The expansion by FIFA was widely seen as a strategic move by the governing body to broaden global participation, bringing in more nations from Africa, Asia, and smaller footballing regions. The expectation was that countries such as India and China, with a combined population exceeding 2.7 billion, would become central pillars of global viewership growth. Instead, the reality unfolding just weeks before the tournament is far more complicated.
At the heart of the issue is a lack of finalized broadcasting agreements in both countries, despite FIFA initially pricing the rights at premium levels. Reports suggest that the organization had once valued the tournament’s broadcast package for New Delhi and Beijing at between $100 million and $300 million. However, as negotiations dragged on, those figures have been steadily revised downward.
In India, the situation has narrowed significantly. The current leading bid is reportedly around $20 million from JioStar, while FIFA’s asking price has fallen to approximately $35 million. This marks a dramatic shift compared to previous cycles: Sony paid about $90 million for the 2014 and 2018 tournaments, while Viacom18 secured rights for the 2022 World Cup for roughly $62 million.
On the surface, the reduced valuations appear surprising, especially given football’s global popularity. Yet industry insiders argue that structural changes in the media landscape are playing a decisive role. One key factor is the consolidation of broadcasters in India. Where there were once multiple aggressive bidders competing for premium sports content, the market has narrowed significantly.
As Shaji Prabhakaran, a member of the Asian Football Confederation executive committee and former general secretary of the All India Football Federation, explained, timing is often cited but not decisive.
“The timing can be used as an excuse,” he said. “The World Cup games are on similar times to Uefa Champions League games and Indians watch those and this is not the first World Cup to be on at this time and India has watched those too.”
Instead, he points to reduced competition among broadcasters and the overwhelming dominance of cricket in India’s sports economy. Even major football properties struggle to compete with the Indian Premier League, which remains the country’s premier sporting product. Recent reports also suggest a decline in IPL viewership—down approximately 26% this season—raising further caution among broadcasters about large-scale investments in non-cricket properties.
“The World Cup games are on similar times to Uefa Champions League games and Indians watch those and this is not the first World Cup to be on at this time and India has watched those too,” Prabhakaran reiterated, emphasizing that scheduling alone does not explain the impasse.
He further noted that market consolidation has changed bidding behaviour: “There is no real competition in the Indian sports broadcasting market, which makes it more difficult for Fifa, and in what market there is, cricket is the primary sport and the main focus.”
Currency depreciation has also added pressure. The Indian rupee has weakened significantly against the US dollar over the past decade, shifting from around 54 per dollar in 2013 to approximately 95 today. This alone has made earlier spending levels far more difficult to justify for broadcasters.
A similar uncertainty is playing out in China, where FIFA’s expectations are significantly higher due to the market’s global digital reach. According to reporting by Reuters, China accounted for 17.7% of global linear TV reach during the 2022 World Cup and nearly half of digital and social media engagement.
Despite this, negotiations with China Central Television (CCTV)—the traditional broadcaster of the World Cup in China—have stalled. Reports suggest CCTV’s budget is far below FIFA’s expectations, with estimates ranging between $60 million and $80 million, compared to FIFA’s asking price of $120 million to $300 million.
Time zone differences also complicate matters, with Beijing being 12 hours ahead of New York, reducing prime-time advertising appeal. In addition, the continued absence of China’s men’s national team from major tournaments has limited domestic excitement around the competition.
Still, there is optimism that a deal may be reached soon, particularly as FIFA has reportedly dispatched senior representatives to Beijing to accelerate talks. Industry observers believe negotiations could conclude within weeks.
Meanwhile, social media sentiment in China has largely supported broadcaster caution, with many users arguing that football fans increasingly rely on alternative digital platforms to access international sports content.
The broader concern for FIFA, led by president Gianni Infantino, is the precedent these negotiations may set. If major markets with enormous populations are able to delay or negotiate steep discounts, it could weaken the organization’s global media strategy in the long term.
As Prabhakaran summarized the dilemma, “There always has to be a balance. The value of the product has to be protected or there can be consequences.”
Yet the short-term reality remains unresolved: securing full broadcast coverage in two countries that together represent more than a third of the world’s population is not just a commercial issue, but a strategic one for FIFA’s global ambitions.