Summary of Key Points
The 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico was the largest in history (with 48 teams participating and co-hosted by three countries) as well as the most expensive. Fans had to pay five times more for tickets than in the previous edition; even Trump found the ticket prices too high. The host cities incurred huge expenses but received little of the revenue. FIFA only invested just over 30% of the total cost and yet made a substantial profit. The prize fund doubled, but players are more concerned with the increase in their personal value due to their performance on the field. France led the list of team valuations, but high valuation does not equate to winning the championship.
I. Fans: Facing Exorbitant Costs
Fans were hit hard by the high costs of this World Cup. Ticket prices soared due to FIFA's "dynamic pricing" strategy (similar to how airfare increases during peak seasons). Five hundred million people competed for seven million tickets, leading to an imbalance between supply and demand—first-class tickets for the final sold for $11,000, which is seven times more than at the Qatar World Cup! Even more detrimental was the official resale platform, which charged a 15% fee on both sides of the transaction. FIFA made a net profit of $300 on each ticket priced at $1,000. Trump himself stated, "I want to go, but I can't afford it."
In addition to tickets, accommodation, transportation, and food expenses were also outrageous: hotels in the area around New York, the final venue, cost anywhere from $2,200 to $4,000 per night; round-trip airfare from China alone cost at least $2,000. A bottle of water at the stadium cost 35 yuan, and a hot dog with beer was priced at 280 yuan. Some fans calculated that the total cost of attending the tournament for one team was more than five times that of the previous edition, making it unaffordable for most people.
II. Host Cities: Spending Their Own Money to Fund FIFA
The host cities ended up being the biggest losers. The United States spent over $5 billion in total; Los Angeles invested $594 million, and New York/New Jersey contributed $500 million. Canada spent $1 billion on 13 matches. Toronto initially planned to spend $45 million for 6 matches but ended up overspending by $380 million (an increase of sevenfold). However, according to the agreement, FIFA took almost all the direct revenue from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and even parking fees, leaving the cities to bear the massive expenses on their own—essentially, they paid to set up the stage for others to make the money.
III. FIFA: Low Investment, High Profit
FIFA's total investment in this World Cup was $13.9 billion, with only 38% coming from its own funds (27%). The remaining 73% was borne by fans and host cities. Nevertheless, FIFA's revenue soared, with an expected profit of $13 billion for the 2023-2026 cycle, a 72% increase from the previous cycle ($7.5 billion at the Qatar World Cup). President Infantino claimed that based on market logic, FIFA could have made a profit of $30 billion—meaning it was a virtually risk-free and highly profitable venture.
IV. Increased Prizes, but Players Focus More on Personal Value
The prize fund this time amounted to $871 million, double that of the Qatar World Cup. The champion received $53.5 million, and even teams eliminated in the group stage got $9 million. However, for top players, this amount is not significant; they are more interested in the boost to their personal value through performance on the field. For example, 18-year-old Spanish star Amal and Norwegian player Haaland both have a valuation of 200 million euros; French player Mbappé is valued at 180 million euros. Forward players command high valuations because their goals can significantly increase their worth (a spectacular goal could potentially boost their value by tens of millions).
V. Team Valuations: France Leads, but High Valuation Does Not Guarantee Success
In the team valuation rankings, France topped with $1.53 billion, followed by England and Spain; the previous champions, Argentina, only ranked eighth. Norway, thanks to Haaland (valued at 200 million euros), made it into the top ten with a total valuation of $600 million—superstar players can significantly boost their team's overall value. However, high valuations do not guarantee victory; for instance, Croatia, which had a lower valuation in 2018, reached the finals, and Argentina, ranked eighth in 2022, won the championship. Therefore, on paper, strength does not equate to actual performance.
Conclusion: Football is Becoming More Like a Business
This World Cup exemplified how football has transformed into a business venture, with FIFA reaping huge profits while fans and host cities bear the costs. As the cost of watching matches continues to rise, the "purity" of the sport seems to be diminishing. Would you still be willing to pay for such a World Cup? Perhaps everyone has their own answer to that question.