The beautiful game has an ugly price tag. Fifa, football’s governing body, is under investigation for alleged price gouging on World Cup tickets, with the UK Sports Minister demanding immediate protections for fans. For a body already sitting on a war chest of billions, this smacks of rent-seeking at its most brazen. The economics are simple: if demand is inelastic relative to supply, you can charge whatever you like. But this isn’t a monopoly on bread; it’s a monopoly on passion. And the market is being distorted by a lack of transparency.
The investigation, launched by the Competition and Markets Authority, will scrutinise Fifa’s ticketing practices for the 2026 World Cup. Early indications suggest that ticket prices have been inflated by as much as 500% above face value on secondary markets, with Fifa’s own allocation system funnelling tickets to corporate partners and leaving genuine fans scrambling. This is a classic case of regulatory capture: the regulator becomes a tool of the industry it is meant to oversee. The UK Sports Minister’s intervention is a welcome but belated move to restore some semblance of consumer sovereignty.
Let’s talk about price elasticity. For a World Cup match, the emotional attachment of a fan is such that they will pay almost any price to be in the stadium. That’s inelastic demand. Fifa knows this. By limiting supply and creating artificial scarcity through opaque allocation processes, they have effectively become a price setter, not a price taker. This is market failure. And when the market fails, government intervention is necessary to correct the externalities.
The Minister’s demand for fan protections includes a cap on resale prices, mandatory transparency on ticket allocations, and a levy on secondary platforms. These are sensible measures, but they miss the root cause: the lack of competition in the provision of tickets. The UK must push for a single, regulated primary market that eliminates the need for secondary scalping. Only then can we ensure that the price reflects willingness to pay, not desperation to attend.
Fifa’s response has been predictably defensive. They argue that market forces dictate prices and that they operate within the law. But this is a red herring. The law is not the arbiter of morality. Fifa’s reserves are estimated at over £4 billion. They are not a charity, but they are also not a profit-maximising firm in the traditional sense. They have a fiduciary duty to the sport, not just to their balance sheet. By gouging fans, they are eroding the brand equity that makes the World Cup such a valuable property in the first place. Short-term profits today mean long-term capital flight tomorrow.
What about the fans? They are the ultimate asset. Without them, the World Cup is just a televised event with no soul. Yet they bear the cost of inflated prices, travel expenses, and accommodation. The economic multiplier effect of a World Cup is significant, but only if the benefits are distributed equitably. Right now, the consumer surplus is being extracted by Fifa and its corporate partners. The Minister is right: the game needs protecting from itself.
The wider picture is one of governance failure. Fifa is a monopoly, and monopolies behave badly without proper regulation. The UK government should consider withholding financial support for future bids unless reforms are enacted. That is the only language the boardroom understands.
In the meantime, fans must vote with their wallets. But can they? The emotional attachment is too strong. This is a classic case of ‘inelastic demand’ exploited by a cartel. The regulator must step in to set a price ceiling or mandate a clear allocation process. Otherwise, the beautiful game will continue to be priced beyond the reach of those who made it beautiful.
