FIFA’s ticket gamble delivered record crowds, and now a legal problem it didn’t have in September

Soccerscene reported in September that FIFA’s new pricing system for World Cup 2026 tickets had fans and supporter groups accusing football’s governing body of being out of touch, with group-stage prices said to “start from” around 90 Australian dollars and no ceiling disclosed before the pre-sale lottery closed. Nine months on, the real numbers are in, and the fallout has moved well past fan anger into regulatory territory.

FIFA ultimately used dynamic pricing for World Cup tickets for the first time in the tournament’s history, the same demand-based model used by airlines and ride-share apps, where prices climb as inventory tightens. The cheapest tickets did open at 60 US dollars, as promised. But the top category for the July 19 final in New Jersey opened at 6,730 dollars and had climbed to nearly 11,000 dollars by the tournament’s later sales windows, according to NPR, roughly seven times the cost of the most expensive ticket at the 2022 Qatar tournament.

From backlash to investigation

What has changed since September is that the backlash now carries legal weight. The attorneys general of New York, New Jersey and Texas have opened formal investigations into FIFA’s ticketing practices, alleging the organisation held back cheaper inventory and released more expensive categories later in a way regulators say could mislead buyers. Infantino has defended the strategy publicly, comparing FIFA’s approach to standard practice across the US ticketing industry, arguing that if FIFA is at fault, then, in his words, “everyone selling tickets in North America is doing something wrong”.

Then, when the tournament began, a second controversy emerged that the September pricing story could not have anticipated. Television broadcasts from several early matches showed clearly empty sections in supposedly near-capacity stadiums. FIFA reported 44,985 fans at a Guadalajara fixture in a venue with roughly 45,664 seats, an official figure barely below capacity, even as visible pockets of empty seating spread across social media within hours. FIFA’s explanation, that attendance is based on scanned tickets and people within the stadium footprint rather than a seat-by-seat visual count, has not fully settled the dispute. Independent analysis by The Athletic found fewer than 1,600 seats unfilled across the tournament’s first six matches, a number difficult to reconcile with what viewers were seeing on screen.

None of this has dented the tournament’s underlying performance. Group-stage attendance sat at roughly 99.4 to 99.7 percent of capacity, and the World Cup has already broken the overall attendance record previously held by the 1994 US-hosted tournament. Fox averaged five million viewers across its 72 group-stage matches, a network record, while fan festivals across the three host nations drew an estimated 5.5 million people separate from ticketed attendance altogether. FIFA has projected the tournament will generate more than 11 billion US dollars in total revenue, largely from broadcast rights. The record numbers support that projection. The investigation, and the empty seats FIFA has struggled to explain, complicate it.

The correction is already underway

The clearest sign that FIFA’s pricing model responds to real demand, not just its own targets, has arrived in the past fortnight. According to ticket data reported by Newsweek, resale prices for the tournament’s remaining matches fell 39 percent in a single week as the knockout rounds opened, with the average cost of the cheapest available seat dropping from a peak of roughly 12,500 dollars in late June to just over 10,300 dollars days later. Seats for the United States’ own knockout fixture against Bosnia and Herzegovina dropped from 2,705 to 1,650 dollars over the same window.

A pricing model built to extract maximum value from peak demand will, by the same logic, correct sharply once brokers who overpaid need to move inventory. The mechanism that produced September’s backlash and July’s headlines is the same one now producing rapid discounts as the tournament enters its final weeks. Whether regulators, and the federations bidding to host the next World Cup, read that as evidence the model works, or as confirmation it needs fixing, is the question this story left unresolved in September and still has not answered.

Previous ArticleNext Article

Netflix’s Women’s World Cup deal puts IMG’s technology in the spotlight

Netflix’s first exclusive football deal will see the next year’s FIFA Women’s World Cup at the centre of it’s live-sport strategy. The US-streaming service company has appointed IMG as its production partner for all 64 matches in Brazil, as well as more than 100 hours of live studio programming. The deal includes English and Spanish coverage for viewers within the US, and English and French-language coverage for those in Canada. IMG will also support Netflix’s coverage of the tournament’s draw in December.

