FIFA will distribute a record €620 million at the 2026 World Cup

FIFA’s decision to distribute around €620 million across the 48 teams at the 2026 World Cup confirms a substantial expansion of the tournament’s financial scale, reflecting both the new format and FIFA’s ambition to make the event more lucrative for a wider range of participants.

With the finals expanding to 48 nations for the first time, the headline figure is designed to ensure that every qualified federation receives a meaningful baseline payment, while still preserving large performance related rewards for those who progress deep into the competition.

Under the breakdown approved by the FIFA Council in Doha, €558 million will be allocated as prize money tied to final standings. The minimum amount each nation will receive is around €9 million, a threshold that is particularly significant for federations outside the traditional elite. For many associations, a guaranteed payout of this level can cover several years of technical development budgets, coaching education, national team logistics, and facility upgrades. It also reduces the financial risk of qualification, since the costs of travel, staging preparation camps, and arranging high level friendlies can be substantial, especially when competing across multiple continents.

At the top end, the winners will earn €42.5 million, with €28 million for the runners up, €25 million for third place, and €23 million for fourth. Beyond the podium, the tiered structure continues with €16 million for fifth to eighth, about €13 million for ninth to 16th, €9.5 million for 17th to 32nd, and €7.5 million for 33rd to 48th. This distribution aligns with a central objective of the 48 team model: to keep qualification attractive to more nations and to provide a stronger financial incentive even for teams that do not reach the latter stages.

A key supporting measure is the additional €1.3 million per participant earmarked to fund preparation costs. This matters because a larger World Cup does not only increase prize money; it also increases the operational complexity for teams that qualify. Travel distances will be significant across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and national teams will be under pressure to run longer camps, increase staff capacity, and invest in sports science and recovery planning. The preparation allocation is intended to reduce the chance that less wealthy federations are forced to compromise performance due to budget constraints.

The decision also signals FIFA’s confidence in the commercial growth of the 2026 tournament. A World Cup hosted across three countries, with more matches and more teams, expands inventory for broadcasters and sponsors, increases ticketing opportunities, and lengthens the period in which the event dominates the sporting calendar. In that environment, FIFA’s prize pool becomes not only a reward mechanism but also a marketing statement that reinforces the World Cup’s status as the financial peak of international football.

For national associations, the implications extend beyond the men’s senior team. World Cup income often flows into broader federation priorities, including youth national teams, women’s programs, refereeing development, regional competitions, and infrastructure. In federations with fewer commercial resources, World Cup distributions can be transformative, allowing long delayed projects to move forward. At the same time, the way funds are managed and audited becomes crucial, since one of the recurring challenges in global football is ensuring that windfalls are translated into sustainable improvements rather than short term spending.

Gianni Infantino has positioned the World Cup as a vehicle for wider financial contribution to football globally, and the Doha meeting reinforced that narrative with the approval of an infrastructure recovery fund. According to the plan, the fund is intended to support regions affected by conflict, with Palestine cited among the beneficiaries. The initiative fits within FIFA’s broader messaging around football as a unifying force, but it also raises practical questions that FIFA will need to address clearly: how projects are selected, how money is disbursed, how safety and access are assessed, and how independent oversight is structured to ensure funds reach intended recipients and produce measurable outcomes.

FIFA has indicated that this instrument will be open to third party contributions and subject to strict supervision, and that it will complement existing mechanisms such as FIFA Forward. That distinction matters, because FIFA Forward is designed as a structured development program with defined eligibility and reporting requirements, whereas conflict related recovery funding can involve greater operational risk, political sensitivity, and difficulties in verification. If FIFA wants this fund to be credible, transparency on governance, auditing standards, and project reporting will be essential.

The timing also connects to Infantino’s earlier comments at a peace summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, where he spoke about creating mechanisms to support areas impacted by conflict. In practice, this suggests FIFA is seeking a more formal framework for targeted assistance, rather than relying solely on ad hoc grants. If implemented effectively, it could become a model for rapid support to football infrastructure in crisis environments, while still maintaining accountability standards expected of a global governing body.

Taken together, the prize distribution and the new recovery fund highlight FIFA’s dual messaging for the 2026 cycle: increased competitive rewards for more teams, and a broader claim that the World Cup’s revenues can generate tangible benefits beyond the tournament itself. The real test will be execution, both in how the money is delivered and in whether the increased payments translate into long term football development across a wider set of nations.