by Abibat Jimoh

The FIFA World Cup was created to harmonise and bring together people from different parts of the world irrespective of ethnic nationality, race, religion, or social or class status. It is the greatest sporting event on earth. During the tournament, people come out to support their favourite teams and players without the thought of discrimination, or national affiliation.

However, behind these beautiful and colourful events lies a different reality. Recent World Cup tournaments have proven to be for a particular set of people, with clear differences in economic class. Rather than being organised for the general public, its activities are controlled by big businesses – the corporations. Sponsorship, TV rights, ticket prices, and hotel fees, among others, are influenced by them, ultimately leading to the pursuit of profit. A lot of fans, even in host countries, are priced out of the financial ability to afford the ridiculous cost of watching a game.

The 2026 World Cup, hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, was billed as a major expansion with 48 teams and 104 matches. More countries participating are welcome, especially those from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which have traditionally had less representation. It has broken every financial record in football history, generating an estimated $8.9 billion in revenue. Broadcasting rights contributed close to $4 billion, sponsorship deals added approximately $1.8–2.4 billion. FIFA’s total revenue for the 2023–26 cycle is projected at $13 billion, a 72% increase from the previous cycle. Yet beneath the figures lies inequality; an increase in participating teams does not necessarily make football more accessible.

For an average supporter, attending a World Cup match includes visa fees, flights, accommodation, transportation, and food. For many supporters travelling from Africa and other continents, the total cost is out of reach. First-round tickets cost $350 to $5,000. Final tickets cost a minimum of $5,785 in the last-minute sales phase, while special seats went as high as $32,970. Travelling to support one’s national team to the final can cost over $30,000. In Mexico, opening match tickets cost between $3,000 and $5,000, this is nearly ten months’ average salary for a Mexican worker.

The sport is treated as a business involving buying and selling. Supporters are treated as buyers whose importance is determined by their purchasing power. However, supporters are not just customers. They are the ones who create football culture and atmosphere, who buy merchandise and spend their time, effort, and energy to keep the sport running. The average supporter is increasingly struggling to afford watching a game. This reflects capitalism, an economic system that puts control in the hands of a minority that milks it for profit. Historically, football was built largely through working-class communities, which has become a successful industry in global sport.

The problem becomes more alarming when commercialisation is combined with racism and unequal treatment based on colour, race, religion, and nationality. The World Cup came at a time when the US – one of host country was in conflict with Iran. The Iran national team coaching staff were denied visas and demanded to leave the U.S. daily throughout their group stages. Many African and other non-European supporters were denied visas with no genuine reasons, leaving their national teams with few supporters to cheer them during the tournament.

The perception of favouritism towards Argentina and Lionel Messi has intensified the sense that the tournament is a commercial product designed to maximise viewership. A petition demanding Argentina’s removal accumulated over 18.4 million signatures, arguing that “FIFA and the referees are biased towards Lionel Messi and Argentina”. In a separate poll, 80% of readers agreed favouritism had been shown.

Specific incidents fueled the controversy. Egypt coach Hossam Hassan publicly condemned the officiating after Argentina’s 3-2 victory, claiming his team was “the victim of a soccer establishment that favoured Messi and Argentina”. The Egyptian Football Association filed a formal complaint after VAR disallowed Mostafa Ziko’s goal. Switzerland coach Murat Yakin protested after Breel Embolo was sent off following a VAR review, with video suggesting the Swiss player fell before contact. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) later clarified that the VAR decision to send off Embolo was a wrong call. The call changed the direction of the game, which was 1-1 at the time of the incident, then Argentina went on to win 3-1 in extra time.

The inconsistency of VAR has become a defining feature of the tournament. England manager Thomas Tuchel described the officiating as “erratic” and “not good enough”, warning that “the referees can send any team out at any moment”. VAR was introduced “to minimise mistakes through consistency. Instead, it has become one of the biggest talking points”. The technology was never intended “to referee every physical challenge, yet it increasingly appears to intervene when the outcome benefits one of football’s traditional heavyweights”.

