As the 2026 World Cup approaches, the absence of a broadcasting deal in India raises intriguing questions about FIFA's approach to its biggest markets. In my opinion, this situation highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the Indian and Chinese markets, and the unique dynamics that drive sports consumption in these regions.
One of India's leading sports lawyers, Nandan Kamath, sheds light on the challenges FIFA faces. Kamath describes India as a 'brute force market', driven by sheer numbers rather than a willingness to pay. This perspective is crucial, as it challenges the traditional subscription-based model that FIFA has relied on.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the insight into the Indian advertising market. Despite good viewing numbers during the Qatar World Cup, Viacom18, the media giant with the rights, failed to turn a profit. This suggests that the Indian market demands a different business model, one that prioritizes advertising revenue over subscriptions.
Kamath's reference to Netflix and Formula One is insightful. Both had to adapt their strategies to reach their desired audiences, and FIFA may need to follow suit. The example of Netflix's subscription cost in India, at just $2.50 per month, is a stark contrast to the premium prices often associated with sports broadcasting.
The lack of competition in the Indian market for broadcasting rights is another hurdle. With only a few players in the game, the fear of missing out (FOMO) that typically drives rights sales is absent. This, coupled with the dominance of cricket, poses a significant challenge for FIFA.
Cricket's advertising-supported model, with frequent breaks, is a far cry from football's continuous play. Kamath's observation that football lacks sufficient breaks to build an advertising market is a critical point. It highlights the need for FIFA to consider alternative revenue streams if it wants to succeed in India.
Time zones and India's aspirations to host the Olympics further complicate matters. The time difference and the country's focus on other sports mean that football is not a priority. India's men's football team has never qualified for a World Cup, which adds another layer of complexity to FIFA's efforts.
In China, the situation is somewhat different. Professor Xu Guoqi, an expert on sports in China, believes that FIFA's greed has been a factor. The time difference, he argues, has never been a significant issue, as Chinese fans are accustomed to staying up late for international tournaments.
The absence of the Chinese men's team from the World Cup is also a consideration. However, with four Chinese companies sponsoring the tournament and a large linear TV reach, FIFA's presence in the Chinese market remains crucial.
What many people don't realize is that sports, like the NBA, have become a source of pure joy for many Chinese fans. This mindset shift is a powerful force that FIFA must consider when negotiating its presence in China.
Ultimately, both India and China present unique challenges and opportunities for FIFA. As Kamath suggests, FIFA may need to be more innovative and adapt its strategies to succeed in these markets. The question remains: Will FIFA be willing to change its approach, or will it continue to face challenges in these lucrative markets?
