FIFA World Cup 2026

[Ram Pant]

Ignoring the 'sticky' issue, are you not allowed satellite dishes in The Netherlands?

We are but they aren't a "thing", or weren't until the recent influx of Eastern Bloc labour over the past 10 to 15 years. They love their satellite dishes.

I could probably get ITV via satellite but I have grave doubts I would even be allowed to pay the huge amounts wanted by Sky, TNT et al for their services.

[ramAnag]

That is logical if the principle is one of pure capitalism, i.e. charge what the "market" will tolerate. But if the principle is one of inclusivity, a claim made by FIFA that the 2026 World Cup will be the most inclusive ever, then setting prices that potentially exclude genuine fans means that claim is a lie.

What is happening is a general monetisation of sport and indeed music, where fans pay extortionate prices often for a seat so far away from the game or performer, that one may as well watch it on TV, indeed one often finishes up watching big screens to see the action!


In addition if you pay the £500 or so for the guaranteed matches – the three group games – now if you want to go to them. However, if you want to have a ticket from that 8% allocation, you have to pay the £4,500 for knockout games in advance too, however slim your team’s chance of progress may be. You would have to pay that five grand on your credit card in January, and if England fail then you possibly might not get the refund until September; the terms and conditions give Fifa 60 calendar days to cough up once a team is eliminated – minus their $10 admin charge.

Oh and it also seems that the official resale site run by FIFA, claims 30% commission on the resale price, 15% from the seller and 15% from the buyer! is there no end to FIFA's scalping?

I understand FIFA have defended the prices based on their premise that all funds are reinvested in football, presumably minus the the cost of awarding the orange buffoon a "peace prize" and the cost of the staging the world cup draw fiasco and as you say the salaries of the FIFA illuminati, plus I guess their extensive travel and hospitality!

But football is supposed to be the peoples game, the atmosphere in stadiums isn't generated by the "suits" in executive boxes, it comes from the passionate fans and this is especially the case at a World Cup where fans from across the globe are an essential part of the spectacle, but are priced out in favour of those who have the means to pay to attend, but whose interest in the game is cursory at best.

Is there an answer? Well yes IMO there is, FIFA could have set a price that was within reach of the majority of football fans. Yes demand would be in excess of supply, but that's always going to be the case and a ballot system give everyone the chance to participate. That would be a truly inclusive World CUP, rather than a market orientated money generation exercise that essentially means football is now just another commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.

For myself, I have a set of criteria which determines whether I will pay to watch football or go to a gig. A ceiling on the price that I am prepared to pay to watch multi millionaires and a seat that gives me a good view of the action. I may miss out, but then I can get the same satisfaction from watching lower league or non league football and lesser known but talented artists, or even in many cases well known artists who don't rip their fans off.

A sensible post and one I very much agree with. It is difficult to argue with those for whom the simplistic, but ultimately immoral, law of supply and demand overrides everything else, but personally I think there is a great deal of sense in what you’ve written.

What you say about sitting too far away and being better off watching on TV, a sentiment echoed by MA, is very true, imo. Sitting in the ‘Gods’ in 60,000 + seater stadia for either sporting events or gigs seems to me a bit of a waste of money.
This is well illustrated in the case of cricket. Attendance at a decent day of Test cricket is one of my favourite pastimes. The food is extortionate but you can get round that and 70-100 or so quid for six plus hours of entertainment isn’t that bad, and yet every time a wicket is taken or a decision questioned one ends up looking at the big screen for verification which says it all really.

Even in indoor venues holding 10-15k one is heavily reliant on the big screens which leads one to wonder…are we just paying for the atmosphere, to be able to say, ‘I was there’? If so, I suspect the atmosphere and the ‘I was there’ factors might both be somewhat lacking at the forthcoming World Cup.

[Ram Pant]

A sensible post and one I very much agree with. It is difficult to argue with those for whom the simplistic, but ultimately immoral, law of supply and demand overrides everything else, but personally I think there is a great deal of sense in what you?’ve written.