The structural bias extends beyond refereeing. FIFA deliberately changed the draw process for 2026, placing the top four ranked teams, which are Spain, Argentina, France and England, into separate sections of the bracket to prevent them meeting before the semi-finals. FIFA stated this was to ensure “competitive balance”, but Argentina faced Cape Verde (ranked 67th), Egypt (29th) and Switzerland (19th). Meanwhile, Spain eliminated Portugal (5th) and faced Belgium (9th), while France took on Morocco (7th). The top four all reached the semi-finals for the first time in World Cup history; this is exactly as FIFA intended. Looking at this from a supporter’s perspective, this is not sport; this is commercial engineering.

The controversy surrounding Folarin Balogun’s red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina exposed an uncomfortable connection between political power and football authority. After the United States’ striker was sent off, FIFA initially confirmed a one-match suspension. Yet President Donald Trump contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino and asked him to review the decision; FIFA then suspended the automatic ban for one year, making Balogun eligible to play against Belgium. Trump said he had merely requested a review, while reports indicated he made multiple calls to Infantino. This raised serious questions about equality and interference before football’s disciplinary system.  If a powerful political leader can personally intervene in a player’s punishment, what message does that send to less powerful nations and players who lack direct access to FIFA’s leadership?

The main determinants, the players, are also victims of the system. They are seen as heroes and superstars, but to big business, they are workers whose labour and skills generate wealth for clubs, billionaire owners, and football authorities. As the competition expands, it means more workloads and pressure, putting their health at greater risk. To corporations, more matches mean more revenue and profit. To players, more matches mean more workload. Expansion should not come at the expense of players’ health, supporters’ finances, and the quality of football.

Africa has produced some of the world’s finest footballers, yet African clubs struggle with inadequate facilities, low pay, and limited resources. Players are forced to leave the continent to search for better opportunities, while the global football industry continues to make enormous profits from African talent. The gap between grassroots and elite football is alarming. Children from wealthy backgrounds have access to quality training, coaching and facilities and as well as elite Football Academies, while children from poor backgrounds lack this. Yet the same children have the potential to produce the next generation of stars. This is why football cannot be separated from the question of class.

The scale of modern transfer spending reveals the depths of football’s commodification and a tendency of ‘money laundering’, if that is not the case already. The 2025 summer transfer window became the most expensive in football history, with global spending surpassing €8.86 billion. European clubs spent a total of €10.23 billion. Across Europe’s top five leagues alone, clubs spent approximately €6.55 billion. The Premier League’s dominance was absolute: English clubs collectively spent €3.76 billion (£3.087bn), which was more than the other four major leagues combined. According to Deloitte, Premier League gross spending of £3.0 billion accounted for 51% of total gross spend among the ‘big five’ leagues. Liverpool broke the British transfer record twice: signing Florian Wirtz for £116 million, then Alexander Isak for a record £125 million. Premier League clubs’ net spend of £1.2 billion was also the highest ever, a 114% increase on the previous summer.

Italy’s Serie A ranked second with €1.19 billion in spending. German clubs spent €856 million while generating €1.03 billion in sales, posting a surplus of +€171 million. Spanish clubs spent €684 million; La Liga’s expenditure increased by 23%, yet Spanish clubs are in crisis, with Getafe’s president lamenting: “We have to sell. We are ruining LaLiga by selling”. French clubs spent €662 million while generating €965 million in sales, posting a surplus of +€303 million.

The numbers reveal fundamental inequality. The Premier League’s €3.76 billion spend exceeded the combined total of Serie A (€1.19bn), Bundesliga (€856m), La Liga (€684m) and Ligue 1 (€662m) which together reached just €3.39 billion. As Gulf News observed “English football’s financial muscle is creating an unprecedented gap with the rest of Europe”. This is structural exploitation. The Premier League’s broadcast revenue advantage means even mid-table English clubs outspend European champions. Players are reduced to commodities, Nick Woltemade’s move to Newcastle for a potential $93 million, despite only 14 Bundesliga goals, represents inflation.

