Just over a month away from the start of the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the quadrennial football festival might be out of reach for Chinese audiences this year.
FIFA and China Central Television (CCTV) have held multiple rounds of negotiations, but talks have now reached a deadlock. Although FIFA has reduced its initial asking price from $250 million to between $120 million and $150 million, CCTV has indicated that its acceptable price range is only $60 million to $80 million. That means the gap between CCTV’s budget and FIFA’s offer is still about half.
Moreover, no other video platforms in China have joined the negotiations for the broadcast rights. This implies that if FIFA and CCTV fail to reach an agreement in the coming month, there will be no legitimate broadcast of the World Cup in China.
Many people believe that CCTV is not just haggling over tens of millions of dollars, but about fairness. They argue that FIFA has offered broadcast rights to Vietnam and India for only tens of millions of dollars, so why should China pay $150 million?
However, this argument doesn’t hold up. China has previously accepted even higher offers. For the 2018 Russia World Cup, China paid $150 million in broadcast rights, and for the 2022 Qatar World Cup, the fee was $180 million. Even if the initial $250 million offer from FIFA was considered a big jump from previous editions, the current $120-$150 million range is actually on par with the 2018 price and lower than the 2022 cost.
From FIFA’s perspective, a natural question arises: why didn’t China demand the same price level as Vietnam and India during the Russia and Qatar World Cups, but is raising this issue now? Why is fairness suddenly being emphasized when it wasn’t before?
Some suggest that since the World Cup has expanded to 48 teams, and China still hasn’t qualified, it’s reasonable for China to refuse to pay the high fee. They blame FIFA for not ensuring China’s participation earlier.
This reasoning also doesn’t hold water. Apart from the 2002 co-hosted World Cup in Japan and South Korea, China has never qualified for the tournament, yet that has never dampened Chinese enthusiasm for watching the World Cup. A decade ago, during World Cup periods, major platforms including CCTV heavily promoted the event. I still recall advertisements for beer, duck necks, and World Cup viewing parties covering subway stations across Shanghai.
As for the argument that the timing of this World Cup is unfavorable for China, making it hard for broadcasters to secure viewership, that too is flawed. Apart from the 2002 World Cup, most World Cup editions have had inconvenient time zones for China, yet fans still stayed up late to watch. Even people who had never watched football before would passionately discuss matches, pick sides among teams, and influencers would wear national team jerseys for photo shoots to ride the wave.
So what has really changed? Why has the price China is willing to accept dropped so significantly?
The explanation is simple: under the impact of various video streaming platforms, TV viewership has plummeted. Almost only the elderly still watch television; younger generations prefer to pay for memberships on streaming platforms rather than watch TV.
Thus, from the perspective of TV stations, today’s television industry is vastly different from a decade ago. CCTV no longer has the confidence to invest $150 million in broadcast rights and recoup that through domestic advertising revenue.
Over a year ago, CCTV negotiated with a video platform to allow free broadcasting of matches featuring the Chinese national team, since TV broadcasts are free and CCTV didn’t want to pay the platform for rights. After the platform refused, it still recovered costs and made substantial profits through pay-per-view.
In this sense, technological progress has diversified content delivery channels, and TV no longer holds a monopoly. Therefore, CCTV should adjust its negotiation strategy, cooperate with domestic video streaming platforms, and devise a suitable plan rather than stubbornly sticking to old methods.
