Posts
The $11 Billion Question
Where Does FIFA's Money Go?
FIFA: Swiss Non-Profit, Global Crime — Post 1 | February 6, 2026
Post 1: The $11 Billion Question ← YOU ARE HERE
Post 2: The Stats Perform Mystery — Undisclosed payments, Vista Equity
Post 3: The Saudi Web — PIF, DAZN, circular money flows
Post 4: The New Corruption — Post-2015 model
Post 5: The Player Extraction — 3% compensation
Post 6: The Dealmaker — Romy Gai and AWE
Post 7: The Global Pattern — NFL to FIFA
The Revenue: $11 Billion Per Cycle
FIFA operates on a four-year cycle synchronized with the men's World Cup. The 2023-2026 cycle (culminating in the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico) is projected to generate $11 billion in total revenue.
This is an 18% increase from the previous cycle (2019-2022), which generated $7.57 billion despite COVID disruptions.
Where does the $11 billion come from?
- TV rights: $4.26 billion (39%)
- Ticketing and hospitality: $3.1 billion (28%)
- Marketing and sponsorships: $2.69 billion (24%)
- Licensing: $660 million (6%)
- Other income: $330 million (3%)
The 2026 World Cup alone is projected to generate $8.91 billion in a single tournament. That's from 48 teams playing 104 matches over roughly one month.
To put this in perspective: the 2026 World Cup will generate more revenue in 30 days than the entire NFL regular season generates in 18 weeks ($13 billion NFL season revenue spread over 4+ months vs $8.91 billion World Cup in 1 month).
And every dollar of that revenue is generated by players. Their performances. Their goals. Their drama. Their exhaustion. Their injuries.
FIFA doesn't score goals. FIFA doesn't sell tickets with its own star power. FIFA is an organizing body — a middleman between players and fans.
But FIFA keeps almost everything.
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE: $11 BILLION
BY SOURCE:
• TV rights: $4.26B (39%)
• Ticketing/hospitality: $3.1B (28%)
• Marketing/sponsorships: $2.69B (24%)
• Licensing: $660M (6%)
• Other: $330M (3%)
2026 WORLD CUP ALONE:
• Total revenue: $8.91B
• TV rights: 44%
• Hospitality/ticketing: 34%
• Marketing: 20%
• Duration: ~30 days
• Matches: 104
• Revenue per match: $85.7 million
REVENUE PER DAY:
$8.91B / 30 days = $297 million per day during World Cup
WHO CREATES THIS VALUE:
Players. Every dollar is generated by their performance.
The Expenditure: Where FIFA Says the Money Goes
FIFA's budgeted expenditures for 2023-2026 total $10.9 billion — leaving roughly $100 million in surplus for the cycle (though actual surpluses are often higher).
Here's where FIFA claims the money goes:
- Competitions and events: $5.62 billion (52%)
- Development and education programs: $1.73 billion (16%)
- Governance and administration: $54 million (less than 1%)
- Other operations: Balance of budget
Let's break this down.
1. Competitions and Events ($5.62 Billion)
This is FIFA's largest expense category. It includes:
- Prize money for teams ($655 million for 2026 World Cup)
- Club release fees ($355 million for 2026)
- Stadium operations, logistics, security
- Broadcasting infrastructure
- Event production
But here's the key: hosting countries bear most of the infrastructure costs.
Qatar spent an estimated $220 billion preparing for the 2022 World Cup (stadiums, hotels, transportation, entire city construction). Qatar's hosting fee to FIFA? Classified, but estimated at $1-2 billion.
FIFA pockets the revenue. The host country pays for the infrastructure.
So when FIFA claims $5.62 billion in "competition costs," much of that is prize money and operational expenses — not infrastructure. The heavy lifting is done by host nations who pay FIFA for the privilege of hosting.
2. Development and Education ($1.73 Billion)
This is FIFA's stated mission: developing football worldwide. The $1.73 billion (16% of budget) goes to programs like:
- FIFA Forward (grants to national federations)
- Youth development programs
- Women's football development
- Coaching education
But this spending has faced heavy scrutiny. Audits and investigative reports have documented:
- Inefficient distribution (money going to federations that misuse it)
- Lack of accountability (no detailed tracking of how grants are spent)
- Corruption at federation level (grants used for personal enrichment, not development)
FIFA claims 16-27% of its budget goes to development (the percentage varies by how you categorize certain expenses). But the measurable impact is questionable. Youth football infrastructure in many countries remains underfunded despite decades of FIFA grants.
3. Governance and Administration ($54 Million)
This is FIFA's official operating budget for running the organization: salaries, offices, travel, meetings.
