the expanded format, but “its administration was not without controversy.” The organization “drew criticism over the cost of tickets,” which ranged from $60 to over $10,000, with a median price of admission topping $900. Leading up to the tournament, there were “question marks over affordability and whether fan demand would hold up.” Despite those concerns, “demand was remarkably resilient.” The 2030 World Cup “promises to be even larger,” with FIFA setting aside a $6B budget. It will feature celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of the tournament, which the federation describes as an “even more attractive event for broadcasters” (CNBC.com, 7/20).
MADE THE MONEY: The FINANCIAL TIMES’ Josh Noble wrote this “hyper-commercial World Cup has delivered financially.” Other aspects are “likely to be different next time around.” For example, European stadiums in the 2030 tournament will “struggle to offer the same level of high-end hospitality” as U.S. venues, while Spain and Portugal have laws barring fans from drinking alcohol in their seats. FIFA’s own projections “show a drop in ticketing and hospitality income” of close to $1B in the 2030 cycle. But some of the tournament’s new additions, such as the three-minute hydration breaks, are “expected to stay, especially as the importance of the US audience grows.” Sponsorship this year “jumped compared with Qatar, partly thanks to Saudi Aramco’s arrival” as FIFA’s biggest commercial partner ahead of the 2034 World Cup due to take place in Saudi Arabia. FIFA expects sponsor interest “to grow further, despite some of the reputational blows during the 2026 World Cup.” FIFA “estimates that even with a drop in ticketing and hospitality revenues the next cycle should generate” $14B thanks to “further increases in sponsorship and media rights” (FINANCIAL TIMES, 7/19).
EMBRACE THE CULTURE: BLOOMBERG NEWS’ Adam Minter writes the World Cup “was supposed to change the US. … Instead, America changed the World Cup.” Spain’s win over Argentina on Sunday “closed a tournament increasingly shaped by an American sports playbook -- and that may be exactly what the competition needs to grow as a business.” Minter: “Would a more profitable World Cup enrich FIFA, whose governance has earned skepticism? Yes. But it would also create more resources throughout the soccer ecosystem, from the academies and federations to the competitions themselves. That’s a worthy cause.” Minter writes it is “a money grab, for sure, and fans who remember FIFA’s corruption scandals are right to bristle.” Minter: “They, more than FIFA, seem to recognize that soccer has remained unique among major sports because it hasn’t monetized every dead space. Restraint has made the sport distinctive. But as the global media landscape fractures, soccer can’t afford restraint” (BLOOMBERG NEWS, 7/20).
BUSINESS MOVE: The GLOBE & MAIL’s Cathal Kelly wrote Sunday afternoon’s World Cup final was “dedicated to business” and FIFA “needed to cram in so many musical numbers that America the Beautiful was sung nearly an hour ahead of its usual spot.” It featured an “anthem, two ringside announcers, Tom Cruise trying to do the big speech in Independence Day, soldiers from every branch of the service” and a flyover. If FIFA had its way, the World Cup final “would be a concert with a soccer performance.” Maybe Argentina F Lionel Messi “could hurry it up and do his usual two hours of work in 15 minutes,” giving singer Justin Bieber “90 minutes to do freestyle jazz.” But as it happened throughout this tournament, the soccer “refused to stick to FIFA’s Broadway business plan” (GLOBE & MAIL, 7/19).
PITCH INVASION: YAHOO SPORTS’ Ian Casselberry noted FIFA wants to “sell pieces of the grass field” from N.Y N.J. Stadium for $450 each, but the New Jersey governor’s office is “objecting to FIFA profiting off the sale ... because state taxpayers funded payment for the field.” N.J. State Assemblyman Michael Inganamort said, “FIFA can’t just sell off the soccer pitch without permission.” The N.J. Sports and Exposition Authority spent $13.04M in taxpayer dollars to pay for the stadium’s field being up to FIFA’s standards for the World Cup. Yet FIFA could earn more than $11M in revenue from selling pieces of the pitch in four price tiers limited to 2,026 pieces each. Inganamort said that N.J. Gov. Mikie Sherrill “needs to block the sale” of the stadium’s grass, “even if that requires seeking a restraining order in court.” However, FIFA maintains that the N.Y.-N.J. Host Committee “shares responsibility for the sale of grass from” N.Y. N.J. Stadium (YAHOO SPORTS, 7/19).
