undefined

points

[-]

I didn't realize the commercial-block-sized "hydration breaks" were that profitable.

For a second, I thought the Americanization[1] of fùtbol would be done gradually and no one would complain as we'd be slowly boiled. I'm glad the corrupt bastards got greedy/impatient and took a big swing.

1. Sports primarily as a business, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters third, and then lastly, fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.

by glitchc1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Per-ticket prices were a big factor too. By turning it into an open bidding process, every ticket sold at close to its market value, and many above that.

by skywhopper24 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

And they took a 15% commission on both sides of every aftermarket transaction. I’ve never seen such an overtly avaricious “marketplace”.

by tremon4 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Off in the distance, an app store rings its 30% bell.

by haunter2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The difference that FIFA ran the whole tournament now. There was no Local Organizing Committee (LOC) like with every single previous event.

by lossolo1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.

The $15 billion figure is for FIFA's ENTIRE 2023-2026 revenue cycle, so not just this World Cup. But the obvious "low-hanging fruit" was making the tournamenta lot larger (104 matches instead of Qatar's 64), so a lot more tickets, hospitality sales, ads etc

Also two 3 minute hydration breaks per match, giving broadcasters additional advertising windows.

That's your "optimization".