$54 million sounds modest for a $11 billion organization. But this number has historically been misleading.
In 2011, FIFA paid approximately $30 million in salaries and bonuses to just 35 top executives. That's an average of $857,000 per executive. Sepp Blatter's compensation alone was rumored to exceed $5 million annually (FIFA never fully disclosed individual salaries).
Post-2015 reforms capped executive compensation and required more transparency. But even now, FIFA won't disclose detailed salary breakdowns for top officials.
The governance budget also doesn't include travel, luxury accommodations, and "business development" expenses that FIFA executives enjoy. These are often categorized under "competitions" or "development" rather than "governance."
TOTAL BUDGETED: $10.9 BILLION
WHERE IT SUPPOSEDLY GOES:
• Competitions/events: $5.62B (52%) — includes prize money, release fees, operations
• Development/education: $1.73B (16%) — grants to federations, youth programs
• Governance: $54M (less than 1%) — salaries, operations
• Other: Balance
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE NUMBERS:
• Host countries pay most infrastructure costs (Qatar: $220B for 2022 WC)
• Development spending lacks accountability (grants often misused)
• Governance excludes executive perks (luxury travel, “business development”)
• $3.9 billion sitting in reserves (not spent on anything)
WHAT’S MISSING:
Player compensation. The people who generate 100% of the revenue get 3%.
The Reserves: $3.9 Billion in Swiss Bank Accounts
After FIFA pays for competitions, development programs, and governance, there's money left over. A lot of money.
As of 2024, FIFA holds $3.9 billion in reserves.
These aren't rainy day funds in case revenue drops. FIFA's revenue grows every cycle. The reserves grow too.
In 2023, FIFA reported $1.17 billion in revenue and $1.02 billion in expenses, yielding a $146 million surplus. That surplus was added to reserves.
FIFA is a Swiss non-profit. Under Swiss law, non-profits can accumulate reserves for "organizational purposes." But there's no requirement that reserves be spent. They can sit indefinitely, generating interest.
So FIFA has $3.9 billion sitting in Swiss bank accounts. Growing. Untouched.
To put this in perspective:
- The entire annual budget of US Soccer (the American national federation) is roughly $150 million
- FIFA's reserves ($3.9B) could fund US Soccer for 26 years
- Or fund every national federation in CONCACAF (41 countries) for multiple years
But the reserves don't go to development. They don't go to players. They sit in Swiss accounts, controlled by FIFA executives, earning interest for an organization that already generates $11 billion per cycle.
This is wealth hoarding on an institutional scale.
CURRENT RESERVES (2024): $3.9 billion
HOW THEY GREW:
• 2023: $146M surplus added to reserves ($1.17B revenue - $1.02B expenses)
• Every cycle, surplus added to reserves
• Reserves have grown consistently since 2000s
WHERE THE MONEY SITS:
• Swiss bank accounts
• FIFA is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland
• Swiss non-profit status allows indefinite reserve accumulation
• No requirement to spend reserves on mission
WHAT $3.9B COULD FUND:
• US Soccer’s annual budget: $150M → FIFA reserves could fund for 26 years
• All 41 CONCACAF federations for multiple years
• Entire African confederation development for a decade
• Direct player compensation (1 year of World Cup): $3.9B / 736 players = $5.3M per player
WHAT IT ACTUALLY FUNDS:
Nothing. It sits. It grows. FIFA executives control it. Players who generate the
revenue get nothing.
THIS IS INSTITUTIONAL WEALTH HOARDING.
The Player Compensation: 3% and Shrinking
Players don't get paid by FIFA for playing in the World Cup. They get salaries from their clubs. National team duty is unpaid (except for small appearance fees or bonuses paid by some national federations, not FIFA).
The only direct compensation FIFA provides related to players is the Club Benefits Programme: payments to clubs for releasing players to national teams.
For the 2022 World Cup, FIFA paid $209 million to clubs worldwide. The formula: $10,000 per player per day, starting from the preparation period through the tournament.
For example, Manchester City received $4.6 million for releasing multiple players to various national teams for the 2022 World Cup.
For 2026, FIFA is increasing this to $355 million — a 70% increase. For the first time, this will include compensation for players released during World Cup qualifiers, not just the tournament itself.
So let's do the math:
FIFA revenue (2023-2026 cycle): $11 billion
Player/club compensation (2026): $355 million
Percentage: 3.2%
Players generate 100% of the value. FIFA pays their clubs 3%.
