According to a BBC report translated by Lebanon 24, the complexity does not stop there. The United States, Canada and Mexico, the three host countries of the World Cup, also find themselves in the middle of a wide trade war, at a time when the tournament will coincide with negotiations to reconsider the North American Free Trade Agreement. US President Donald Trump is paying great attention to the tournament, its image and its sponsors, especially after his return to the White House. He appeared more present on the scene as the starting whistle approached. Through his positions on the war with Iran, calls to stop the attacks, and talk about the possibility of reaching an agreement.
But the irony, according to the report, is that Trump had received a peace award from FIFA before the war with Iran caused a global economic and energy shock. The symbolism increases even more with the possibility that the United States and Iran will meet in the knockout rounds during the 250th American Independence Day holiday. Although football will steal the show in the end, the economic aspect of the tournament seems as important as what will happen on the field. The current version represents a major shift in the model of financing the World Cup and pricing the audience experience, to the point that fans have begun to feel that they are the most pressured party in the tournament. The famous saying of the late Scottish coach Jock Steen, “Football is nothing without fans,” appears to be facing a difficult test today. Some fans paid unprecedented prices to attend matches that may not be decisive, in addition to very high transportation costs, including a train ticket in New Jersey whose price rose during the tournament from $12.90 to about $100.
The report explains that the 2026 World Cup adopts a different economic model than before. Instead of building huge new stadiums funded by governments, as happened in previous editions, the tournament is mostly held in ready-made football stadiums, especially in the United States, with a pricing method close to the American model based on maximizing revenues. Here enters the concept of “an economy where affluent groups benefit from the luxury experience, while other groups are pushed to the margins due to the high cost.” For its part, FIFA confirms that the large proceeds will later be used to develop football in less wealthy countries. This is the largest edition in history, with 48 teams, 104 matches and huge travel distances between Vancouver and Mexico City. It is possible that the winning team will cover a distance approximately equivalent to the diameter of the Earth during its journey in the tournament. As for prices, they are the most controversial topic. The cost of attending some of the attractive matches in the group stage can reach about a thousand dollars per ticket, while the prices of the tournament final reach five-figure sums in dollars. Even the “cheaper offers” still cost hundreds of dollars for less attractive matches.
The report believes that the tournament constitutes the largest test for the use of dynamic pricing in a global sporting event of this size. This model, popular at concerts and some sporting events, automatically raises prices as demand rises. But it has never been applied so extensively before in a World Cup. The tournament was clearly influenced by the economy of American football, as the goal is not only to sell all seats, but to achieve the highest possible revenue from each seat. In the NFL, stadiums and prices are designed around luxury hospitality and premium seating, not around filling the stands at any cost. This is radically different from the logic of previous tournaments, which often relied on building new infrastructure that revitalized the image of the host country, even if they later left stadiums that did not find regular use. As for the 2026 edition, it adopted a lighter model in terms of assets, as FIFA rented existing stadiums, then sought to increase revenues through a larger number of matches, larger stadiums, and higher prices.
According to the report, estimates indicate that ticket and hospitality revenues may rise dramatically compared to the 2022 Qatar World Cup, which generated $929 million in this regard. Richard Sheehan, an economics professor and sports finance expert at the University of Notre Dame, believes revenues could exceed $7 billion in this edition. But these huge revenues will not necessarily reach the host cities. Unlike the 1994 World Cup in the United States, cities today do not share in the increased ticket revenues, while in return they bear the costs of security, transportation, and organization. Therefore, some cities tried to compensate for the expenses by raising train and parking prices, which may reach $175 or even $225. This puts the 2026 edition very far from previous tournaments that provided free transportation to ticket holders, as happened in Qatar, France, Japan, and others. In the face of criticism, FIFA indicates that some tickets are being offered at lower prices, including tickets for about $60 distributed through national federations. But at the same time, it has introduced the resale market to its official platform, where fans can resell tickets without a price ceiling, with FIFA receiving a commission from the seller and buyer.
According to the report, FIFA says that it is thus withdrawing black market profits from intermediaries and transferring them to international football. She pointed out that the money it distributes to federations has contributed to developing the game in small countries, including Cape Verde, which qualified for the current tournament thanks to improved infrastructure and grassroots work.
But the danger, according to the report, is that excessive marketing will weaken the spirit of heroism. The question is no longer just about the size of the revenues, but about the shape of the stands: Will they actually be filled? Will fans of the 48 teams attend in large numbers? Will it create the atmosphere that makes the World Cup a popular event and not just a luxury product? Some indicators show that the pricing model is beginning to face challenge, as the resale prices of some of the less sought-after matches have declined significantly compared to their original price.
Between war, politics, trade and dynamic prices, the 2026 World Cup opens its doors as the largest edition in the history of the World Cup, but it is also the edition that most reveals how the football economy has changed. The championship is not only played between teams, but rather between two models: football as a global public celebration, and football as a luxury product sold to those who can pay the price.
The report notes, “The demand for some of the high prices was not what organizers expected. Only a small number of $98 train tickets in New Jersey were actually sold, at a time when authorities in New York, New Jersey, and California, in addition to entities in the European Union, began examining complaints related to ticket sales strategies. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport described what is happening as a “corridor of confusion, artificial scarcity, and impossible prices,” in a state that hosts the tournament final next month. But the legal question remains open. Regarding the extent to which local authorities are able to hold FIFA accountable, a non-profit organization based in Switzerland, FIFA did not comment on this issue.
The broader question is whether the international federation has pushed the pricing experiment to a critical point. According to the report, it is unlikely that the fans of the 2030 World Cup host countries in Spain, Portugal and Morocco will accept similar prices. The British and Irish authorities have previously ruled out this model in Euro 2028. This experience comes at a time when artificial intelligence may open the door to a new stage of pricing, based on setting different prices for each person according to their data, behavior, and purchasing power. Some English Premier League clubs have already begun testing dynamic pricing for a limited number of seats with the aim of increasing revenues, which contradicts the traditional model based on a loyal fan who buys a season ticket at a fixed price.
The report continues: “If the FIFA experiment appears to be financially successful, it may encourage the owners of some European clubs associated with the American Football League to adopt a similar model, especially to finance new stadium projects. Here the concept of the “K-shaped economy” returns to the fore. The American model, where the richest 10% of consumers contribute a huge portion of spending, may appear in the stadiums of the World Cup. Dynamic pricing practically seeks out this group that is able to pay, and transforms an experience that was once a broad audience into a product directed to a narrower and more targeted group. And on the broader economic level, the American impact of the tournament remains relatively limited due to the magnitude of the American economy itself and the boom in investments related to artificial intelligence, and despite the emergence of indications of the creation of tens of thousands of jobs, especially in the hospitality sector, the tournament may not be enough to bring about major economic change.”
The report concludes by stressing that “Chicago’s decision to withdraw from hosting the World Cup matches is no longer as strange as it seemed at the beginning. The host cities do not receive huge ticket revenues, while bearing the costs of security, transportation and organization, at a time when some cities indicate that hotel reservations were lower than expected. In Britain, the tournament may provide a limited morale and economic boost if England or Scotland achieve a good run, as the retail and hospitality sectors are preparing for strong sales. But the late timing of some matches may also pose a production problem, especially with matches It will be held after midnight. Thus, the 2026 World Cup does not appear to be just a huge football tournament, but rather a controversial economic experiment that may reshape the relationship between football and the public. FIFA is testing a new pricing model, and if it succeeds, its effects may not remain limited to the World Cup alone.
