The presentation claimed that football generates too little income for the size of its audience. It also suggested that Fifa earns less from its market than other major competitions, limiting the funds available to support the sport’s development worldwide.
To support this position, it included a comparison of annual income and earnings per supporter across Fifa, the Uefa Champions League, the Premier League, professional baseball in the United States and the NFL.
At first glance, Fifa appears to earn far less, receiving only $1 for each supporter worldwide compared with $52.80 for the NFL. However, this comparison may be misleading.
Unlike annual leagues, the World Cup takes place only once every four years. If earnings were calculated for each match at the 2026 tournament, Fifa’s figure could be several times higher than the Premier League’s, possibly exceeding it by more than threefold.
Another key distinction is that global football has a decentralised financial structure. A substantial share of its income goes directly to domestic and continental competitions, including the Premier League and Champions League. In effect, Fifa was making the case for retaining a larger portion of football’s total revenue.
Football supporters are also distributed across wealthy and lower-income nations around the world. By contrast, the NFL serves a smaller audience mainly based in the United States and represents almost the entire commercial market for American football.
In addition, roughly half of the NFL’s income is spent on player salaries, whereas Fifa does not directly pay stars such as Erling Haaland, Lionel Messi or Vozinha. A comparison based on profit rather than total income could therefore have produced a significantly different picture.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