Compare this to the NFL:
NFL revenue sharing with players: 48.8% of "All Revenues" under the CBA
FIFA revenue sharing with players: 3.2% indirect payments to clubs
FIFA's extraction is 15 times worse than the NFL.
And it's getting worse. FIFA revenue is growing 18% per cycle. Player compensation is growing slower. The 70% increase in club release fees ($209M to $355M) sounds impressive until you realize FIFA revenue grew from $7.57B to $11B (45% increase) in the same period.
The players' share of FIFA revenue is actually shrinking.
FIFA REVENUE (2023-2026): $11 billion
PAID TO CLUBS FOR PLAYER RELEASE (2026): $355 million
PLAYERS’ SHARE: 3.2%
HOW IT WORKS:
• Players don’t get paid by FIFA for World Cup
• Clubs get “release fees” for allowing players to play for national teams
• Formula: $10,000 per player per day (includes prep period + tournament)
• Example: Man City got $4.6M for 2022 World Cup
COMPARE TO NFL:
• NFL players: 48.8% of all revenues (via CBA)
• FIFA players: 3.2% (indirect, via club fees)
• FIFA extraction: 15x worse than NFL
THE TREND:
• FIFA revenue growth (2019-2026): 45% increase ($7.57B → $11B)
• Player compensation growth (2022-2026): 70% increase ($209M → $355M)
• But 70% of $209M < 45% of $7.57B
• Players’ share of total revenue is SHRINKING
WHY THIS HAPPENS:
• No collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
• No player union with negotiating power
• National federations control players, not players themselves
• FIFA faces zero pressure to share revenue fairly
Why Players Have Zero Leverage
The NFL Players Association can strike. NBA players can refuse to play. These leagues have CBAs — collective bargaining agreements that give players negotiating power.
FIFA players have nothing.
Here's why:
1. No global player union: There's no unified organization representing all international footballers. FIFPro (the international players' union) exists, but it has no collective bargaining power with FIFA. It's a federation of national unions, not a single negotiating body.
2. National federations control players: Players represent their countries, not a league. National federations (like the US Soccer Federation, the English FA, etc.) control player selection and national team operations. These federations are members of FIFA — they won't pressure FIFA on behalf of players because they depend on FIFA funding.
3. No ability to strike: If NFL players strike, the league shuts down. Revenue stops. Owners feel pressure. If World Cup players tried to strike, FIFA could theoretically replace them with other players (though this would be a PR disaster). More importantly, national pride and political pressure make it nearly impossible for players to collectively refuse to represent their countries.
4. Club vs country conflict: Players' salaries come from clubs, not national teams. Clubs benefit from FIFA's Club Benefits Programme. So clubs have some incentive to maintain the current system (getting release fees) rather than push for direct player compensation from FIFA.
5. FIFA faces no competitive pressure: There's only one World Cup. FIFA is a monopoly. Players can't take their labor to a competing tournament because none exists at this scale.
The result: FIFA can pay players 3% and face zero consequences.
The Comparison: FIFA vs NFL Revenue Sharing
Let's make this concrete by comparing FIFA's model to the NFL's (which we've documented extensively in previous series).
NFL MODEL:
- Total revenue: ~$25 billion per season
- Player share: 48.8% of "All Revenues" (CBA-mandated)
- Player compensation: ~$12.2 billion per season
- Mechanism: Collective bargaining, salary cap tied to revenue
- Player leverage: Can strike, union negotiates
FIFA MODEL:
- Total revenue: $11 billion per cycle (4 years)
- Player share: 3.2% indirect payments to clubs
- Player compensation: $355 million per cycle
- Mechanism: FIFA unilaterally sets club release fees
- Player leverage: None
If FIFA operated like the NFL:
FIFA revenue: $11 billion
48.8% player share: $5.368 billion
Current player share: $355 million
Difference: $5.013 billion
FIFA is keeping $5 billion per cycle that would go to players under an NFL-style revenue sharing model.
That's not a typo. Five billion dollars. Every four years. Taken from players and kept by FIFA.
IF FIFA OPERATED LIKE THE NFL:
NFL MODEL (2024):
• Revenue: $25B/season
• Player share: 48.8% (CBA-mandated)
• Player compensation: $12.2B/season
• Players have: Union, CBA, strike leverage
FIFA CURRENT MODEL (2023-2026):
• Revenue: $11B/cycle
• Player share: 3.2%
• Player compensation: $355M/cycle
• Players have: Nothing
IF FIFA PAID LIKE NFL:
• $11B × 48.8% = $5.368 billion to players
• Current: $355 million to players
• Difference: $5.013 billion
WHAT THIS MEANS:
FIFA is keeping $5 billion per cycle that would go to players under NFL-style
revenue sharing. That’s $5 billion every four years. Taken from the people who
generate 100% of the value. Given to… nobody. It sits in Swiss bank accounts.