What you say about sitting too far away and being better off watching on TV, a sentiment echoed by MA, is very true, imo. Sitting in the ?‘Gods?’ in 60,000 + seater stadia for either sporting events or gigs seems to me a bit of a waste of money.
This is well illustrated in the case of cricket. Attendance at a decent day of Test cricket is one of my favourite pastimes. The food is extortionate but you can get round that and 70-100 or so quid for six plus hours of entertainment isn?’t that bad, and yet every time a wicket is taken or a decision questioned one ends up looking at the big screen for verification which says it all really.

Even in indoor venues holding 10-15k one is heavily reliant on the big screens which leads one to wonder?…are we just paying for the atmosphere, to be able to say, ?‘I was there?’? If so, I suspect the atmosphere and the ?‘I was there?’ factors might both be somewhat lacking at the forthcoming World Cup.

I'm not overly bothered with "distance to the stage" at concerts. There are the various big screens you can watch and get a good view but.. I go to a concert for the MUSIC. As long as the sound quality is good and the instruments are played well as well as the singing being in tune, I'm a happy bunny.

I baulked at €135 being the cheapest ticket for Paul Simon.

Next summer we're getting VIP tickets for Madness, courtesy of a friend and former colleague involved in the concert. It seems who you know is still very important.

[swaledale]

I'm not overly bothered with "distance to the stage" at concerts. There are the various big screens you can watch and get a good view but.. I go to a concert for the MUSIC. As long as the sound quality is good and the instruments are played well as well as the singing being in tune, I'm a happy bunny.

I baulked at €135 being the cheapest ticket for Paul Simon.

Next summer we're getting VIP tickets for Madness, courtesy of a friend and former colleague involved in the concert. It seems who you know is still very important.

Each to his own of course, though in some stadium environments the acoustics are crap, but for me a big part of a live gig is seeing the musicians and singers actually performing, witnessing their talent in action. Being stuck at the rear with the artists mere dots isn't what I go to live gigs for and not something I'm prepared to pay £100 plus for. If those seats were say under £100 OK, but I'd still be less interested.

Football is the same for me, being stuck high up (Newcastle away being an example) with the players as dots is something I dislike. Actually the worst I've experienced was at Johan Cruyff Arena in Amsterdam, where the away fans were in a corner, with a solid screen to the right meaning one could only see half the pitch up until just beyond the half way line unless in the front rows and thats a relatively modern stadium.

[ramAnag]

I'm not overly bothered with "distance to the stage" at concerts. There are the various big screens you can watch and get a good view but.. I go to a concert for the MUSIC. As long as the sound quality is good and the instruments are played well as well as the singing being in tune, I'm a happy bunny.

I baulked at ?135 being the cheapest ticket for Paul Simon.

Makes me wonder why, in times gone by, I used to bother before the advent of big screens. Perhaps because the 1970 Isle of Wight Festival cost a whole three quid and the first Knebworth (1974) the same, with a 25p reduction if you bought, as I did, a ticket in advance.

What’s that nowadays? Thirty/forty quid? Roger will doubtless know. Can’t remember the last time I paid as little as that for a ticket for a single gig and I believe tickets for next year’s Knebworth are around 127-145 GBP. No thanks.

[Ram Pant]

Even at 15K to 20K indoor venues, if you're at the back the artists are mere dots. Larger dots than from the back of a 60L stadium but still dots.

1986, Feijenoord stadium. Decent seats. Unknown Irish rock band on first. They were good. Next up, the Pretenders. The stadium was full but 3/4 had their backs to the stage, chatting away, chigging on their beers, not interested in what was going on on the stage as they'd all come for the headline act. In no time at all, Chrissie had the entire stadium in her hand. Brilliant performance. Next up the headliner, U2. Absolute chuffin' garbage. The 5 people I was with all thought it was brilliant and said so in the car on the way back to Amsterdam. I disagreed and told them everything that had been poor in the performance. The following Thursday, the new issue of Nieuw Revu came out and 'er indoors bought a copy to read the music critic's view on the show. She came homem showed me the article and asked if I'd written the article. Every single thing I'd mentioned was im there. For me, a crap U2 took some of the shine off an outstanding Pretenders concert. I don't get caughht up in the "hysteria", it's the music I'm there for and I do get carried away by the quality of the music. Dancers, light shows, whatever... all well and good but if the music's crap then the music's crap.

[swaledale]

A sensible post and one I very much agree with. It is difficult to argue with those for whom the simplistic, but ultimately immoral, law of supply and demand overrides everything else, but personally I think there is a great deal of sense in what you’ve written.

