As anticipation builds for the 2026 World Cup, questions remain about the organization behind the world’s most watched sporting event. Who benefits from the billions of dollars the tournament generates? Why has FIFA proven so resistant to reform? And what does that mean for fans, host cities, and the future of global football?
Those questions drove the June 8 panel, “The World Cup: How FIFA’s Money Machine Controls the World’s Biggest Sport.” Moderated by OPC Governor Vivienne Walt, the discussion featured Financial Times columnist and author Simon Kuper, former Head of FIFA Governance Committee Miguel Maduro, and anti-bribery expert Alexandra Addison-Wrage, CEO of TRACE and a former member of FIFA’s Independent Governance Committee.
Drawing on decades of reporting and firsthand experience inside FIFA, the panelists painted a picture of an organization whose power is sustained by vast financial resources, political influence, and limited accountability.
Kuper began by examining the economics of the modern World Cup. FIFA is expected to generate roughly $9 billion from the 2026 tournament through television rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales. He argued that FIFA’s control over those revenues helps reinforce loyalty among national football associations around the world. As Kuper put it, “The amounts of money have grown quite significantly involved in the World Cup,” creating what he described as a highly centralized system of power.
That concentration of power led to a discussion of why reform efforts have repeatedly stalled. Maduro argued that FIFA’s structure makes meaningful internal change nearly impossible because the organization acts as both regulator and commercial participant in the sport. “There’s no incentives whatsoever for internal reform,” he exclaimed, adding that governments, courts, and supranational institutions may be the only bodies capable of imposing accountability.
Addison then reflected on her own experience serving on FIFA’s Independent Governance Committee. Expecting an organization open to reform, she instead encountered what she described as a deeply entrenched culture resistant to transparency and diversity. “There was this very strong sense of a men’s club,” she shared, recalling how efforts to expand women’s representation were often weakened or reinterpreted to preserve existing power structures.
The conversation also explored football’s (soccer’s) changing geopolitical landscape. Kuper described the current era as one dominated by Gulf investment, pointing to Qatar’s ownership of Paris Saint-Germain, the UAE’s ownership of Manchester City, and Saudi Arabia’sacquisition of Newcastle United. He argued that “the focus is Gulf money” and noted that Saudi Arabia effectively secured the 2034 World Cup without a competitive bid.
Yet Kuper cautioned against assuming this influence will continue indefinitely. Citing the ongoing Straits of Hormuz crisis and broader shifts in global energy markets, he predicted that Gulf states will face growing economic and geopolitical constraints. “The Gulf phase is happening, and will end,” he said, noting that Saudi Arabia has already begun scaling back some high-profile sports investments. While he expects Saudi Arabia to retain the 2034 World Cup, he suggested the era of lavish Gulf spending across global football may not last.
Despite their criticism of FIFA, the panelists ended by separating the organization from the sport itself. Fans may be frustrated with football’s governing body, Addison observed, but many still feel deeply connected to the game.
“We love football, we hate FIFA.”
Watch the full discussion below or click here to view all videos from this panel.