Simon Chadwick is a professor of Sport and Geopolitical Economy at Skema Business School and one of the most cited voices internationally on the intersection of football, geopolitics and money. In this edition of The Pundit’s Seat, he assesses the raft of commercial and structural changes brought in by the World Cup that has just come to an end, from dynamic ticket pricing and hydration breaks to stadium demographics and the road ahead for Spain, Portugal and Morocco in 2030.
He sums up the tournament as the experience of having been to Disneyland five weeks in a row: exciting, glamorous, and industrialised to the point of losing its authenticity. He credits FIFA with democratising access to the tournament through its expansion to 48 teams, giving nations like Cape Verde a stage they would not otherwise have had, and with delivering the record revenues that underpin its promises of trickle-down investment in national associations and grassroots football. On the other hand, he flags dynamic ticket pricing as the clearest sign of football’s neoliberalisation, points to a gentrifying stadium audience, and warns that younger generations are drifting toward gaming, music and cinema rather than building any loyalty to the sport.
What is your overall verdict on this World Cup, and what kind of taste has it left you with?
A: It has left me with the impression of having been to Disneyland five weeks in a row. There was lots of excitement, drama, glitz, and glamour, but ultimately, it was an industrialized, commodified experience that lacked authenticity. Obviously, it was also colored by the geopolitical backdrop and governance issues that not only preceded the tournament but influenced it while it was taking place.
What does this tournament tell us about where the FIFA World Cup is heading as a commercial property?
A: First, Gianni Infantino’s entire electoral manifesto throughout his tenure as FIFA President has been to make everyone richer. To use a cake analogy: he has shied away from altering revenue allocations to different associations because that would be politically contentious. He hasn’t changed the size of the slices; instead, to seek electoral favor and secure re-election, he baked a bigger cake. Even though the percentage slice hasn’t grown, the cake itself is larger, making everyone richer and enhancing his chances of re-election.
At the same time, FIFA realizes the global sports market is changing fast and becoming intensely competitive, with properties like the NBA expanding into Europe, Africa, the Gulf, India, and China. In response, FIFA and its President are being much more bullish in asserting football’s position in an increasingly crowded marketplace. This involves pursuing revenues from new opportunities—such as different broadcasting models and digital developments. While the World Cup remains a commercial entity, there is a broader strategy to ensure football stays at the forefront of the global sports market.
Who do you think comes out of this tournament having gained the most financially?
A: I suspect broadcasters—certainly in the United States, where advertising during hydration breaks may well have covered the costs of acquiring coverage rights in the first place. FIFA has also benefited significantly financially. One would hope for a trickle-down effect, where promised revenue-sharing reaches national associations, grassroots programs, and football development projects. While I hope the egalitarian promises made by FIFA materialize for the global football community, one wonders whether commercial organizations—particularly broadcasters and sponsors—will be the main net beneficiaries.
Looking ahead to Spain, Portugal, and Morocco in 2030, should we expect an adjustment in financial ambition?
A: Considering that the tournament will span six territories across three continents, commercial expectations are likely to be even higher. This summer’s tournament has established a new benchmark. We are not going back to a more traditional 20th-century World Cup model. The 2026 edition was a tipping point, and future hosts will be expected to follow the template laid down in the United States. For instance, dynamic ticket pricing is here to stay; 2026 served as a test case for FIFA to perfect it. Moving forward, there will be an expectation of exponential commercial revenue growth across subsequent World Cups.
How do you evaluate the expansion of the tournament to 48 teams?
A: One perspective is simple: more teams mean more games, which generate more revenue (and implies that a potential 64-team tournament in 2030 would generate even more). However, revenue isn’t the sole driver. The World Cup’s primary global competitor is the Olympic Games, which includes far more participating nations. Historically, the World Cup has been an exclusive event compared to the Olympics.
However, adding more teams crowds the calendar and complicates match organization, creating ripple effects across domestic league schedules worldwide. While FIFA can be commended for trying to democratize global football—giving opportunities to nations like Cape Verde, who performed brilliantly—we are missing a public debate about whether expansion is truly appropriate. We have moved from a four-week to a five-week tournament, and expanding further to 64 nations in 2030 would have even deeper ramifications.
Do you expect the commercial trends seen at this World Cup to spread to other competitions?
A: Absolutely. World Cup 2026 will be remembered not for geopolitics or Donald Trump, but as a structural tipping point. A US-style operating model is now programmed into FIFA’s DNA. Moving forward, FIFA will expect to maintain the revenue levels generated in the United States. It will be very difficult in 2031 to tell member associations that their payouts will decrease relative to 2026. Delivering escalating commercial value to stakeholders is now baked into the organization, and higher returns will be expected in 2030 and 2034 in Saudi Arabia.
What is your take on operational changes like hydration breaks and the growing emphasis on in-match entertainment?
A: Having studied and written about the sports business for nearly 35 years, I’ve learned that sport rarely experiences revolution—only evolution. Hydration and commercial breaks have been standard in the Super Bowl for decades; now FIFA has embraced them, and they are likely here to stay. We are seeing the gradual, stealthy encroachment of TV advertising models. Eventually, similar features will appear in competitions like La Liga or the Premier League as part of the broader Americanization of elite football.
Regarding entertainment, there is a push from global entertainment businesses claiming fans want more spectacle. Yet, when an elite European club in a top-five league asked its supporters if they wanted a halftime DJ, the fans overwhelmingly rejected it. There is a commercial agenda driving the “Disneyfication” of football into a lifestyle product, attempting to extract maximum value from fans who are often resistant to these changes.
As stadium audiences shift toward a wealthier demographic, is football pulling away from the everyday fan?
A: We are already seeing this gentrification. Look at high-end fashion collaborations ahead of the tournament, such as the England x Nike x Palace collection. These produce expensive, exclusive items out of reach for average supporters. When combined with airfare, hotels, and inflated ticket prices, elite international football is becoming heavily gentrified, causing the market to splinter.
For fans priced out of tickets, merchandise, or broadcast subscriptions, what remains? This trend risks driving people away from football or sports entirely, toward alternative forms of leisure. A small group of powerful entities is intentionally designing a model to extract maximum value from those with the highest willingness and ability to pay.
What are the long-term consequences of eroding football’s identity as a working-class sport?
A: We are witnessing this erosion right now. Younger generations do not inherently rely on football for identity or entertainment; they engage with gaming, street sports, cinema, music, or fashion. Elite football is disenfranchising its traditional customer base while failing to build the same deep-rooted relationship with new consumers.
The apocalyptic scenario for football is a double-sided risk: losing its core, hardcore fanbase while failing to retain casual new consumers who, if they want a spectacle, would rather attend a BTS concert than a football match. Elite football risks cannibalizing itself.
If you had to single out one decision from this World Cup as the ultimate turning point, what would it be?
A: Dynamic ticket pricing. It is the purest embodiment of the neoliberalization of football—an effort to construct a “perfect market” enabled by digital technology. This World Cup established a model that discards traditional notions of working-class access or egalitarianism. The World Cup has fully transitioned into an industrialized product defined by a consumer’s willingness and ability to pay.