The Economics of the Club World Cup

The World Cup is headed to the United States in the Summer of 2026. As the event approaches you will undoubtedly become familiar with most of the teams, the star players and all the biggest storylines that will drive a huge month of soccer next summer. One area you won’t want to overlook is the Business side of an event of this type. So before we dive in and go deep on the Economics of the 2026 World Cup, let’s look at the 2025 Club World Cup as an example.

The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup has been called a “dry run” for the 2026 FIFA World Cup next summer. 32 Club sides from across the globe descended on the Unite States to participate in the first ever event of this type. Chelsea defeated Pars Saint Germain in front of 81,000 at Met Life Stadium in New Jersey to lift the trophy and win the first ever Club World Cup in this format.

Without diving deep into the style of play, the star players, the controversial calls, or the outcomes, let’s focus on the Economics of this event.

The Business Engine of the Club World Cup - REVENUE

FIFA is anticipating just over $2B revenue for this event. They have also declared that they will not retain any of this revenue.

The largest revenue sources for the event are Sponsorships, Broadcast Rights, Licensing, and Tickets. Let’s look at these each a little closer.

Sponsorships - - FIFA had the support of many large sponsors.

Adidas - the official match ball and sporting goods partner

Anheuser-Busch - the official beer could not be missed as Michelob Ultra seemed ever present.

Coca-Cola - the official soft drink

Bank of America, Lenovo, and Hisense - the official banking, technology, and electronics partners respectively

Visa - long time official FIFA partner

Qatar Airways - the official airline of FIFA

These are all very traditional categories of sponsorship for major sporting events. These are all quite lucrative. For example, VISA paid FIFA $170M for their latest 8yr extension.

One sponsorship that could be eye catching and unique is the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund. The PIF partnership has many layers and is one that could be explored in it’s own article. PIF has taken a substantial sponsorship position in tennis, golf, football, esports, and boxing among others. They have also been a driving force to help Saudi Arabia claim host to the 2034 FIFA World Cup. PIF also invested in DAZN, a air streaming provider that can offer a variety of options from free to air to pay-per-view to subscription services. PIF purchased a $1B stake in DAZN just ahead of the Club World Cup. Twist coming…

Another massive revenue stream for the Club World Cup is the TV Broadcast rights. This was not an easy sell for FIFA as this is a new event in a crowded football and sports calendar. Ultimately DAZN paid $1B for the rights and would offer all the matches streamed for free on it’s platform. DAZN could then sublicense the content to media partners like like TBS/TNT/TRU TV where 24 matches were shown across the event. Remember that $1B as it will come up again. Follow the $$.

Ticket revenue is the third large revenue stream for organizers like FIFA and massive events like the Club World Cup. The goal of ticketing is to maximize supply and demand. Sell as many tickets as possible for as much as you possibly can. A new event in a crowded calendar made ticket sales a bit complicated. FIFA jumped out of the gate with very aggressive ticketing options. They focused on maximizing price and utilized the levers of hospitality packages and a dynamic pricing model. On average, FIFA declared around $33M revenue per match. Ticket demand varied greatly across the event with the group stage and the round of 16 seeing only 51% of stadium capacity. Many contributing factors like kickoff times built for European audiences, weather, competitive landscape, the participants, and stadium size played a role in the outcome of how many butts were actually in seats. There were highs of 80K plus at the Rose Bowl for Atletico Madrid and PSG and lows of under 5000 people in Cincinnati and Orlando. Ultimately, FIFA began to use lower “get in” prices and some exclusive access to WC26 tickets to help drive the demand. Nearly 2.5M people attended the Club World Cup in person.

The COST of hosting

Hosting these global events can be important for local economies. So much so, that there is generally a competitive bidding process to determine the host cities for these matches and a massive competition for the biggest matches like the final.

On average, host cities spent $30M - $70M to host the Club World Cup in their stadium. These costs include all the venue expenses, basic organization of the event, and also any upgrades needed to meet the requirements set by FIFA to host. One of these requirements is that all matches must be played on natural grass. This meant that stadiums like Met Life in NJ and the Mercedes Benz in Atlanta needed to roll in grass to cover their artificial turf playing surface. The cost of this transformation starts around $3M. Many cities may also use these events to spur on upgrades to local transportation, accommodations, and overall experience within the city. We have seen some events, like World Cups and Olympics, drive the construction of brand new stadiums and infrastructure. Some of these investments have gone dark and unused after the event, others have created great economic opportunity.

The Consumer Economy

The latest estimates are calling for an over $9B direct injection into the US GDP and the creation of nearly 100K jobs. Host cities will grab a portion of that economic uplift and could see up to $750M thrown into their local economy. This jolt will come through Hotels, Local Dining, and local transportation. Imagine fans from around the country and around the world converging on your city for an event. It is tourism and more.

The Participants Economy

The Club World Cup arrives at the end of a long season for many of the participants. The initial reaction to an event can be less than positive. “A glorified summer tour”, “friendlies with a big trophy”, “the best players won’t try and may not even show up”, etc, etc. FIFA need to make sure the product on the pitch could help drive interest, energy, and credibility for this new event. The participating clubs were presented a $1B prize purse for the event. A little more that half of the prize money was offered to the clubs as a participation bonus. Teams were paid to attend the event and the amounts varied depending on level of the team, etc. The remaining half a billion dollars was paid out in performance incentives. Teams would earn more of a share of the prize money as they progressed through the event. For all the clubs, this is a significant financial incentive. Chelsea, the winners, received roughly $120M and PSG, the runner up, took home about $105M. This is massive in a football landscape that has financial rules and many fixed revenue streams. The players likely took a percentage of this as well. Many players also utilized this large stage and through on the pitch performances, they raised their profile for individual endorsement deals and sponsorships.

For more like this - - stay tuned into www.sportsbusinessunited.com