‘World Cup every 2 years would have less interest and a lower value’

That the World Cup runs the risk of becoming “a less prestigious product” if it is played every two years, as FIFA claims, and not with an interval of four, as it has been since 1930, he thinks economist Benito Pérez González, opposite to the plan that leads Gianni Infantino, President of FIFA. The professor and researcher of Sports Economics at the International University of La Rioja (Spain) believes that more games would generate “less buzz” and that the tournament would have “less value.” In an interview with this newspaper, Pérez says that an “already consolidated and traditional structure” would be affected.

Does FIFA’s initiative to organize a World Cup every two years have more to do with sports or economics?

My impression is that it has more to do with the economic aspect. The football cake today is about 25,000 million euros ($ 29,000 million) and most of that money comes through the leagues and there are 5,000 million euros that enter through FIFA tournaments. I see a problem: FIFA wants to get more money from its sponsors (organizing the World Cup every two years), but I see a conflict with the actors, who do not seem to be very much in favor of that trend.

Would the quality of the product decrease, as UEFA and Conmebol say with a biannual World Cup?

The fact that a competition is held every four years, like the World Cup, makes it exclusive. That it be played every two would make it unpleasant because many footballers, through their representatives, have stated that they are against it. There is also opposition from the confederations. The saturation of matches that there is at present does not leave room for the economic cake to increase and neither for the players to give more of themselves.

FIFA says it wants to avoid holding “inconsequential matches”, but is that possible if the number of teams and frequency of the World Cup is increased?

I don’t understand that argument. I don’t see how the number of games can be lightened; the footballers do not give more of themselves and there are problems because the one who pays the footballers are the clubs. (The World Cup) would become a less prestigious product. Brands (sponsors) may come in early, but if they are faced with a lower value product they will not be willing to pay as much.

Is there a risk that tournaments such as the Copa América or Eurocopa will be forced to change their system or disappear due to the frequency of the World Cup?

There is a serious scheduling problem. I don’t see it clearly and neither are UEFA and Conmebol. How could the Euro and America’s Cup not generate income? Obviously, they would be in the shade. There would be no place on the calendar to organize them, or it would have to be done in odd-numbered years. An already consolidated and traditional structure would have to be changed.

Could the attempt to create the European Super League have something to do with this FIFA initiative on the World Cup?

I wouldn’t be surprised, but I can’t be sure. The Superliga project is not dead, but there are different crossed interests; some not very clear. You have to wait and see new arguments, new numbers.

Why do the confederations of the planet reject this idea of ​​the World Cup every two years?

Because they lose the ability to generate their own income. It would conflict with the Eurocup, the America’s Cup, the African Cup of Nations, and so on. A FIFA World Cup every two years would devalue a product. There would be more games, less expectation and less value of the tournament.

Sport in general and football in particular have undergone changes over time, why is this that FIFA claims is so resisted?

He faces the interests of the rest of the football players. Footballers who are going to have to play more games, alteration of competitions of confederations, leagues and intercontinental tournaments because the years of the World Cup are different. It would be necessary to finish the leagues before so that the selections are prepared; it would affect all competitions and since the agents see that they are not going to make any profit, in principle, they have shown their opposition. It is hardly going to be an idea that succeeds or that has acceptance.

(D)