Agreed, the tickets to the tournament this year were just outrageously priced. Football is historically a working class sport, but $1,000 to watch a team like DR Congo in the group stage is next level criminality. And it's only going to get worse from here.
FIFA looked at this World Cup as an experiment. They wanted to see whether turning the monetization knob all the way to 11 would encounter significant resistance or whether fans would still watch/attend. The US, with its plethora of expensive stadiums and lax regulatory environment for price gouging compared to Europe, was the perfect testing environment. They upped the number of teams to 48 to get more games, used dynamic ticket pricing, added hydration breaks for more commercials in markets that would allow it and added a few other income streams. All this more than doubled their profits because, and this is the important part going forward, fans didn’t push back. They complained, but the still came/watched.
So this will now be the new norm. Host countries will be ones where laws don’t prohibit gouging fans. They’ll come up with creative solutions to meet the rotation requirement like the upcoming host a couple games in South America farce that’s allowing them to go to Saudi Arabia after that. They’ll continue to push the boundaries of decency until they get sufficient pushback.
There was pushback if you look at per-team attendance situations, but there's more than enough people living in the US making a ton of money that can easily afford the crazy prices. It did lower how many people from some big football nations decide to follow their team around. Not just due to the prices, but the travel distances. Just consider the practical logistics for, say, Spain's run. 2 games in Atlanta (Cabo verde and Saudi Arabia), then go play Uruguay in Guadalajara, then Austria in SoFi/L.A, then Portugal in the Dallas metro, back to SoFi for Belgium, again to Arlington for France, and New Jersey for Argentina: That's a lot of travel and hotel changing, because there's no reasonable way to go to a game and come back in the same day.
For all the problems in Qatar's world cup, a fan could watch two games a day, live,because the stadiums were that close. The 2026 bid maximized distances about as much as one could, vs, say, at least limit it all to the west coast, which would still be a lot by normal standards, bout would mean fewer huge metros where you could dip your toe in and ask for a ton of money, as there'd be very few games there.
And again, we are talking a team that won, and was among the favorites to win from day 1, just not being able to fill 1/3rd of the stadium, or anything close.
There is no right and wrong here. Watching a bunch of guys kick a ball around is a completely optional activity. The stadium can accommodate x people, and x+n people want to watch the game.
Therefore, someone has to be left out. That can be decided multiple ways, but there is no philosophical reason that money being the deciding factor is wrong. We use that mechanism for almost everything else in the world. It's the worst system...except for all the others.
If the problem is the size of the wealth gap between people, that's wholly unrelated to sports game tickets, and in the purview of government policy.
You see it in England all the time where organized fan groups do push back and protest ending up with the owners walking back the suggested ticket increases.
England is bizarre. Away tickets in the premiership are capped at £30 but I was routinely paying £48 in the championship and £36 in league 1 (second and third leagues)
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but I said before any of this mess, and just dealing with the ticket purchasing experience, that this would be the last World Cup I attend.
It’s sad though. The World Cup, while imperfect, remains an event that brings the world together. We don’t have many of those left.
Not as much as the popular culture makes out. Association football (as opposed to folk football) was codified in English private schools such as Uppingham, and at Cambridge University. Working class people played very different forms of football at the time, including carrying the ball etc. Association football was the more genteel form of the game. It used to be the main sport at Eton College, not rugby.
While true, it’s not a refutation at all. Look at the attendance makeup of every English club in the last 100 years, listen to the stories of the people who grew up supporting their local team, the young boys that grew up playing and became local or national heroes. That tells you where the soul of football lives.
I've been hearing this "football is working class" thing all my life. Honestly, depending on where you are in the UK, you will see working class people participating in rugby league (Northern England), rugby union (South Wales, West Country, Scottish Borders), hurling, Gaelic football (both NI), shinty (the Highlands), cricket (Yorkshire and one or two other places), basketball, boxing and all the rest. Apart from rugby league, none of these games is playing the "prolier than thou" card.
Several of those games are cheaper to go and watch. In fact, it's cheaper to go to the opera or ballet than the football as someone pointed out to me, even though those have a different image. Season tickets to major clubs are extortionate. (Yes, that includes the SPL.) It isn't as working class as it makes out, other than the fact anyone can play it in the park. (But the same is true of other sports.)
Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football (which looked more like rugby) and has basically covered up its posh origins. The "football" our ancestors played seven hundred years ago has almost no resemblance to soccer.
Literally none of the things you said refute my statement
> depending on where you are in the UK,
I specifically referred to English clubs. The fact that other home nations prefer different sports has no bearing on English culture. The fact that multiple sports are considered working class has no bearing on the fact that football is one of those sports.
> Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football
Irrelevant. My frame of reference was working class people over the last century. What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.
I don't live in England or follow any English football clubs.
> What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.
Maybe not yours. But what is association football today is actually the gentrified code, which was only taken up by the working class later on. Most Working class football was rougher and more like rugby, gridiron and Gaelic, not soccer. But if you read most soccer histories, you'd think it was a smooth transition between the two.
It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports. I've seen that so many times.
Even in the early twentieth century, there were plenty of "gentleman amateur" football clubs that were part of a much older tradition.
So why do you continue to talk about it? I know the history and it’s not relevant to my argument.
> It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports.
I’m not doing that, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
> there were plenty of "gentleman amateur"
This is the only part that’s relevant. It’s not a rebuttal because a small number of clubs doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority were being supported as part of a working class community.
This claim that football has always been the "people's game" is in the end sanctimonious romantic nonsense. It's been run for profit all my lifetime, and is barely unaffordable for many people. SPL clubs are not cheap for season tickets either. A Hearts season ticket was at one point dearer than a Man U one. Which is ridiculous. I suppose the Jambos were desperate for the money.
If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community" that way. But most major clubs consist of eleven millionaires (plus reserves) controlled by a billionaire. Nowadays the players and the owners have little connection to whichever town they are based in. Nowadays, many of the fans of English clubs, and even the Old Firm, have never lived in (or near) the cities the clubs based in. They may have never even lived in the UK or the same continent. Man U is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of such fans of other such major teams.
Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types. Profit was a motive even then but not to the modern day levels where the jerseys change every other month to milk the fan base.
If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.
Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject. Other sports are available. Some of them are a lot more entertaining too.
> This claim that football has always been the "people's game" is in the end sanctimonious romantic nonsense.
I never said that.
> If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community"
I never said that though it’s true, it’s not necessary for my argument.
> Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types.
True but irrelevant to my argument.
> If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.
Modern day Premier League attendance is a mix, depends on the club and it’s harder to assess because the class makeup of the UK has changed a lot in the past 50 years.
> Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject.
You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.
> You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.
I know far more about the early history of association football than you do, pal. I was good friends with Professor Grant Jarvie's parents for years, before they passed away. Prof. Jarvie is the premier authority on sports history in Scotland. I learnt far more off him than I ever would off you, and we've discussed early soccer together. I've also researched some of these things personally. By research, I mean looking at original physical documents in the National Library of Scotland, not Google and Wikipedia.
If all you have to bring to the table is personal abuse, then that is on you, not me.
