New Brand Finance analysis finds FIFA World Cup sponsorship generated USD61 billion in business value and USD7.2 billion in brand value - underscoring the enduring appeal of football's biggest commercial stage
LONDON, 22 July 2026 – Official FIFA World Cup 2026 sponsors analysed by Brand Finance, the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, generated an estimated USD61 billion in enterprise value from approximately USD2.8 billion in sponsorship investment - a 22-fold return. Sponsors also added an estimated USD7.2 billion to their combined brand value over the tournament. The analysis combines Brand Finance's proprietary brand valuation model with sponsorship attribution modelling across 21 official partners.
FIFA Remains the Ultimate Winner
If sponsors emerged as the tournament's biggest commercial beneficiaries, FIFA remains the architect of the model. FIFA is projected to generate record revenues across the 2023-26 commercial cycle[1], while Brand Finance values the FIFA World Cup 2026 brand at USD5.2 billion, with sponsorship revenue accounting for USD1.9 billion - the single largest contributor to that value.
FIFA's commercial success has been underpinned by expansion. The 2026 tournament featured 48 teams and 104 matches across 16 host cities, yet demand from sponsors continued to outpace supply. Rather than diluting the proposition, FIFA has so far succeeded in turning expansion into scarcity.
The Biggest Brand Winners
Lenovo (+4.2%), Kia (+3.5%), Hyundai (+3.4%) and Aramco (+2.3%) recorded the largest projected brand value uplifts of any sponsor - all Tier 1 FIFA Partners with full global rights, and all comfortably ahead of the 1.6% average.
Lenovo's position at the top of the rankings is particularly noteworthy. Having only joined FIFA's top sponsorship tier in 2024, the company has used the World Cup as a platform to accelerate global awareness beyond its traditional markets. Its performance suggests that, for brands still building international recognition, the World Cup remains one of the few marketing assets capable of moving the needle at scale.
Notably, the biggest percentage gainers were Asian and Middle Eastern brands still building global recognition relative to their Western Tier 1 peers. That finding is consistent with broader Brand Finance research showing that Middle Eastern brands have outpaced the rest of the Global 500 in recent years, while Chinese and Asian brands continue to expand their international footprint. For these companies, the World Cup is more than a sponsorship opportunity - it's a shortcut to global brand salience.
Sponsors Punching Above Their Weight
Some Tier 2 sponsors are punching well above their weight. Despite paying substantially less than Tier 1 partners for tournament-only rights, Hisense (+2.1%), DoorDash (+1.7%), and Michelob Ultra (+1.7%) all beat the 1.6% average uplift – proof that sponsorship success is increasingly determined by activation rather than spend. FIFA's revised partnership model has given brands greater flexibility to tailor campaigns by market and audience, allowing lower-tier sponsors to compete more effectively with long-established global partners.
Richard Haigh, Global Managing Director at Brand Finance, said:
"FIFA has built one of the strongest commercial models in sport. It secures sponsorship revenue upfront, regardless of whether an individual sponsor's campaign ultimately succeeds or falls short. Sponsors carry the execution risk, but our analysis suggests many are still generating significant value from the tournament.
"The more interesting question is what happens next. FIFA continues to expand the World Cup and its sponsorship programme, with discussions around a 64-team tournament already emerging. Historically, bigger events have risked diluting sponsor value. FIFA appears to have achieved the opposite: every expansion has strengthened the commercial proposition.
"At some point, sponsors will inevitably ask where the ceiling is. For now, however, the data suggests FIFA remains uniquely capable of monetising the world's most valuable sporting platform."
The Lowest Returns
12 of the 21 official sponsors analysed recorded below-average projected brand value uplift. American Airlines (+0.5%) and Marriott (+0.5%) recorded the lowest uplift of any sponsor in the analysis across all tiers, a pattern that echoes wider reports of softer-than-expected hotel and travel demand across host cities this tournament, despite the influx of fans. As two of the world's most established travel brands, both companies may also have had less headroom for incremental gains than sponsors still building international awareness.
Marriott's relatively modest uplift highlights an important limitation of global sponsorship: highly established brands with broad international recognition often have less headroom for measurable gains than challenger brands seeking to build awareness.
Even among FIFA's most prized partners, returns aren't universal. Visa recorded the lowest percentage brand value uplift of any Tier 1 sponsor, followed by Adidas.
