On Wednesday, England will play Argentina in the World Cup semi-final.
Throughout the tournament, some supporters have suggested that referees have treated Argentina—and Lionel Messi in particular—favourably. Messi is not merely Argentina’s most famous player. He is the most recognisable footballer in the United States, where he plays his club football, and one of the biggest commercial assets at a World Cup staged largely in the US.
Keeping Messi in the tournament helps to keep casual American viewers interested.
I have a problem with the more extravagant version of this theory. I simply do not believe Gianni Infantino, or anyone else at FIFA, could order referees to favour Argentina. Too many people would have to know. Somebody would leak the instruction, repeat it to a colleague or eventually write a book about it.
Football is not normally that efficient.
But FIFA does not need to circulate a memo saying: “Keep Messi in the tournament.” Institutions can influence behaviour without giving explicit orders. People understand what their employers value, where power lies and which decisions are likely to help or damage their careers.
That is where the economics becomes interesting.
Football’s mountains of money
The 2026 World Cup cycle is expected to generate around $13 billion for FIFA, although estimates specifically attributable to the tournament itself vary according to whether sponsorship and other income from the full four-year cycle are included. Broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and hospitality make it one of the richest properties in world sport.
FIFA’s expanded Club World Cup adds another substantial source of income, reportedly worth around $2 billion for its first 32-team edition.
These tournaments, however, are not annual events.
UEFA’s Champions League, Europa League and Conference League generated approximately €4.4 billion in 2024/25 alone. Over four seasons, that would amount to around €17.6 billion—more than FIFA’s two main tournaments combined, although much of UEFA’s income is distributed back to participating clubs and through solidarity payments. UEFA distributed €3.4 billion to clubs from its 2024/25 men’s competitions.
This financial rivalry matters. In global sport, money is power, and FIFA and UEFA are competing for control of the most valuable parts of football.
The tension became unmistakable after FIFA suspended the ban imposed on United States striker Folarin Balogun following his red card. Donald Trump acknowledged that he had personally telephoned Infantino to request a review. FIFA insisted that its disciplinary process was independent, but UEFA and several European associations attacked the decision as political interference.
That episode did more damage to confidence in the tournament’s governance than a dozen dubious penalty decisions. It demonstrated that access to FIFA’s president could achieve something unavailable to an ordinary player or national association.
The Premier League economy
There is another enormous source of football wealth: the Premier League.
Premier League clubs generated approximately £6.8 billion in combined revenue during 2024/25, equivalent to roughly $9 billion. That total includes broadcasting distributions, European competition income, ticketing, hospitality, sponsorship, merchandising and other commercial activities.
It is not directly comparable with FIFA or UEFA’s competition income, because it is the turnover of 20 separate clubs. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the extraordinary economic scale of the league.
The Premier League’s UK broadcasting agreement for 2025/26 to 2028/29 is itself worth £6.7 billion over four seasons, before international broadcasting and central commercial income are included.
This is one reason the proposed European Super League struggled to attract support in England.
Twenty years ago, the argument was that Europe’s largest clubs required a new competition to maximise their revenues. Today, English clubs already participate in what is effectively the richest domestic league in the world. Leaving it would represent a substantial commercial gamble rather than a guaranteed financial improvement.
| League | 2024/25 revenue | Approx. £ |
|---|---|---|
| Premier League | £6.8bn | £6.8bn |
| Bundesliga | €4.0bn+ | ~£3.4bn |
| La Liga | €4.1bn | ~£3.5bn |
| Serie A | ~€3.1bn | ~£2.6bn |
| Ligue 1 | €2.2bn | ~£1.9bn |
The officials do not all share in the riches
Match officials occupy a much less comfortable part of this economy.
Football depends on a huge base of low-paid and part-time referees while concentrating serious money among a very small elite.
At grassroots level, refereeing is often voluntary or rewarded with only a modest match fee. Once travel, preparation and time are included, the effective hourly rate can be poor. At semi-professional level, officials earn more regularly but still undertake evening and weekend work, training, fitness tests, assessments and substantial travel without receiving anything resembling a full professional salary.
