The economic winners (and losers) of the biggest World Cup of all time

FIFA: winner The amount of money that FIFA, the highest governing body in world football, raises from the World Cup is astronomical. It generated a record amount of US$7.6 billion (R$38 billion) with Qatar 2022 and is expected to surpass that amount with the 2026 World Cup, especially with the tournament expanded to 48 teams. Marion Laboure, strategist at Deutsche Bank Research, says that FIFA is "undoubtedly" the main winner, with revenues close to US$13 billion (R$66 billion) over the four-year cycle. FIFA's revenue comes from the sale of broadcasting rights, licensing and hospitality services, sponsorship contracts and ticket sales. "FIFA has also entered the secondary market with its official [ticket] resale market, charging a 15% fee to both the buyer and the seller," says Laboure. And we can expect more of this in future tournaments, with FIFA considering expanding the World Cup once again to 64 teams, which could include countries like China and India — and the billions of additional spectators that would entail. In addition to tickets, fans also faced difficulties with flights, food and accommodation. Getty Images via BBC Fans: losers While fans may have fulfilled lifelong dreams by going to the World Cup, financially speaking, this tournament was a challenge for them. The huge sums spent just to pay for tickets and criticism of FIFA's dynamic pricing strategy, which increases prices when demand is high, have already been widely reported. Even US President Donald Trump admitted that he "wouldn't pay" when asked about the possible price of US$1,000 (R$5,100) for a ticket for his country's debut in the tournament against Paraguay. Tickets for the final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey were officially offered for US$32,970 (R$168,000), while some resale tickets were advertised for more than US$2 million (R$10.2 million). FIFA president Gianni Infantino defended the prices, arguing they were in line with other sporting events in the US. In addition to tickets, fans also faced difficulties with flights, food and accommodation. One example that made headlines was the increase in New Jersey Transit train ticket prices. A 30-minute train ride to MetLife Stadium rose to US$150 during the tournament, compared to the usual US$12.90 for a round trip ticket. The negative reaction led to a reduction in prices, but they still remained high. Broadcasters and Sponsors: Winners Although broadcasters have had to shell out large sums of money to broadcast the tournament, viewing figures — and sponsors' desire to showcase their brands — mean they are also likely to profit handsomely from selling advertising space. FIFA introduced hydration breaks for this World Cup — a measure that Infantino said was "purely a sporting issue" without generating additional revenue for the organization. However, the 90 seconds that players have to hydrate has opened up a new commercial opportunity for broadcasters and sponsors who want to showcase their brands, especially in the US, where American sports fans are already accustomed to an inverted idea: there games practically take place between commercial breaks. Fox Sports, which reportedly paid US$485 million (R$2.4 billion) for broadcast rights in the US, presented the hydration breaks as "sponsored by" a brand. According to experts, a 30-second advertising space on Fox during the World Cup costs on average between US$200,000 and US$300,000 (R$1 million and R$1.5 million). During the US matches in the final stages, the value reached US$ 750 thousand (R$ 3.8 million). This means that hydration break ads could bring in $250 million in the US alone, leading to speculation that they are here to stay. "Hydration breaks are pure advertising space. I would be extremely surprised if they disappeared. The expanded format will remain because scale is now FIFA's business model," says Deutsche Bank Research's Laboure. Official sponsors of the World Cup pay exorbitant sums to associate their brands with the competition, but they undoubtedly end up benefiting financially, with brands like Adidas and Coca-Cola plastered everywhere. The German sporting goods brand is locked in a battle with its main rival, Nike, having invested around US$67 million (R$342 million) in its ad starring Lamine Yamal, Jude Bellingham and Lionel Messi. David Beckham: winner Britain's first sporting billionaire has appeared in so many adverts - from Home Depot to Bank of America - that it's easy to forget which brand he's representing. Getty Images via BBC Adidas' main ad features an artificial intelligence version of David Beckham — who may not have had a schedule to attend filming in person. Britain's first sports billionaire has appeared in so many adverts - from Home Depot to Bank of America - that it's easy to forget which brand he's representing. Despite hanging up his boots more than a decade ago, Beckham remains the face of football in the US, with the club he co-owns, Inter Miami, estimated at US$1.45 billion (R$7.3 billion) as the most valuable franchise in Major League Soccer. AND