Saudi Pro League clubs spent $957 million in the 2025 summer transfer window, with a net spend of $907 million, which is second only to the Premier League. They signed 94 overseas players, including 37 from Europe’s top five leagues. Cristiano Ronaldo’s 2.5-year deal alone is said to total €400 million, tax-free. According to Human Rights Watch, Saudi’s per capita GDP is approximately $30,000–35,000, but foreign workers mainly from the Philippines, Bangladesh and India earn around $500 per month as labourers. Many work 12-hour days with just two days off per month. The 15.7 million foreign residents constitute 44.4% of the population. This is what Marx called the reserve army of labour, that is, exploited workers whose cheap labour makes the wealth of the ruling class possible.

Qatar presents an even plainer contrast. According to Amnesty International, per capita GDP exceeds $60,000, but 88% of the population are foreign workers, and approximately 60% earn below 3,000 riyals (about $825) per month. They live in crowded labour camps with minimal amenities. Local citizens enjoy free water, electricity, housing and education benefits entirely denied to the migrant workforce that builds their stadiums.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has announced plans to create a $20 billion subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to run the World Cup, Club World Cup and other FIFA-related events. He intends to sell up to 21% to private investors, raising $4.2 billion. The lead investor is Thrive Eternal, launched by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. FIFA is also working with J.P. Morgan Chase. Infantino would reportedly become commissioner of FFE after his presidency ends in 2031.  A case of the rich using the collective wealth of the majority to enrich themselves.

Each of FIFA’s 211 member associations would receive $40 million from the sale. For poorer federations, this is a tempting bribe. UEFA has condemned the plan in a statement, which reads:

“UEFA and their 55 members stand as one. We unanimously and unequivocally reject FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership interests in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors. The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product.”

“It is one of football’s greatest sporting legacies. It has been built over generations by players, national teams and supporters on every continent. No part of it may ever be transferred to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale…. This is not only a profound failure of leadership, but also a betrayal of FIFA’s duty as guardian of world football.”

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell”. Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter stated: “The close relationship between the FIFA president and the US president has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football. No one has the right to sell our game”. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham wrote: “Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans”.

Infantino has set a deadline of 19 September for federations to accept. He commands support from more than half of FIFA’s 211 members, particularly in Africa, Asia and the Americas. With a simple majority required, the plan is likely to pass. This represents the final commodification of football, an outright sale of the game to private investors who will extract profit with no regard for its social purpose or cultural meaning. A glimpse of the commodification was seen with the introduction of ‘cooling breaks’, which were basically advertisement breaks. And a half-time show at the final, the first of its kind.

A football industry with democratic control by supporters, players, coaches, and other categories of sport workers is necessary. The enormous wealth generated by football should be reinvested to develop the sport and communities rather than enrich football corporations. FIFA, UEFA, and other associations should be democratically controlled and accountable.

World Cup tickets should be affordable. Visa arrangements should be transparent with no bias. World Cup revenues should be invested in grassroots football, particularly in poorer countries through schools and communities. Players’ rights must be respected; they should be treated as humans, not commodities. Players’ unions should have a genuine interest in determining schedules, rest periods, workload limits, and health standards.

If well organised, football can overcome borders. A Nigerian can support a Portuguese player, a Ghanaian can celebrate an Argentine victory, and a Dominican can admire a Senegalese player. The sport should not be reduced to a profit-making business which ultimately places a boundary between those who genuinely love the sport and those operating it for money.

The World Cup and other football tournaments belong to the people, not billionaires driven by financial interests. A well-structured football industry would mean that a working-class supporter in Ibadan, Enugu, Nairobi, Dakar, Cairo, or Ecuador can attend matches in Miami, Montreal, or Paris. Football should be for people, not profit. A football based on solidarity and not commercialisation, participation rather than exclusion, and democratic control by stakeholders rather than one controlling entity. The task for all of us is to build a world where unity is not merely displayed every four years but becomes the reality of everyone.