#广场预测世界杯赢40000U

Snapped up $13 billion! The World Cup became the world’s most profitable event. China has strong hosting capabilities, yet it refuses to bid—and the truth behind it has been revealed

After the 2026 USA/Canada/Mexico World Cup wrapped up, FIFA released that the total revenue for the 2023–2026 cycle was about $13 billion, up 72% from the previous Qatar World Cup cycle. But another data point that few people mention is this: among the 14 World Cups hosted from 1964 to now, 11 of the host countries ultimately recorded a fiscal deficit, with only the 2018 Russia World Cup delivering profitability for the host.

The logic behind the revenue increase for this edition of USA/Canada/Mexico is straightforward: for the first time, the tournament expanded to 48 teams, for a total of 104 matches—24 more than the previous edition. Broadcast-rights revenue alone is close to $4 billion; total sponsorship revenue ranges from $2.4 billion to $3 billion—both are higher than those of the Qatar cycle.

Ticket sales are the biggest growth story. For the first time, this edition adopted dynamic pricing commonly used for American concerts—ticket prices fluctuate with demand, and can be adjusted more than three times within a single day. The most expensive final tickets sold for $11,000. Even Trump has publicly said that this pricing isn’t worth it. Total revenue from the ticket segment is expected to exceed $3 billion, more than triple that of the Qatar World Cup.

Attendance, however, was not affected. The tournament’s average attendance rate was 99.7%, with an average of 64,508 spectators per match, and most matches sold out. Reuters conducted on-site sampling and found that most of the attendees were higher-income groups. What had originally been a “people’s sport” gradually became a marker of class consumption under this pricing model.

FIFA makes the lion’s share of the money, while most of the costs are carried by the host. FIFA’s total spending for this edition is about $3.8 billion. With $13 billion in revenue minus costs, the remaining net profit all goes to FIFA. New construction and renovations of venues, security, city transportation support, and expansion of public services—these expenses are all paid by the host cities themselves in the USA/Canada/Mexico. Canada originally estimated hosting costs at 45 million Canadian dollars, but they ultimately surged to 380 million Canadian dollars—more than eight times the original estimate.

The previous host country, Qatar, is even more instructive as a reference. At the time, the publicly disclosed total hosting investment exceeded $220 billion, but only tens of billions of dollars were actually spent on the eight event venues. The rest was poured into urban infrastructure in Doha—its metro, a new airport, Lusail New City, and other developments. Essentially, Qatar used the World Cup as a pretext to modernize the country—not simply to burn money just to host the tournament.

In that Qatar-hosted edition, tourism-related revenue for the host was about $1.6 billion—less than even a small fraction of the total investment. By contrast, FIFA took about $3 billion in net profit.

Back to the question of whether China should bid: in the 《Sports Strong City Construction Plan (2025–2035)》 released by Guangzhou in 2025, it mentioned that it should “leverage the hosting experience and international resources of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area to advance joint bidding for the World Cup,” in coordination with relevant deployments by the General Administration of Sport. If you look only at infrastructure capabilities, China has no problem hosting a World Cup. Even if the number of existing professional football stadiums is insufficient, it’s not hard to make up for it by relying on domestic infrastructure efficiency. But there are still several real hurdles that need to be accounted for.

The first is performance. The latest FIFA world ranking for China’s men’s national team is 91st, and in Asia they rank between 13th and 15th. With this World Cup expanding to 48 teams, Asia’s slots rise from 4.5 to 8.5. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has said the next edition could potentially expand to 64 teams, at which point Asia’s slots would likely be around 11 to 12. Even if the tournament really expands to 64 teams, if the national team’s performance stays stagnant, it still won’t make it into the main tournament. Although host nations can qualify automatically, the matches at home are simply too unconvincing on the pitch—an concern that cannot be avoided.

The second is the economic bottom line. For FIFA, the World Cup is a money-making business; for the host country, it may not be. Football in China is not a national-level sport. In the Chinese Super League, average attendance in recent years has stayed around 20,000. For newly built professional football stadiums used for hosting, after the event they will most likely have to rely on concerts and performing-arts events to fill capacity. If you calculate the input-output ratio strictly for hosting, it’s hard for the numbers to add up.

The third is the bidding window. The 2030 World Cup has already been confirmed to be jointly hosted by Morocco, Portugal, and Spain, and the 2034 edition goes to Saudi Arabia. FIFA has a long-standing practice of continental rotation: countries from the same continent cannot host consecutively. In 2022 it was Qatar, and in 2034 it will be Saudi Arabia—both in Asia. Following the usual convention, the next two editions for Asian countries would have no eligibility for bidding, meaning China’s earliest possible bidding window would be in 2046.

Previously, the Japan Football Association mentioned a concept for 2046: inviting China and South Korea and adding four additional Southeast Asian countries to create a seven-country joint bid. In 2018, the Korea Football Association also raised a similar joint-bid idea involving China, Japan, and Korea, but it was denied by China’s football association at the time. As of now, there is no updated public progress.

Argentina’s “Four-Star Dream” shattered—see you again in the next four years