Aug 14, 2026
By Gabriela Páez
Every World Cup brings soccer back to the center of family, workplace, and media conversations. For several weeks, matches slow office routines, fill WhatsApp groups, and spark debates that go far beyond what happens on the field.
Yet behind the spectacle, one question is rarely asked: what fiscal sacrifice do countries make to host a tournament of this scale?
The answer points to the tax exemptions FIFA typically requests as part of its bidding processes.
What FIFA asks for
During the bidding process for the 2026 World Cup, FIFA requested a series of guarantees from interested countries. One of them dealt specifically with taxes and currency matters.
Government Guarantee No. 3 required a broad exemption for FIFA, the World Cup organizing entity, and their subsidiaries, covering the period from the designation of the host countries through December 31, 2028.
The main exception allowed ticket sales to third parties to be subject to VAT, sales tax, or a similar levy, but only up to a maximum rate of 10%. In addition, no other taxes could be imposed on the income or profits generated by those sales.
The benefits, however, were not limited to FIFA.
The document also provided more limited relief for host associations, confederations, federations, the international broadcast producer, suppliers, contractors, and certain individuals connected with the tournament.
For contractors, for example, benefits could apply to the import, export, and transportation of goods and services required for the World Cup. FIFA made clear, however, that these measures had to be limited to activities directly related to the competition. They were not intended to exempt all supplier profits or the ordinary wages of local workers.
Is this BEPS?
A clarification is important here.
When the OECD refers to BEPS, or Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, it is generally referring to strategies used by multinational companies to exploit gaps or mismatches between tax systems and artificially shift profits to low- or no-tax jurisdictions.
From that standpoint, an exemption expressly granted by a State for a specific event does not, in itself, constitute a BEPS practice.
That does not mean, however, that there is no fiscal impact.
When a country grants an exemption, it gives up revenue that, under its ordinary rules, it could otherwise have collected. In that broader sense, there is an erosion of the tax base, even if not necessarily in the technical sense used by the OECD to define BEPS.
For that reason, the discussion should not be limited to whether the exemption was legal. The more relevant questions are whether it was justified, whether it had clear limits, and whether the benefits it promised could actually be demonstrated.
The question remaining for the OECD
A review of the BEPS framework does not reveal a specific rule aimed at exemptions granted for World Cups or other major sporting events.
Still, the OECD’s broader position on tax incentives offers useful criteria for examining these arrangements. Its guidance recommends assessing costs and benefits in advance, setting measurable objectives, defining a specific duration, and ensuring transparency and accountability.
It also emphasizes something essential: results must be measured.
How much revenue did the country forgo? Who used the benefit? Was employment created? Was there additional investment? Did economic activity actually increase?
These are likely the most important questions. A World Cup can generate tourism, consumption, investment, and international exposure. But expectations should not replace a subsequent, public, and independent evaluation.
For Costa Rica and most Central American countries, hosting a men’s FIFA World Cup is, at least today, an unrealistic prospect given the investments required in infrastructure, transportation, security, and logistics.
Even so, the debate remains relevant. Beyond soccer, it raises a question that applies to any tax incentive: when a State gives up tax revenue to attract economic activity, how does it determine whether it truly received something in return?
The central issue is not merely whether the exemption was legal. It is whether the economic and social benefits justified the fiscal cost assumed.
Bibliographic references
FIFA. 2026 FIFA World Cup Bidding Process – Government Guarantees.
OECD. Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS).
OECD. A Practical Guide to Investment Tax Incentives (2026).
OECD. Tourism Trends and Policies (2026).