What you say about sitting too far away and being better off watching on TV, a sentiment echoed by MA, is very true, imo. Sitting in the ‘Gods’ in 60,000 + seater stadia for either sporting events or gigs seems to me a bit of a waste of money.
This is well illustrated in the case of cricket. Attendance at a decent day of Test cricket is one of my favourite pastimes. The food is extortionate but you can get round that and 70-100 or so quid for six plus hours of entertainment isn’t that bad, and yet every time a wicket is taken or a decision questioned one ends up looking at the big screen for verification which says it all really.

Even in indoor venues holding 10-15k one is heavily reliant on the big screens which leads one to wonder…are we just paying for the atmosphere, to be able to say, ‘I was there’? If so, I suspect the atmosphere and the ‘I was there’ factors might both be somewhat lacking at the forthcoming World Cup.

I suspect RA that you and I may be considered "naive idealists" and I'd accept that on this occasion I am an ideallist, but despite the widespread cynicism that seems to hold sway, there are many examples of people and organisations that do have a genuinely ethical stance in how they operate, however it would seem that FIFA is not such an organisation.

[Andy_Faber]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

[Geoff Parkstone]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

So it seems like there's a limited supply of ?45 tickets available for world cup for each team qualified

[swaledale]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

I am in full agreement with that, refuse to use spotify, never have and never will. I do buy downloads direct from the artists, but my preference is Cd or vinyl. There are so many talented artists out there who haven't a hope in hell of making enough to sustain themselves.

[swaledale]

So it seems like there's a limited supply of ?45 tickets available for world cup for each team qualified

I belive in the first release its 8,000?

[Ram Pant]

I belive in the first release its 8,000?

I read 10% of the allocation per team. So, if an FA has 4K tickets for a game, then 400 will be at 45GBP. The rest will be the already advertised extortionate price.

[ramAnag]

I am in full agreement with that, refuse to use spotify, never have and never will. I do buy downloads direct from the artists, but my preference is Cd or vinyl. There are so many talented artists out there who haven't a hope in hell of making enough to sustain themselves.

I feel I need clarification on this one from either yourself, Andy or both. I have an extensive collection of both vinyl and CDs but cannot remember the last time I bought either.
I use Spotify a lot, not least because I listen to a lot of music when driving via my phone and because it provides instant access to otherwise mystery tracks that may appear in soundtracks etc.

Didn’t realise it is such a ‘bad’ thing to do, but - serious question - the notable likes of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell apart,
most major artists have no hesitation in linking themselves with Spotify and the vast majority of smaller performers (largely in the 500-700 GBP per performance bracket) I come into contact with via Live and Local also seem to happily advertise their wares via Spotify.

I may be being naive about this, but don’t up and coming artists benefit greatly from the exposure provided by Spotify?

[Ram Pant]

I feel I need clarification on this one from either yourself, Andy or both. I have an extensive collection of both vinyl and CDs but cannot remember the last time I bought either.
I use Spotify a lot, not least because I listen to a lot of music when driving via my phone and because it provides instant access to otherwise mystery tracks that may appear in soundtracks etc.

Didn’t realise it is such a ‘bad’ thing to do, but - serious question - the notable likes of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell apart,
most major artists have no hesitation in linking themselves with Spotify and the vast majority of smaller performers (largely in the 500-700 GBP per performance bracket) I come into contact with via Live and Local also seem to happily advertise their wares via Spotify.

I may be being naive about this, but don’t up and coming artists benefit greatly from the exposure provided by Spotify?

Not greatly, financially from Spotify streams. It might up their exposure a little but that may not necessarily see them selling more records/CDs, merchandise or get more booking or larger payouts from those bookings.

Spotify pays roughly $3,000 to $5,000 for 1 million streams, based on an average rate of $0.003 to $0.005 per stream, but the actual artist payout varies wildly due to label deals, distribution cuts, listener location, and user type (free/premium). Artists usually get a fraction of this total pool after splits with distributors, publishers, and labels, with independent artists earning more than those on major labels. (Source AI)

[SithHappens]

I use Spotify all the time, even to listen if I have the physical media.

Must be a decade or more I bought a Cd, likewise with Blu-ray for video.