The 2027 Women’s World Cup runs from June 24 to July 25 across eight host cities, and will be the first edition to feature 32 teams. The scale of the tournament makes it an ambitious first foray into sports broadcasting for Netflix – which means IMG’s involvement will be of great significance.

IMG’s production engine

IMG has built its reputation on producing and distributing live sport at scale. It’s Stockley Park, London facility includes broadcast studios, production galleries, edit suites and facilities for radio, podcasting, dubbing and visual effects. The company has worked across major properties including the Premier League, Major League Soccer and other international sporting events.

For a World Cup, this infrastructure provides more than a place to make television; it creates a central point where production teams can manage feeds, graphics, replays, commentary, editing and distribution while events are taking place thousands of kilometres away.

Remote production is the key

The most important technology for a tournament spread across eight Brazilian cities is connectivity. IMG has invested in remote-production workflows that allow production teams to work across locations, rather than putting every specialist inside each stadium. Its wider production operation has used fibre, satellite, cloud and IP-based connectivity to move live signals between venues and production centres.

That model can reduce the amount of equipment and specialist staff required at every venue while allowing senior producers, directors, replay operators and graphics teams to work from centralised facilities. IMG has also demonstrated long-distance IP production, including a 20,000-kilometre link between Tokyo and London that carried uncompressed, low-latency video. For Netflix, those capabilities are particularly relevant. The platform is building a single viewing experience for audiences in two markets, but the raw ingredients will come from stadiums spread across Brazil. A resilient network becomes just as important as the cameras themselves.

From stadium to stream

The technology chain does not end when the pictures leave the venue. A modern sports production operation has to manage ingest, replay, media asset management, graphics, audio, quality control, archiving and transmission. IMG’s facilities have been built around those workflows, with master control and transmission capabilities alongside post-production and archive operations.

That infrastructure also gives IMG the ability to turn the live tournament into a wider stream of content. A goal can become a replay, a highlight, a social clip or part of a studio package without waiting for the match to finish. For Netflix, that fits a platform built around on-demand discovery as much as live viewing.

A new test for Netflix

Netflix has already made a significant investment in football through documentaries and other programming. The 2027 Women’s World Cup takes it up a level. FIFA describes the agreement as the first competition Netflix has acquired in full, making the tournament a major test of its live sports operation. IMG therefore has a job that goes beyond producing 64 matches; it must help Netflix build the technical backbone for a month-long, multi-venue broadcast, while maintaining consistent production standards across languages and locations.

The viewer may simply press play and see a World Cup match appear instantly. Behind that button will be a complex network of cameras, connectivity, control rooms, production systems, people and data. That is the real significance of Netflix’s IMG deal: the streamer is bringing the tournament to its platform, but IMG is providing much of the machinery that can make a global football event feel seamless.

Has football become too expensive for its own supporters?

Football has never been more valuable. Broadcast rights continue to generate billions of dollars, commercial partnerships are growing in scale, and clubs are investing heavily in new stadiums, technology and fan experiences. On the surface, the business of football appears to be in excellent health.

But there is a question worth asking.

As clubs continue searching for new revenue streams, are they making it harder for the very people who built the game to remain part of it?

The Rising Cost of Being a Football Fan

Over the past decade, supporting a football club has become increasingly expensive. Ticket prices have risen, particularly at Europe’s biggest clubs; for example, Manchester United have recently increased ticket prices for a fourth consecutive year.

The debate reached a global audience during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Ticket prices prompted widespread criticism from supporter groups, with concerns over dynamic pricing and the overall cost of attending matches.

For many travelling fans, the cost extended well beyond admission, with flights, accommodation and local transport adding to an already significant financial commitment.

Even national team kits surged in price: Nike’s replica kits for nations such as England, France and Brazil retailed for €110 ($178 AUD), while the official match versions blew out as far as €110 ($260 AUD)

FIFA defended its adoption of the United States’ dynamic pricing model, arguing low prices would lead to inflated secondary market prices, which meant less money going back into football.

