Here comes the woe cup!

We are within striking distance of World Cup 2026 now. And although my first World Cup was in 1966, sixty years later I am counting down the days to kickoff with the eager anticipation of a child expecting a long-awaited gift. Some believe the expanded field will devalue the tournament, but I disagree. Yes, as ever, FIFA is single-mindedly chasing the money, but I believe the expansion presents an opportunity for lesser nations. After all, is that not what has happened over time since the tournament began? The inaugural World Cup of 1930 fielded 13 teams. This number gradually expanded over the succeeding years – 1934 (16 teams), 1982 (24 teams), 1998 (32 teams) and, of course, 2026 (48 teams). Senegal, the controversially dethroned African Football Confederation champion, qualified for its first World Cup in 2002 because of the expanded field.

But previous tournaments have been visited by a variety of off-field controversies: 1) Exorbitant cost and construction of “white elephants”. Every host since 2002 has overspent. Brazil spent USD 15B, Russia USD 14B, and Qatar USD 220B, leaving a legacy of public debt and empty or under-utilised stadia. 2) Displacement of poor people and exploitation of workers. In Brazil and South Africa, thousands were evicted to build stadia and infrastructure. In Qatar hundreds of construction workers died, and Russia used North Korean forced labour. 3) Corruption. In 2015 FIFA officials were indicted for alleged crimes in awarding the Russia and Qatar tournaments. 4) Human and gender rights. This provoked conflict in Brazil, Russia and Qatar. 5) Sportswashing. As early as 1934 Mussolini used the tournament to spread fascist propaganda. In 1978 the Argentinian military dictatorship used the tournament to launder its image while “disappearing” dissidents. In 2018 Putin did the same. And 6) Ticketing scandals. In 1998 and 2002 (to which we must add 2026). Unrelenting, the FIFA money machine grinds on. The product is football. The business model is rent-seeking on a global monopoly.

PROMISES, PROMISES

Last year FIFA President Gianni Infantino promised the World Cup would be equivalent to “one hundred and four Super Bowls”. He proclaimed, “The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the largest and most inclusive in history, with 48 teams in 16 cities across three countries.” But his boasts have been kneecapped by FIFA’s cartel-level greed and global fear of travelling to the USA provoked by Trump administration policy. In hitching his waggon to Donald Trump, Infantino did FIFA no favour, and while previous World Cups had problems, the suite of issues presented in 2026 is a different level. Where to begin? That ticket to enter the stadium is beyond the reach of the mass of humanity. With days left until the tournament begins, tickets for the majority of group stage matches remain on sale, and fans are facing record-high prices. Even the USA’s opening match against Paraguay has not been sold out. FIFA’s first ever use of “dynamic pricing” (defended by Infantino as “necessary and inevitable” in the US market) has driven costs into the thousands, sparking backlash from the global football community.

In a powerful demonstration of corporate capture, 80% of the best seats have gone to sponsors, hospitality, and federations. A ticket for the final costs between USD 10 thousand and USD 33 thousand. To that, add USD 100 for a bus or train ride to the stadium or USD 600 for parking. Fans and critics have accused FIFA of a “monumental betrayal”, and lobby groups Euroconsumers and football supporters Europe has filed a complaint with the European Commission against FIFA for abusing its monopoly position to impose inflated prices on fans. Simply put, FIFA is mercilessly advancing its commercial agenda, making the World Cup a globalised and corporatised event that is divorced from its popular working-class roots.

As a foreign fan, if your country is not one of the thirty-nine subject to a travel ban (participants Iran, Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal are), and if you can manage a ticket, you then have to face US immigration and security protocols and forces. The union representing stadium workers has requested that FIFA prohibit the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency from participating in World Cup operations. Human rights agencies, like Amnesty International, warn that the tournament poses significant risks to fans and communities due to a lack of protections against abuses. In Mexico there is the potential problem of cartel violence, with human rights agencies warning the tournament is at risk of becoming a platform for human rights abuses due to the government’s heavy security presence and potential repression of protests.

Human rights non-profit FairSquare and the University of Amsterdam Business and Human Rights Clinic supported research for “Humanity Must Win: Defending rights, tackling repression at the 2026 FIFA World Cup” (an Amnesty International report), which details significant risks to and impact on fans, players, journalists, workers and local communities in all three host countries. The report highlights three key areas of risk: free expression and assembly; abusive immigration enforcement and border control; and discrimination against LGBTQI+ people.

The consequence of this scenario is that the number of foreign visitors who make it through the border is expected to fall far short of Infantino’s promise of up to six million happily invading US shores. US hoteliers are now describing the World Cup as “a non-event”, with the foreign influx estimate reduced to one million. The American Hotel and Lodging Association has identified visa constraints and geopolitical concerns, i.e., the Iran war and its effects on domestic security, as the main suppressors of international interest.

Of course, the majority of World Cup followers depend on international broadcasting. But, at the time of writing, hundreds of millions of fans in the world’s two most populous nations – China and India – may be without coverage due to a deadlock over broadcast rights. The two nations comprise one-third of humanity, with China accounting for fifty per cent of global viewing hours on digital and social platforms during the 2022 World Cup. FIFA has concluded agreements with broadcasters in at least 175 territories, but its greed is threatening arrangements with these two nations. FIFA wants USD 100 million from India, which has offered USD 20 million. Figures have not been disclosed for China, but the failure to sign a China/India deal promises FIFA’s biggest commercial failure since the 2015 corruption scandal. The direct cash loss is estimated at USD 200 million, but sponsor/brand damage could approach USD 1 billion. And one third of the planet will miss the “world’s game” – in bold contradiction of Infantino’s claim of inclusivity.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

FIFA is the world’s largest international confederation with 211 members – more than the UN’s 193. It counts its income in four-year (World Cup) cycles, most of which is generated by the World Cup itself – the cash cow. Its “Centennial World Cup” will be a huge intercontinental event – spread over six countries on three continents. FIFA appears intent on bleeding this increasingly elitist event for even more income, even at the risk of alienating the global mass of football lovers. A decade ago FIFA’s income was USD 6.4 billion (2015-2018 cycle, Russia), increasing to USD 7.6 billion (2019-2022 cycle, Qatar) and to USD 11 billion (2023-2026 cycle, Canada/Mexico/USA), with a projected record revenue of USD 14 billion for the 2027-2030 cycle. Much of this treasure is channelled into FIFA programmes across the Global South, but how much of it actually filters down into the grassroots is a question. It certainly buys the loyalty and funds the “jet set” lifestyle of football’s executives. What FIFA is doing to maximise income is akin to taking a butcher’s knife to one’s right arm to draw blood for a transfusion into one’s left arm.

The USA is the land of opportunity. Its streets are paved with gold. We were all fed that line growing up. So many of us followed the money. And for this reason, the USA is the permanent home of CONCACAF’s Gold Cup. CONMEBOL’s Copa América will follow suit, and maybe FIFA’s Club World Cup. Even La Liga wants to “project itself globally” by playing matches in the USA. They are all merely following the immigrants and the money. Modern professional sport is a packaged, marketed and monetised commodity. And FIFA is exploiting the opportunity presented by US consumerism – which reduces sport to just another entertainment commodity, like “Michael” or Disneyland – to extract surplus value from the global public. FIFA has abdicated its role as custodian and protector of the global game. But while its image may be taking a hit, with its coffers on steroids, do the FIFA suits even care? For five weeks we will set our beef aside and watch the games. And Infantino is literally banking on this.