Soccer has developed a reputation as being a largely money-driven sport as club owners and organizers hunt for profit. Over the last several years, there have been more tournaments and games across the globe. More teams have more access to playing in contests, which puts stress on players and more money in organizers’ pockets. The sport of soccer has lost its way, but the business of soccer is continually growing and expanding.
The common adage on social media is that the game is gone. While it is often no more than a joke to criticize officials or styles of play, there is some validity when applying this to the money-hungry nature of soccer. Organizers sense opportunities to profit in certain ways that often take away from the competition’s core.
For example, take the World Cup. In 2026, there will be 48 teams competing in the United States, Mexico and Canada. That is a massive 16-team increase to the number of nations at the World Cup, the biggest jump in size in the tournament’s history. Previous expansions for the 1982 and 1998 World Cups only increased by eight teams.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino says the expansion to 48 teams allows smaller nations to play on the grandest stage in soccer. Yet, this many teams take away from the intrigue of the best teams competing in the World Cup. In truth, it is a way to increase the number of games in the tournament from 64 to 104. More games mean more tickets sold and more opportunities for broadcasters. It all focuses on money in the end.
Unfortunately for fans of the sport, this hunt for revenue can turn supporters away. FIFA has flirted with the idea of hosting the World Cup every two years. Again, Infantino and FIFA defend themselves by saying it makes it more open for the fans to watch games because of increased frequency. On the contrary, supporters do not want to harm the grandeur of the World Cup. Making it more frequent takes away from both the celebration as it happens and the historical significance of success.
If there was any indication as to how FIFA has turned soccer into a business, the Club World Cup has undergone a similar rebrand. Previously, FIFA hosted the tournament every year with just seven teams. Continental cup winners from South America and Europe would play at most two games in the tournament, and it had a limited impact on their ability to field the best team.
Now, the Club World Cup features 32 teams in a format that follows the World Cups pre-2026. FIFA is putting the Club World Cup in the United States as a means to take advantage of the fervor surrounding Lionel Messi. The Argentine’s seasons remaining as a player are numbered. Affording him the chance to play in the Club World Cup is a way to win over broadcasters. That in itself has been challenging for FIFA, which is struggling to land the support it thought it would bring in with this new tournament. Yet, fans do not care about it, they want the competitions they already know that carry weight and importance in their eyes.
This is not to say business and sport are mutually exclusive. There are valid and deserved reasons organizers make some of their decisions, even if it goes against some of the more competitive reasons for sport. For example, the 2025 CONCACAF Gold Cup is almost entirely in the United States. The USA has hosted or co-hosted the tournament each time it has happened since 1991. That gives the United States, Mexico and Canada an enormous advantage in the tournament because their fans have comparatively easy access.
However, CONCACAF puts the Gold Cup in the United States because it maximizes profit. That then goes to each of the competing countries. The infrastructure in the United States is special compared to CONCACAF rivals because it can handle so many fans. The relative ease of access for large masses to get to the United States is far easier than in other countries. It may be fairer to split the hosts between CONCACAF countries. Still, the profit is too valuable for CONCACAF to make that change.
Other confederations like UEFA and CONMEBOL tend to not have as much of a problem with this. As many note, UEFA would not shy away from hosting its competitions in the same area if the profit was so much greater. That disparity in comparison does not exist in Europe, which is why it is easier for UEFA to pivot around host countries.
There is a balance between business and sport, and it comes down to how much competitors benefit from one versus the other. In terms of the Gold Cup, it could be valuable for nations like Costa Rica, Panama or Jamaica to host a tournament. It can help grow the game and develop holistic interest in soccer in North America and the Caribbean. Yet, the tournament and its countries would suffer with an inexperienced host. The loss of profit does not come into play for Europe, which is why it has more opportunity.
PHOTO: IMAGO.
