Who hasn’t felt, at least once, like they were at the centre of the world? A major concert, a packed stadium, a sporting event watched by millions on television, experienced live from just a few metres away. What lingers long after the final whistle or the encore is the unforgettable feeling of being among the relatively few people at the very heart of the spectacle. For a few hours, it can seem as though nobody else on Earth could possibly be enjoying a better show.
Attending events like these has never been easy or cheap. Yet with some planning, sacrifice and a bit of luck, it was never entirely out of reach. Whether it was a World Cup match, a Grand Slam final or a sold-out concert, these were experiences that many fans could realistically aspire to.
Now imagine a different world. A world in which the best events are reserved for a class of ultra-wealthy individuals willing to pay sums equivalent to several months’ salary for many people. If that sounds dystopian, it may not comfort you to know that this is increasingly the direction some major events appear to be taking. The 2026 FIFA World Cup, hosted by the United States, Mexico and Canada, provides a striking example.
The richest World Cup ever
The current World Cup has been marketed as the biggest sporting event in history. “Biggest” in this case means richer, larger, more watched and more attended than ever before. For the first time, the tournament features 48 national teams competing across 104 matches. “104 Super Bowls,” as FIFA president Gianni Infantino described it in a video message one year before kick-off.
Such a tournament creates enormous revenues for FIFA. During the 2023–2026 financial cycle, the organisation projected revenues of $13 billion. By the end of 2025, 93% of that figure had already been contracted, and some analysts believe total revenues could approach $15 billion. That would represent an all-time record and almost double the revenues generated during the cycle that included Qatar 2022. The 2026 World Cup alone is expected to contribute around $8.9 billion.
Most of this revenue comes from broadcasting rights and sponsorships. Ampere Analysis estimates broadcasters will generate around $3.8 billion from World Cup coverage, more than 20% higher than during Qatar 2022. On the sponsorship side, every global commercial package has been sold for the first time in FIFA’s history, with sponsorship revenues expected to approach $2.8 billion.
However, the fastest-growing revenue stream is ticketing and hospitality. FIFA hopes to generate approximately $3 billion from these sources alone – a figure unprecedented in World Cup history. By comparison, the 2022 tournament generated just over $900 million.
The cost of admission
To achieve those numbers, the burden has largely fallen on fans. When the tournament was first awarded, reports suggested a maximum ticket price of around $1,550 for the final. Reality has proved very different. According to US media reports, by April the cheapest seat for the final was already approaching $6,000, while official hospitality packages exceeded $10,000 and resale prices climbed beyond $30,000.
Even group-stage matches have carried eye-watering price tags. Premium-category tickets that initially sold for around $600 have often exceeded $1,000, while in cities such as New York and Miami even the cheapest available tickets have approached four figures.
For the opening match in Mexico City, individual tickets reportedly reached almost $15,000. The much-publicised $60 tickets, promoted as a democratic gesture, account for fewer than 600 seats per match – little more than a symbolic concession amid a sea of prohibitive pricing.
Unsurprisingly, New York’s Attorney General has opened an investigation into potentially inflated ticket prices. Gianni Infantino has defended FIFA’s approach without apology the tournament operates within the world’s most lucrative entertainment market and is priced accordingly.
The economic impact
According to FIFA, however, ticket prices should not be a cause for concern, particularly when viewed against the broader economic impact generated by an event of this scale.
Like any major event, the World Cup creates a temporary economy. Hotels fill up. Restaurants become busier. Companies launch football-themed promotions and redesign product packaging around the tournament. These activities stimulate additional consumption, supporting economic growth and employment.
A study commissioned by FIFA and the World Trade Organization estimates that the tournament could generate more than $80 billion in global economic activity, contribute over $40 billion to world GDP and support the equivalent of more than 800,000 jobs. Roughly 40% of that impact is expected to remain within the United States.
These are impressive figures and provide FIFA with a powerful political argument. Yet economists have long warned that estimates surrounding mega-events should be treated with caution.
Research frequently finds that the real short-term economic impact is considerably smaller than advertised.
Two mechanisms help explain why. The first is the substitution effect money spent during the World Cup does not appear from nowhere but is often diverted from other forms of local spending.
The second is crowding out. Regular tourists, discouraged by crowds, higher prices and logistical disruption, simply choose not to visit. Paris offered a recent example during the Olympic Games, when parts of the city were noticeably quieter than expected as residents and regular visitors stayed away.
The experience economy
The World Cup’s remarkable figures also fit into a broader trend the rapid growth of the so-called experience economy.
The term was coined in 1998 by B. Joseph Pine and James Gilmore in Harvard Business Review. Their argument was that after commodities, goods and services, memorable experiences would become the next major source of economic value.
The market is expected to reach $2 trillion within the next few years. Today, around eight in ten Millennials say they would rather spend money on experiences than on physical possessions.
Experiences are increasingly being treated as luxury goods, attracting spending that was once directed towards traditional luxury consumption. The shift has coincided with a slowdown in demand for many physical luxury goods, whose value surged during the post-pandemic years when lockdowns limited people’s ability to travel and socialise.
Evidence of this shift can be found in listed companies such as Live Nation. The concert giant reported record revenues of more than $25 billion in 2025, operating profits up by more than 50%, and attendance of 159 million people.
When experiences become luxury goods
The boom in the sector has been accompanied by rising prices. The Economist has created an “ultra-luxury services index” which has risen by around 90% since 2019. Michelin-starred dinners, rooftop suites in Paris, Super Bowl tickets, Wimbledon seats and invitations to the Met Gala have all seen prices soar.
Economists have given the phenomenon a name funflation. The problem is that as prices rise, experiences that were once broadly accessible risk becoming exclusive.
The logic increasingly applied to elite events resembles the one that governs luxury goods. Economists refer to these as Veblen goods – products whose desirability can increase as their price rises.
Up to a point, charging extraordinary sums for a football match signals exclusivity. It attracts a demographic that may be interested less in the sport itself than in the prestige associated with attending.
How many people spending tens of thousands of dollars on a World Cup final are truly football fans? Taking this logic too far creates a cultural risk that may ultimately undermine the value of the experience itself.
Many of these events became desirable precisely because they were accessible. Football is compelling because it is a mass spectacle. Festivals now filled with influencers often began as alternative and underground gatherings. Ibiza and Cannes were once destinations for artists and backpackers before becoming showcases for luxury yachts.
When something becomes excessively exclusive, beyond a certain point it does not become more desirable. It becomes less so.
Treating a World Cup final as a luxury good, risks undermining the very source of its value. The audience responds in the simplest possible way it loses interest and looks elsewhere for experiences that remain within reach.
*As with all investing, financial instruments involve inherent risks, including loss of capital, market fluctuations and liquidity risk. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is important to consider your risk tolerance and investment objectives before proceeding.
