The FIFA World Cup 2026 is just weeks away, but behind the scale of a 48-team tournament spread across three countries sits a quieter issue that has nothing to do with football. For the first time in decades, a large number of participating nations are heading into a World Cup knowing that part of their earnings could be lost to tax.At the heart of the issue is the fact that, while FIFA itself retains tax-exempt status in the United States, a position it has held since the 1994 World Cup, it has not been able to secure the same blanket exemption for the 48 participating national associations. That gap, combined with the structure of US tax law and the uneven network of international tax treaties, means the financial impact will not be shared equally. It is already clear that more than half the field, particularly non-European nations, could face significantly higher costs.
Why this World Cup is different from previous editions
In previous tournaments, host governments have typically granted tax exemptions to all participating teams. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar is the most recent example, where all 32 national associations were allowed to operate without paying local taxes on their tournament earnings. That has not happened this time in the United States. According to reporting from The Guardian, FIFA was unable to negotiate a comprehensive exemption with the US government. As a result, national associations will now be subject to a mix of federal, state and city taxes on income generated during the tournament.
The FIFA World Cup Trophy is displayed during the FIFA World Cup 2026 playoff draw in Zurich, Switzerland, Thursday, Nov. 20, 2025. (Claudio Thoma/Keystone via AP)
Under US law, athletes and performers are required to pay tax on earnings made while working in the country. That principle applies directly to footballers participating in the World Cup. Backroom staff and coaches fall into a slightly different category depending on tax treaties, but they are still part of the wider financial equation.
The treaty divide, why some countries are protected and others are not
The biggest dividing line runs through something called a double taxation agreement, or DTA. These are bilateral treaties between countries that prevent individuals or organisations from being taxed twice on the same income. Out of the 48 teams in the 2026 World Cup, only 18 come from countries that have a DTA in place with the United States. Those agreements largely cover European nations, alongside the co-hosts Canada and Mexico, and a small number of others such as Australia, Egypt, Morocco and South Africa. For those countries, the burden is significantly reduced because their delegations are exempt from certain federal taxes. For the remaining 30 nations, many of them from smaller football economies, there is no such protection. That imbalance is at the heart of the issue. As tax consultant Oriana Morrison, who has advised both the Portuguese and Brazilian federations, put it in comments reported by The Guardian: teams from countries with tax treaties “will have much lower costs than smaller countries such as Curaçao and Haiti.” Countries like Curaçao and Cape Verde, both making their World Cup debuts, could end up with larger tax liabilities than wealthier European federations such as England, France or Germany simply because of where they are based.
How the tax actually applies, and who pays what
The detail becomes more complex when broken down, because players are always taxable in the United States on income earned there, regardless of any tax treaties. This means match fees, bonuses, and commercial earnings linked to the tournament all fall within the US tax system. Coaches and staff can be treated differently depending on treaty coverage. For example, Thomas Tuchel, managing England, would typically only pay tax in the United Kingdom due to treaty protection. In contrast, Carlo Ancelotti, currently leading Brazil, is expected to face taxation both in Brazil and in the US because Brazil does not have a DTA with the United States.
Brazil manager Carlo Ancelotti during a press conference at the Emirates Stadium, London, Friday, Nov. 14, 2025. (John Walton/PA via AP)
For high earners, the numbers are significant. The US federal income tax rate for top brackets is around 37%, while corporate tax sits at roughly 21%. On top of that, state-level taxes vary widely depending on where matches are played. Florida, for example, has no state income tax, while New Jersey, which will host the final at MetLife Stadium, can reach 10.75%, and California, where Los Angeles and San Francisco host games, goes as high as 13.3%. Those variations mean the exact tax bill for each team will depend not only on their earnings, but also on where their matches are scheduled.
The cost pressure is not just tax, it is the entire financial model
Even without the tax issue, several federations were already concerned about costs. FIFA has set a fixed operational budget of $1.5 million per team for the tournament. That budget includes a daily allowance for each delegation member, which has been reduced to $600, down from $850 at the 2022 World Cup. That reduction comes despite significantly higher travel, accommodation and logistical costs in the United States compared to Qatar. When combined with potential tax liabilities, the margins become tight, especially for smaller associations. As Morrison noted, the effect is not just accounting. For smaller federations, World Cup participation can represent a financial windfall that supports domestic football development. Losing a portion of that income to tax changes what the tournament means economically. “It’s going to cost most non-European countries a lot of money to go to the World Cup,” she said, adding that funds which could have supported local football “are going to stay in the US.”
Geography adds another layer of complexity
The tournament is spread across three countries, but the United States will host the majority of matches, 78 out of 104, including every game from the quarter-finals onward. That matters because Canada and Mexico have both granted full tax exemptions to participating teams. Any matches played in those countries will carry a lighter financial burden. Once teams move into the later knockout rounds, however, they will inevitably play in the US, where the tax exposure increases.
From l-r., FIFA President Gianni Infantino takes a selfie with President Donald Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during the draw for the 2026 soccer World Cup at the Kennedy Center in Washington, Friday, Dec. 5, 2025.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
This uneven geography creates a situation where two teams at the same tournament could face very different financial outcomes depending on where their matches are staged and how far they progress.
FIFA’s response, and what could change
FIFA has not publicly detailed a full solution, but sources indicate the governing body is working with national associations to manage the tax implications and provide guidance. There is also movement on the revenue side. Reports from late April suggest FIFA has agreed in principle to increase prize money and participation fees for the 2026 tournament, with final approval expected at a FIFA Council meeting in Vancouver. That adjustment is seen as a response to concerns first raised earlier in the year that teams could end up losing money despite participating in the sport’s biggest event.
The broader picture
On paper, the expansion to 48 teams was meant to make the World Cup more inclusive. Financially, it has introduced a layer of inequality that depends less on performance and more on tax treaties and geography. For wealthier European nations with established agreements, the impact is manageable. For smaller countries without those protections, the difference could be substantial, enough to turn what should be a rare financial boost into a more complicated calculation.
