World Cup revenues are expected to rise by about 15-20% if the tournament expands to 64 teams, but the increase will come with diminishing returns, as the biggest commercial leap occurred when the number of teams was raised from 32 to 48, according to Dr. Mohamed Fadlallah, an expert in international sports law.

The proposal to increase the number of teams participating in the World Cup from 48 to 64 has reignited debate over the economic feasibility of the biggest tournament organized by FIFA, after the federation recorded record revenues of about $15 billion during the 2023-2026 financial cycle.

The potential expansion raises questions about the tournament's ability to generate additional commercial returns that keep pace with rising costs of organization, hosting, prize money, and club compensation, at a time when experts believe the decision carries economic and political dimensions that go beyond increasing the number of teams.

Fadlallah said that FIFA would be the biggest beneficiary of the expansion through growth in broadcasting, sponsorship, and hospitality revenues, while clubs and host countries would bear a greater share of financial and logistical burdens, with declining commercial appeal of the additional teams.

Diminishing returns despite the increase

The international sports law expert believes that the growth of FIFA's revenues with the 64-team system will not be proportional to the increase in the number of teams.

Fadlallah told Al-Eqtisadiah that the growth 'will not be linear, but rather with diminishing returns,' explaining that the biggest commercial leap was already achieved with the transition from 32 to 48 teams, when the tournament transformed from a competition limited to elite teams to an event with broader global representation.

He added that the expansion to 64 teams would mostly add teams from smaller and less popular confederations, meaning that the increase in television broadcasting and sponsorship revenues would not be at the same rate as the increase in the number of participating teams.

Two main sources of growth

According to Fadlallah, the real growth in revenues will come from two main sources: the first is the increase in the number of matches and the associated rise in ticket, hospitality, and stadium revenues, while the second is entering new media markets, albeit small in size but numerous.

He expected tournament revenues to rise by 15% to 20%, not multiples of the current figure, noting that 'the easy commercial growth margin has already been consumed with the leap of the 2026 World Cup,' making any further expansion less capable of achieving similar jumps in revenues.

FIFA's profitability and the system

Despite his expectations of additional revenues, Fadlallah believes the picture differs when looking at FIFA's profitability compared to the profitability of the entire football system.

He explained that FIFA enjoys financial protection as the owner of commercial rights, as it sells broadcasting and sponsorship rights and does not bear the bulk of the costs of building stadiums and infrastructure, but the total cost of the expansion will fall on other parties.

He added that increasing the number of matches from 104 to 128 would increase organizational and logistical burdens at a faster pace than the growth of commercial return per match, because the additional matches would on average be less marketable than matches of the current edition.

He said that this means a decline in the profitability margin for the system as a whole, even if FIFA's absolute profits continue to rise.

'The undisclosed beneficiary'

Fadlallah believes that FIFA will be the biggest economic beneficiary of the expansion, as it receives revenues from broadcasting, sponsorship, and marketing rights, without bearing the bulk of the capital costs of hosting.

However, he pointed to an 'undisclosed beneficiary' represented by the continental and smaller confederations, as the 64-team system grants them broader representation and greater voting influence within FIFA institutions, exceeding their actual football size.

He added that this institutional and political dimension explains the enthusiasm of the South American confederation for the proposal to increase the number of teams, even though direct commercial gains may not be as large as the political gains within FIFA's structure.

Who pays the bill?

In contrast, Fadlallah believes that the major European clubs will be the party most burdened by the actual cost of the expansion, not because of their contribution to organizing the tournament, but due to the crowded international calendar and the increased risk of player injuries during their participation with their national teams.

He explained that clubs bear players' salaries, insurance costs, and management of domestic schedules, without receiving a direct share of the commercial revenues generated by FIFA, which, in his view, explains the cautious position of UEFA and a number of continental federations regarding any further expansion of the World Cup.

Strengthening small federations

Fadlallah concludes that the project of a World Cup with 64 teams cannot be viewed as merely an economic decision, but also carries institutional and political dimensions related to redistributing influence within FIFA's system and strengthening the representation of small federations.

While FIFA ensures continued growth of its revenues from commercial rights, host countries and major clubs will be required to bear a greater share of financial and operational burdens, making the project's success contingent on achieving a balance between economic return and the cost of expansion, not just on the volume of revenues alone.