25 Oct, 2022 World Cup sponsorship revenues have reduced 16% between 2014 and 2022, says GlobalDataPosted in Sport
- Sponsorship deals for the 2022 Qatar World Cup amount to $1.1 billion
- Public urge all sponsors to pressure FIFA to remedy the cost to workers
Sponsorship of the World Cup is always a big revenue driver for FIFA, with 2022 being no different: the tournament has already delivered a total of $1.1 billion in revenue, according to GlobalData estimates. However, the leading data and analytics company notes that there has been a 16% reduction in revenue since the 2014 World Cup, when it totalled $1.35 billion, and this may be because of the controversial decision to host the tournament in Qatar.
World Cup’s revenue drop likely due to controversial Qatar placement
According to GlobalData’s Deal Database some big names are currently sponsoring the 2022 World Cup, however, the list of sponsors has dropped since 2014. The idea to move the World Cup to Qatar was met with a huge uproar around the world, amid claims of possible FIFA bribery, corruption, and human rights abuse. The construction of stadiums in the country reportedly caused the death of more than 6,500 migrant workers, while workers were claimed to have had their passports taken away from them.
George Trotter, Associate Analyst in the Thematic Intelligence team at GlobalData, comments: “The World Cup has come under scrutiny, and all of the organizations associated with the competition may face backlash from the public. Of those that are still sponsoring, only four have explicitly addressed the migrant worker story.
“Some companies are being put off sponsoring the tournament due to brand image concerns. For example, Sony ended its sponsorship in 2014, while Hummel, the kit producer for Denmark, has toned down its symbol in protest against human rights violations.”
Sponsors will likely be pressured to make a comment
Following in the footsteps of Hummel’s pointed move, the more companies that speak out, the greater pressure FIFA will be under to directly address these claims.
Trotter continues: “Hummel’s move was relatively small, and one that involved little cost and risk to its business. However, it led to a massive PR story, increasing awareness in both the company and the issues surrounding the tournament. Other sponsors may be reluctant to make a stance against FIFA, but public pressure could yet oblige these sponsors to make a stand. If the major sponsors avoid action, despite the public pressure, they risk real commercial damage.”