World Cup market in India and China: 'FIFA got greedy'

Just weeks from the start of the 2026 World Cup, both India and China remain without broadcasting deals. Talks are reportedly ongoing, with time zones and cost expectations clear stumbling blocks, but there is also a feeling that FIFA has misunderstood its two biggest markets.

"The Indian market is a sort of a brute force market," Nandan Kamath, one of India's leading sports lawyer and a key figure in the country's sports policy, told DW. "It's the numbers rather than the willingness."

Broadcasters in India relie far more on advertising revenue than subscriptions. Viewing numbers for the tournament in Qatar were good, but they did not lead to a profit for Viacom18, the Indian media giant who owned the rights. On top of that, the premium subscriber base for most services is just too small to generate a major profit. In order for FIFA to reach the scale it wants, it will likely have to reduce its expectations.

"Everyone has had to rationalize subscriptions to get scale," Kamath said, before referencing Netflix and Formula One. Both had to change their original ideas to reach the desired audience. For example, a Netflix subscription can now cost 199 rupees a month (roughly $2.50), while F1 offers a season pass for 899 rupees ($10).

Not a competitive market

"I don't know if we've really seen the broadcast meet the market. Normally these rights are sold where there's highly competitive people dealing with FOMO [fear of missing out], and that isn't here right now," Kamath said.

With only JioStar (which absorbed Viacom18 after the Reliance-Disney merger in 2024) and Sony in the running, a competitive market for rights isn't there. And then there's cricket.

"India is a sports market that has grown up on cricket," said Kamath. "Without question, the FIFA World Cup would not be in the top two rights that would get sold in India; those would be IPL and ICC rights. And it's a very unique thing for any market to not even be in the top two."

If FIFA wants to break into the top two, it must look harder at the landscape.

"Cricket is the perfect advertising-supported sport, where it breaks every three or four minutes. And that is just so different from football," Kamath explained. "I don't think there's enough breaks in play to really build a convincing advertising market."

Time and place a factor

Time zones are also a factor. Most the games will kick off when India is asleep. Four years ago in Qatar, the time difference to India was just two and a half hours. There's also the country's clear desire to host the Olympics, which pushes football further down the priority list. It also doesn't help that India's men's football team have never played at a World Cup before, and were knocked out in the second round of qualifying for this edition.

"There is this notion that cricket is king, the Olympics is the next aspiration, and FIFA is very much an entertainment product," Kamath said. "The bridge between participatory football, hosting ambition, and viewing has too many barriers at this point in time."

Ultimately, Kamath feels a deal will follow, but that FIFA will have to be more innovative in the future if they are to really flourish in the Indian market.

"It could be virtual advertising, or better integration of Indian sponsors," Kamath said. "You might need to find new models to meet this, but I don't see the willingness to subscribe and pay a huge amount more changing in four years or eight."

FIFA greed a problem in China?

"China, basically, has always been obsessed with the game," Professor Xu Guoqi at the University of Hong Kong told DW. "So in the past, even if the Chinese men had not qualified, the Chinese Central TV (CCTV) was always broadcasting."

Guoqi, who is an expert in the role of sports in China and has authored books about the importance of sport in the country, feels that part of the problem is FIFA's inability to understand the region. Much like in India, the reported difference between FIFA and local broadcasters is enormous, despite FIFA having reportedly twice reduced its asking price. 

"Time difference is not really an issue because historically speaking, with the exception of Qatar recently, it's always in another place, so we all have to stay up very late," Guoqi said. "I think FIFA got greedy. It's a business deal, right? For FIFA, if Chinese men don't watch the game that's a big loss to them."

Given that, according to FIFA, almost 20% of linear TV reach in Qatar came from CCTV, it is understandable why football's governing body cannot afford to be absent in the Chinese market. Guoqi believes a deal will be made, simply because there is too much at stake for both sides.

"I think FIFA should think, not just squeeze. I think FIFA should think twice and that CCTV should think twice, because remember if you don't broadcast that some Chinese may just illegally watch the game from Hong Kong or elsewhere."

The absence of the men's team - who fell in the third round of qualifying and have only been at one World Cup (2002) before - appears less decisive for the Chinese market currently. This is in part because there are still four Chinese companies who are sponsoring the tournament, but also because watching a World Cup remains a source of joy for many.

"In 1999 when NATO bombed a Chinese embassy, the Chinese government decided to cancel the broadcasting of NBA games," said Guoqi, referencing work from his book 'Olympic Dreams: China and Sports'.

"The Chinese youngsters denounced Americans in front of the embassy during the daytime, and in the evening, they denounced CCTV with the argument, 'We hate American imperialism, but we love the NBA.' The NBA belongs to the world. That tells you something about that new Chinese mindset, because it's pure joy for them, basketball or football."

Edited by: Janek Speight