Scott Moore, Head of Sport Services, Brand Finance said:
“Visa’s limited uplift is not through a failure of activation, but because a brand already this dominant in global sport has little headroom left to grow. The real return isn't uplift, it's exclusivity - as long as Visa is there, Mastercard can't be.”
This logic extends to other sponsors. Adidas’ long association with football has historically kept Nike on the sidelines, while Coca-Cola's sponsorship portfolio has often served the same purpose against Pepsi. In sponsorship, preventing a competitor from owning the stage can be as valuable as any measurable uplift in awareness or consideration.
[1] https://inside.fifa.com/official-documents/annual-report/2024/financials/revised-2023-2026-budget
- ENDS -
Table 1 - Sponsor brands' estimated brand value uplift after FIFA World Cup 2026, Brand Finance
| Rank | Brand | Brand Value as of 1 January 2026 (USDm) | Estimated Brand Value Uplift (USDm) | % Uplift |
| 1 | Lenovo | 6,988 | 295 | 4.2% |
| 2 | Kia | 10,413 | 365 | 3.5% |
| 3 | Hyundai | 24,820 | 836 | 3.4% |
| 4 | Aramco | 47,314 | 1,080 | 2.3% |
| 5 | Hisense | 885 | 19 | 2.1% |
| 6 | DoorDash | 3,807 | 65 | 1.7% |
| 7 | Michelob Ultra | 3,738 | 63 | 1.7% |
| 8 | Budweiser | 7,701 | 130 | 1.7% |
| 9 | Lay's | 15,095 | 254 | 1.7% |
| 10 | Coca-Cola | 46,084 | 733 | 1.6% |
| 11 | Verizon | 72,958 | 1,028 | 1.4% |
| 12 | Bank of America | 47,606 | 631 | 1.3% |
| 13 | adidas | 18,894 | 232 | 1.2% |
| 14 | Visa | 44,002 | 532 | 1.2% |
| 15 | Mengniu | 5,965 | 59 | 1.0% |
| 16 | Airbnb | 5,938 | 57 | 1.0% |
| 17 | McDonald's | 42,640 | 309 | 0.7% |
| 18 | Globant | 1,249 | 7 | 0.6% |
| 19 | Home Depot | 73,436 | 402 | 0.5% |
| 20 | American Airlines | 8,548 | 43 | 0.5% |
| 21 | Marriott | 4,451 | 20 | 0.5% |
| = $7.2 billion | ||||
Table 2 - Sponsor brands' estimated contribution to enterprise value after FIFA World Cup 2026, Brand Finance
| Rank | Brand | Estimated Contribution to Enterprise Value (USDm) | % Uplift |
| 1 | Lenovo | 769 | 4.2% |
| 2 | Kia | 669 | 3.5% |
| 3 | Hyundai | 4,788 | 3.4% |
| 4 | Aramco | 26,142 | 2.3% |
| 5 | Hisense | 35 | 2.1% |
| 6 | DoorDash | 932 | 1.7% |
| 7 | Michelob Ultra | 244 | 1.7% |
| 8 | Budweiser | 361 | 1.7% |
| 9 | Lay's | 675 | 1.7% |
| 10 | Coca-Cola | 3,135 | 1.6% |
| 11 | Verizon | 4,519 | 1.4% |
| 12 | Bank of America | 4,880 | 1.3% |
| 13 | adidas | 446 | 1.2% |
| 14 | Visa | 7,780 | 1.2% |
| 15 | Mengniu | 95 | 1.0% |
| 16 | Airbnb | 655 | 1.0% |
| 17 | McDonald's | 2,002 | 0.7% |
| 18 | Globant | 20 | 0.6% |
| 19 | Home Depot | 2,315 | 0.5% |
| 20 | American Airlines | 188 | 0.5% |
| 21 | Marriott | 90 | 0.5% |
| =$61 billion |
Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations make strategic decisions.
Headquartered in London, Brand Finance operates in over 25 countries. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 6,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.
Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on 6,000 brands, surveying more than 175,000 respondents across 41 countries and 31 industry sectors. By combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database — the largest brand value database in the world — Brand Finance equips ambitious brand leaders with the data, analytics, and the strategic guidance they need to enhance brand and business value.
In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics, compliant with ISO 20671.
Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm and a committed leader in the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.
Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.
Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.
Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.
Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.
The steps in this process are as follows:
1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.
Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.
The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