The financial leap occurs higher up the English pyramid.
| Level | Typical annual income | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| League Two referee | £8,000–15,000 | Part-time. Roughly £350-450 per game plus expenses. Usually another full-time job. |
| League One referee | £12,000–20,000 | More appointments and slightly higher fees. Still part-time. |
| Championship (Select Group 2) | ~£120,000 | Full-time salary plus match fees. Can act as 4th official in the Premier League. |
| Premier League (Select Group 1) | £170,000–250,000 | Salary, match fees and performance bonuses. Elite officials such as Michael Oliver are towards the top end. |
| UEFA Champions League referee | +€6,500-8,000 per match | Paid in addition to domestic salary. A referee with 8-10 UEFA matches can earn another £50-70k. |
| FIFA World Cup referee | US$70,000 base + US$3,000-10,000 per match | Fees vary by round and role. A referee reaching the final stages can earn well over US$100,000 from the tournament alone. |
These are the approximate earnings of a top British referee:
| Source | Income |
|---|---|
| Premier League salary & fees | £220,000 |
| Champions League | £50,000-70,000 |
| UEFA internationals | £20,000-30,000 |
| FIFA World Cup | £80,000-100,000 |
| Total | £350,000-420,000 |
Howard Webb has said that members of the development group handling League One and League Two matches earn around £30,000 a season, while Select Group Two Championship referees receive around £120,000. Published estimates place average Premier League referee earnings at roughly £180,000 once salary, match fees and bonuses are included. (Football League World)
A referee selected for the World Cup can earn as much as $100,000 from the tournament, depending upon appointments and progress into its later rounds.
Being selected for a World Cup is therefore not merely an honour. It is a prestigious and lucrative career opportunity.
The Referee’s a banker
I am not questioning the personal integrity of individual referees.
But it is easy to understand why a referee would want to remain in the good books of the people responsible for international appointments. An official who falls out of favour may not be invited to the next World Cup, may be overlooked for knockout matches or may lose lucrative UEFA and FIFA assignments.
That does not mean referees deliberately falsify decisions.
It does mean they work inside a system of powerful incentives.
A marginal judgement is rarely experienced as a conscious choice between honesty and corruption. It might involve deciding whether contact was sufficient for a penalty, whether dissent deserved a booking, whether VAR had identified a clear and obvious error or whether a challenge crossed the line from reckless to dangerous.
Those are subjective decisions made in seconds.
When an institution has made clear which teams, players and markets matter commercially, it would be surprising if that knowledge had no influence whatsoever. The effect may be unconscious. It may emerge through the appointments system, through the instructions given before matches or simply through an official’s understanding of what kind of performance advances a career.
No conspiracy is necessary.
FIFA has an obvious commercial interest in Messi and Argentina remaining in the competition. It may also have a political interest. Following the Balogun affair, Infantino faces serious questions about his relationship with Trump and the independence of FIFA’s disciplinary machinery. Maintaining support among Latin American associations could become increasingly valuable.
That does not prove Argentina are being assisted. It does, however, create an environment in which every favourable decision will be viewed with suspicion.
Infantino has brought that suspicion upon FIFA himself.
Perhaps FIFA simply wants a final featuring the greatest player of his generation rather than one accompanied by English supporters singing “Who ate all the pies?” and “Did you come on Epstein’s plane?”
More seriously, there are many people throughout football’s hierarchy whose status, income and future appointments depend upon understanding what those above them want.
The scandal would not be that somebody ordered a referee to keep Messi in the World Cup.
The more plausible problem is that nobody needed to.
I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of Michael Oliver, but being a world cup referee is lucrative job, compared to working lower down the pyramid. It is easy to see why football administrators might want to keep Argentina in the tournament, and equally easy to see why a referee would want to keep in those administrators good books. If they don’t then they risk not bein invited to the next world cup, or being dropped from lucrative asignments.
This isn’t corruption. But it does demonstrate how the flow of funds might encourage the backing of favourites.