FIFA’s presentation argued that, compared with its enormous global audience, the sport doesn’t generate enough money; it claimed FIFA captures less value than other major leagues, which limits funding for worldwide football development.
To support this, it showed a comparison of annual revenue and revenue per fan across FIFA, the UEFA Champions League, the Premier League, Major League Baseball, and the NFL.
By that measure, FIFA appears to lag badly at about $1 per global fan versus the NFL’s $52.80—but that metric is questionable.
The World Cup isn’t an annual event; it happens every four years. If you instead look at revenue per match for the 2026 World Cup, FIFA would earn multiples of the Premier League—potentially more than three times as much.
Also, football is highly decentralized worldwide, so a larger share of income flows to domestic leagues and competitions like the Premier League or the Champions League. FIFA was effectively arguing for a bigger share of that overall football economy.
Football’s fan base is spread across both wealthy and less affluent countries, whereas the NFL’s smaller audience is concentrated in the United States and largely encompasses the entirety of American football.
Finally, about half of the NFL’s revenue goes to player wages. FIFA doesn’t pay Erling Haaland, Lionel Messi, or Vozinha. A comparison based on profits rather than revenue would likely paint a very different picture.