THE EXTRACTION:
• NFL players: Get 48.8% of what they generate
• FIFA players: Get 3.2% of what they generate
• FIFA’s extraction: 15x worse than NFL
And the NFL isn’t a paragon of labor fairness. But compared to FIFA, the NFL
looks like a workers’ paradise.
Where Does the $11 Billion Actually Go?
We've established where FIFA says the money goes. Now let's follow it.
The money flows like this:
1. Fans pay for tickets, hospitality, merchandise: $3.1 billion
2. Broadcasters pay for TV rights: $4.26 billion
3. Sponsors pay for marketing: $2.69 billion
Total in: $11 billion (approximately)
Then FIFA distributes:
• To players (via clubs): $355 million (3.2%)
• To prize money: $655 million for 2026 World Cup (goes to national federations, not players)
• To "competition costs": $5.62 billion (but host countries pay infrastructure)
• To "development": $1.73 billion (grants to federations, questionable accountability)
• To reserves: Surplus added to $3.9 billion sitting in Swiss accounts
What's left? The gap between $11 billion in and $10.9 billion budgeted out. Plus the money that doesn't get spent from budgeted categories (FIFA routinely underspends on development and overstates costs).
The answer to "where does FIFA's money go" is:
It goes into a Swiss non-profit that hoards reserves, pays opaque executive salaries, funds development programs with questionable accountability, and gives 3% to the players who generate 100% of the value.
This is institutional extraction at global scale.
Why This Matters
FIFA will defend this model by saying:
- "We're a non-profit — we reinvest everything in football"
- "Development programs require long-term reserves"
- "Players get paid by their clubs — FIFA shouldn't pay them directly"
- "The World Cup is about national pride, not money"
These are deflections.
FIFA is a non-profit that sits on $3.9 billion in reserves. That's not reinvestment. That's hoarding.
Development programs require accountability, not just funding. FIFA gives grants to federations with minimal oversight. Money disappears. Football infrastructure remains underfunded in many countries despite decades of FIFA grants.
Players generate the value FIFA captures. The fact that clubs pay salaries doesn't change the fact that FIFA makes $11 billion from player performances. Some of that should flow back to players.
National pride doesn't justify exploitation. Players can be proud to represent their countries AND be fairly compensated. These aren't mutually exclusive.
The $11 billion question isn't rhetorical. It's literal. Where does FIFA's money go? And why do the people who generate it get nothing?
Post 2 will show where some of it goes: exclusive data deals with private equity firms, undisclosed payments, and the same extraction model the NFL uses — just without the disclosure.
WHAT’S CONFIRMED (Primary Sources):
• FIFA revenue projections: $11B (2023-2026 cycle), confirmed by FIFA financial reports
• Revenue breakdown: TV rights $4.26B, ticketing $3.1B, marketing $2.69B — FIFA budget documents
• Club Benefits Programme: $209M (2022), $355M (2026) — FIFA press releases
• FIFA reserves: $3.9B (2024) — FIFA financial statements
• 2023 surplus: $146M ($1.17B revenue - $1.02B expenses) — FIFA annual report
• Expenditure breakdown: $5.62B competitions, $1.73B development — FIFA budget documents
• Qatar hosting costs: $220B estimated — multiple sources including Sportico, Al Jazeera
• NFL player revenue share: 48.8% of All Revenues — confirmed via CBA Article 12
WHAT’S CALCULATED (Showing Math):
• Player share of FIFA revenue: $355M / $11B = 3.2%
• FIFA extraction vs NFL: 48.8% / 3.2% = 15.25x worse
• If FIFA paid like NFL: $11B × 48.8% = $5.368B to players (vs $355M actual)
• Revenue per World Cup match: $8.91B / 104 matches = $85.7M per match
WHAT’S EDITORIAL (Clearly Labeled):
• “Institutional extraction”: Our characterization based on 3% player share vs $3.9B reserves
• “Wealth hoarding”: Our assessment of $3.9B sitting in Swiss accounts while players get 3%
• “Exploitation”: Our conclusion based on revenue generation vs compensation gap
WHY THIS MATTERS:
FIFA is a Swiss non-profit generating $11 billion per World Cup cycle. Players who
create 100% of the value receive 3% in indirect compensation. FIFA sits on $3.9
billion in reserves. This is the foundation — the rest of the series documents
where the money actually flows and who profits from the extraction.
