FIFA, the World Cup, and the bill that almost no one talks about

By MAF. Gabriela Páez

Tax Manager – EAS LATAM

The World Cup is over. For several weeks, matches brought offices, family gatherings, and WhatsApp groups to a standstill. As always, football allowed millions of people to share joys, disappointments, and conversations that went far beyond what was happening on the pitch.

But beyond the spectacle, there is a question that is rarely asked: what fiscal sacrifice do countries make in order to organize a tournament of this magnitude?

The answer leads us to the tax exemptions that FIFA usually requests as part of its candidacy processes.

What FIFA is asking for

During the bidding process for the 2026 World Cup, FIFA requested a series of guarantees from interested countries. Among them was one specifically related to taxes and currency management.

The so-called Government Guarantee No. 3 required a general exemption for FIFA, the World Cup organizing body and its subsidiaries, from the designation of the host countries until December 31, 2028.

The main exception allowed for the taxation of ticket sales to third parties through VAT, sales tax, or a similar levy, but with a maximum rate of 10%. Furthermore, no other taxes could be imposed on the income or profits generated by those sales.

But the benefits weren't just for FIFA.

The document also included facilities, albeit more limited, for host associations, confederations, federations, the international signal producer, suppliers, contractors and certain people linked to the tournament.

For contractors, for example, there could be benefits related to the import, export, and transport of goods and services needed for the World Cup. However, FIFA clarified that these measures had to be limited to activities directly related to the competition. It wasn't about exempting all suppliers' profits or the regular wages of local workers.

Is this BEPS?

It is worth making a clarification here.

When the OECD talks about BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting), it usually refers to strategies used by multinational companies to take advantage of gaps or differences between tax systems and artificially shift their profits to jurisdictions with little or no taxation.

From that perspective, an exemption expressly granted by a State for a specific event does not, in itself, constitute a BEPS practice.

However, that does not mean there is no fiscal effect.

Ultimately, when a country grants an exemption, it is forgoing revenue that it could have collected under its ordinary rules. There is a broad erosion of the tax base, though not necessarily in the technical sense used by the OECD to define BEPS.

Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to whether the exemption was legal.

The question is different: was it justified? Did it have clear limits? Did it generate benefits that could actually be demonstrated?

The question that remains for the OECD

When reviewing the BEPS framework, we did not find a specific rule addressing exemptions granted for World Cups or other mega sporting events.

However, the OECD's general position on tax incentives does offer useful criteria for analyzing these types of situations.

Their guide on tax incentives recommends evaluating the costs and benefits of these measures beforehand, establishing measurable objectives, defining a specific duration, and ensuring transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, he insists on something fundamental: measuring results.

How much revenue did the country lose? Who benefited from the tax break? Was employment created? Was there additional investment? Did economic activity actually increase?

And there, probably, are 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.

Reflection

For Costa Rica and most Central American countries, hosting a FIFA Men's World Cup is, at least today, an unrealistic possibility due to the investments required in infrastructure, transportation, security, and logistics.

However, the debate remains relevant. Beyond football, the discussion leads us to a question that applies to any tax incentive: when a state forgoes tax revenue to attract economic activity, how does it determine whether it actually gained anything in return?

The real discussion is not whether the exemption was legal.

The real discussion is whether the economic and social benefits justified the fiscal cost assumed.

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).