A gold mine: Who came out on top at the 2026 World Cup?

48 teams and 104 matches: with its expanded format, the 2026 World Cup has become a massive money-making machine, with highly uneven returns.

FIFA is at the forefront of the World Cup’s big winners: according to a BBC article quoting Gianni Infantino, revenue for this four-year cycle is expected to be around $15 billion. The organization has maximized its revenue through television rights, ticket sales, and sponsorship, as well as via“its official resale platform, which charges a 15% commission to both the buyer and the seller,” as noted by Marion Laboure, an economist at Deutsche Bank.

Broadcasters also took advantage of the event to sell 30-second commercials aired during commercial breaks. A single spot could fetch up to $300,000. For its part, Nike doubled its jersey sales compared to 2022. In addition, soccer icons like David Beckham were able to capitalize on their image through AI-generated ads. It’s a way to stay in the spotlight (even if they’re not on the field).

Are these benefits truly sustainable?

And as is often the case, it’s the fans who bear the brunt and pay the high price for this financial excess, falling victim to skyrocketing lodging and transportation costs—but above all to FIFA’s “real-time” pricing. Faced with exorbitantly priced tickets, U.S. President Donald Trump himself admitted that he “wouldn’t pay” the $1,000 asked for the opening match between the United States and Paraguay.

Finally, the overall outcome has been rather mixed for the sixteen host cities. While the hotel and restaurant industries enjoyed a brief boost, the long-term economic benefits remain uncertain. As Alexander Budzier, a management expert at the University of Oxford, puts it, these mega-sports events mainly generate precarious jobs and drive away the “traditional tourist”: “It creates jobs, but it doesn’t create wealth.”