Football is often described as the world’s most democratic sport — played everywhere, watched by billions, and bound by a shared set of rules. Yet when one looks beyond the pitch and into the economics of international tournaments, football reveals something far less equal.

A comparison of the world’s major regional championships shows that global sports markets do not value people, passion or talent evenly. Instead, they price audiences according to wealth and purchasing power, reproducing the same structural inequalities that shape the wider global economy.

Population v value

On paper, the recent Africa Cup of Nations should be one of the most economically significant sporting events in the world. Its participating countries represent more than one billion people — more than twice the population represented by the Uefa European Championship.

Yet the financial outcomes tell the opposite story: the Euros generate roughly ten times more revenue than Afcon.

This disparity cannot be explained by a lack of interest, quality or cultural importance.

Afcon generates some of the most passionate support in global football and supplies a substantial share of the world’s elite players. The difference lies elsewhere. Global sports markets do not simply measure how many people are watching. They measure how much those viewers are presumed to be worth — and how much value they can help generate through sponsorship, marketing and advertising.

Afcon’s value is also shaped by its format. Unlike most regional championships, it has traditionally been held every two years. While this frequency is sometimes criticised from a European commercial perspective, it reflects a different priority: ensuring that African audiences regularly see their best players compete on home soil. Global markets, however, tend to reward scarcity over presence, discounting tournaments that prioritise access and regional connection over exclusivity.

A global pattern, not an African exception

This imbalance is not unique to Africa. When other regional tournaments are included — Copa América in South America, the Asian Cup, and the Concacaf Gold Cup — a broader and more consistent pattern emerges.

Africa and Asia together account for nearly 70 per cent of the world’s population. Yet their flagship football tournaments capture only a small fraction of global tournament revenue.

Europe, by contrast, represents roughly 6 per cent of the global population while capturing close to half of the value.

This is not a reflection of football’s global appeal; it is evidence of how unevenly that appeal is monetised.

Making the imbalance visible

To make this disparity easier to compare, an equity index can be constructed by dividing a tournament’s share of total revenue by its share of the population represented.

Put simply, a score of 1 would mean a tournament captures value in proportion to the population it represents. A score above 1 indicates it captures more than its proportional share. A score below 1 indicates it captures less.

European competitions score far above 1, while Africa and Asia fall dramatically below it. The gap is not marginal; it is structural.

Talent without value capture

The imbalance deepens further when talent flows are taken into account. Africa and South America export a large share of the world’s elite footballers to Europe, where most commercial value is ultimately captured. Player development costs are borne locally; broadcasting, sponsorship and commercial upside accrue elsewhere.

This dynamic resembles extractive economic models, where labour and resources move outward while value accumulates in wealthier markets.

Purchasing power, market logic and media narratives

At the heart of this system is a simple but uncomfortable truth. Global media markets do not price audiences as people. They price them as consumers and profit generators.

Large audiences in lower-income regions generate less revenue than smaller audiences in wealthier ones. Advertising rates, broadcast rights and sponsorship valuations follow purchasing power, currency strength and market maturity. That is how the market works today — but it is not inevitable. If football is truly global, the question is whether the sport can move towards greater parity in how audiences and competitions are valued.

Media narratives also play a role in reinforcing these hierarchies. European — and particularly English — football media have long shaped global perceptions of which competitions matter. Tournaments that do not centre Europe are often dismissed as inferior or irrelevant, regardless of their importance elsewhere.

The Club World Cup offers a clear example: widely derided in British media, yet treated as a major sporting and commercial milestone by clubs in South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Europe’s position is also reinforced by the depth of its football culture, where rivalries between cities, regions and nations have been built over generations and turned into a powerful commercial engine.

Football’s universality does not protect it from global economics. It exposes them.

Why the Gold Cup is valued differently — even in a wealthy market

A reasonable question arises from this comparison. If Europe’s tournaments benefit from wealthy media markets, why does the Concacaf Gold Cup — which includes the United States and Canada — still rank so low on the equity index?

At first glance, the United States appears comparable to Europe. It is large, wealthy and home to some of the world’s most sophisticated advertising and media industries. Yet international football in the US is valued very differently. Part of the answer lies not in income, but in who football audiences are perceived to be. In the US, football has historically been followed most intensely by immigrant communities, minority populations and younger audiences — groups that have often been undervalued by advertisers and broadcasters. While that is changing, the legacy perception persists.

This perception matters. Media markets do not simply price aggregate wealth; they price which consumers are seen as desirable. In that context, international football in the US has long been discounted, not because its supporters lack passion or spending power, but because they have lacked cultural centrality.

Beyond North America, the Gold Cup includes many small Caribbean nations and lower-income Latin American countries. These communities contribute identity and regional meaning, but under current global pricing models they do little to increase the tournament’s perceived commercial value. The Gold Cup therefore reinforces, rather than contradicts, the broader pattern. Even within wealthy economies, football audiences are not valued equally.

Conclusion

Football did not create these inequalities, but it makes them visible. Because the game is global, emotionally universal and governed by common rules, it offers a rare lens into how value is assigned in the modern world. What emerges is not a failure of sport, but a reflection of deeper economic structures that reward purchasing power over participation, and concentration of power over contribution. Football’s global imbalance reveals a deeper truth about how the world values people, and how power determines whose value counts.

Data and methodology note: Population figures are based on United Nations and World Bank estimates for participating countries. Tournament revenue figures are drawn from publicly reported estimates by governing bodies, broadcasters and financial press, and are presented at an order-of magnitude level for comparative purposes. Talent flow assessments reflect widely documented player migration patterns between confederations and elite European leagues. All calculations, comparisons and interpretations are the author’s own.

• Kevin Richards is founder and chair of the Bermuda Innovation & Technology Association and is a former football player for PHC, Bermuda and the University of Notre Dame