“It was a historic World Cup; football will never be the same again”

From an aesthetic point of view, Americans and Canadians have begun to appreciate how it differs from ‘their’ sports. Basketball, American football, baseball and ice hockey offer moments of excitement and peaks of intensity. Football, on the other hand, is characterised by flows of play and ‘dormant’ phases that demand a different kind of attention. And this has been understood and embraced. Consequently, there has been an evolution in the model of entertainment. Furthermore, the unifying power of football has been recognised; in a divided nation and during such difficult times, it allows everyone to share a passion that defines their identity.

On the subject of entertainment models and the impact of this World Cup on football, much discussion has centred on the hydration break. Some have dismissed it as a commercial ploy by FIFA, whilst others have criticised its distorting effect as a fictitious time-out, effectively creating four-half matches.

These are the practical consequences. But FIFA’s decision to introduce the break was taken following the experience of last year’s Club World Cup, which was marred by the heat. FIFA is solely concerned with the health of the players. And clearly, the break must be applied to all matches, for the sake of fairness, even when weather conditions are not so extreme.

This is the first World Cup in which FIFA has been in charge of all aspects of the event’s revenue and costs. What has this entailed?

We have been in dialogue with the state authorities on security and customs matters, but following the joint venture with the organising committee in Qatar, from this edition onwards we have exclusive control over the World Cup’s income and expenditure. This has enabled us to maximise revenue and minimise inefficiencies. This four-year cycle will close with a turnover of 14 billion dollars, and FIFA has thus been able to increase the resources available to support its 211 member associations. And, I believe, this has also been evident on the pitch.

How?

The performances of the national teams making their debut, or those from Africa, which put on a fine display, also reflect the grassroots development programmes linked to FIFA Forward investments.

Investments are being called into question because of the political support they would generate for Infantino.

FIFA pursues social, sporting and, ultimately, economic objectives. You see, in my view, the World Cup isn’t just a tournament. It must also be a celebration; it must tell stories. And having so many teams – including those from small nations – who can dream of taking part and who then perform creditably once they get there – I’m thinking, for example, of Cape Verde – is a source of satisfaction and enriches the sporting spectacle.

A show that proved very popular with young people.

Indeed. We have sought to cater to their tastes and habits by promoting ‘multi-viewing’, connecting broadcasters with platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, and supporting them with our team of 400 creators, who – whether from the touchline or our London office – have produced unique content for a young audience that is typically less inclined to watch a match in its entirety. Here too, let me say, our operational flexibility and our constant support for our partners – whether sponsors or media organisations – in understanding and meeting their needs, made all the difference in achieving the targets we had set ourselves.

According to the harshest critics, the record revenues from television (over $5 billion), commercial partnerships ($3 billion), ticketing and hospitality (over $3 billion) are merely the result of the expansion to 48 teams and sky-high prices. 

As for ticket prices, I would say that they are in line with the North American market, where ‘dynamic’ pricing and certain price levels are the norm, as is the secondary market, which we have tried to keep under control to prevent scams. By 2030, prices may be different, as the target market shifts to Spain, Portugal, Morocco and South America. As for expansion, it does not automatically mean more revenue. Consider the free-to-air TV market, which has purchased between thirty and a maximum of forty matches. Programming slots are not unlimited.

So how serious is the plan to expand to 64 teams?

From the very first day of his presidency in 2016, Infantino has put the players, coaches and fans – the true owners of the game – at the centre of everything. That is why FIFA will now consult with all stakeholders to assess the situation. If this change is deemed to be beneficial for everyone, then we will proceed. Otherwise, we will draw on the experience gained here to do even better in the next edition, featuring 48 national teams.