Yet the backlash highlighted a growing tension between maximising commercial returns and preserving accessibility for the game’s loyal supporters. Football Supporters Europe released a statement following the release of tickets, describing the prices as a “monumental betrayal to the tradition of the World Cup.”

None of these decisions exist in isolation.

Football clubs face rising operating costs, increasing player wages and growing expectations around facilities, technology and supporter engagement.

Stadium redevelopments, academy investment and player recruitment all require significant financial investment. Finding new sources of revenue has become a commercial necessity rather than a luxury.

Football Clubs Are Becoming Entertainment Businesses

Modern football clubs are no longer operating solely as sporting organisations. Many have evolved into entertainment businesses, with stadiums hosting concerts, corporate events, hospitality experiences and conferences alongside football matches.

From Tottenham Hotspur Stadium to Real Madrid’s redeveloped Santiago Bernabéu, clubs are investing in assets designed to generate income every day of the year, not just on matchday. 

Since moving to Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, matchday revenue has more than doubled over the last ten years and commercial revenue has nearly tripled during that same period. 

That strategy makes practical business sense.

The concern is whether supporters are gradually becoming customers first and fans second.

Loyalty Isn’t Transactional

Sport has always been different from other forms of entertainment because loyalty is rarely transactional. Supporters do not simply choose another club if prices rise or performances decline.

Many inherit their club through generations, travelling thousands of kilometres and investing countless hours because of an emotional connection that cannot be measured on a balance sheet.

That relationship is one of football’s greatest commercial strengths, but it also creates a responsibility.

Every pricing decision, whether it involves tickets, memberships or merchandise, should consider not only the revenue it generates today but the supporters it may exclude tomorrow.

The Cost of Watching Football

The cost of supporting a club doesn’t end once the final whistle blows. For many supporters, following football now also means paying for access to the game itself.

In Australia, broadcast rights are spread across multiple platforms, meaning fans who want to watch the A-League, Premier League, UEFA competitions and other major European leagues need several subscriptions. 

Individually, each service may represent reasonable value, but collectively they have increased the cost of following football throughout an entire season.

Broadcast Deals Come With Benefits

There is, however, another side to the argument. Broadcast rights are one of football’s biggest revenue streams, funding everything from player wages and production quality to grassroots investment and the continued growth of women’s football.

Broadcasters are paying significant sums for exclusive rights because live sport remains one of the few forms of content capable of attracting large audiences in real time. Without those investments, many competitions would struggle to maintain their current standard both on and off the pitch.

The issue, then, isn’t that football is harder to watch. It’s that following it has become increasingly fragmented. With matches spread across different platforms and services, football may be more accessible than ever, yet actually keeping up with the game can feel more challenging than ever before. 

A supporter shouldn’t need multiple subscriptions simply to follow their club, their national team and Europe’s biggest competitions. As football’s media landscape becomes more complex, convenience risks becoming another cost borne by supporters.

The recent Australia Cup match between South Melbourne and Preston Lions offered a timely reminder of what football looks like when supporters feel connected to their clubs. An official crowd of 6,673 created a vibrant atmosphere that translated brilliantly on television, or free on Football Australia’s YouTube channel.

The spectacle wasn’t driven by premium hospitality or corporate experiences. It was driven by passionate fans filling the stands and creating a classic football environment.

Finding the Balance

The challenge for football is finding the balance between commercial success and supporter accessibility.

Clubs, leagues and governing bodies don’t necessarily need to lower every ticket’s price or abandon lucrative broadcast deals. But they should continue asking whether growth is making the game easier to experience or simply more expensive to follow.

That could mean preserving affordable ticket categories, simplifying access to live broadcasts, investing in community initiatives or ensuring stadiums remain places where families and lifelong supporters feel welcome. Commercial innovation and supporter accessibility do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Football’s commercial growth is essential. Without it, clubs cannot invest in players, facilities or community programmes.

But growth should never come at the expense of accessibility.

The most successful clubs of the future will not simply be those that generate the highest revenues. They will be the ones that continue to fill their stadiums with supporters who feel they belong.

After all, football’s greatest asset has never been its broadcast deals or sponsorship agreements.

It has always been the people in the stands.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend