Every two years, a football World Cup? The figures are conducted by an expert.

 Fifa began exploring the possibility of holding a men's football World Cup every two years rather than every four years in May 2021. Since then, more plans have been revealed, and the proposal, which originated in Saudi Arabia, has received support from a number of international organizations.

Fifa’s head of global football development and former Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger says he is “100 percent convinced” it is the correct path forward for the sport.

Others, including fan organizations, have already spoken out against the plan. Uefa, responsible for overseeing football in Europe, has threatened a boycott, with its head Aleksander Ceferin commenting: “We may decide not to participate in it … So, good luck with that World Cup."

More frequent and high-quality football entertainment, as well as the opportunity to raise more funds for player development in poorer countries, are both arguments in favor of the scheme. Those opposed argue that there is a loss of novelty value and that players' health must be protected.

But, like most commercial choices, whether in banking or sports, this isn't simply about pros and disadvantages. It's all about the financial advantages and disadvantages.

For Fifa, the bulk of its income comes from the broadcasting fees, licensing rights and ticket sales of the men’s World Cup event, held every four years since 1930. In reality, three out of every four years, there is a definite financial cycle in which losses occur. More World Cups might result in more revenue.

Why isn't Uefa interested in doing the same? The change could potentially lead to it hosting the Euros more frequently (they are currently held every four years) and generating more revenue.

The primary distinction is that Uefa isn't as reliant on a single event financially. Instead, it has something that Fifa does not: more than one significant money-making event. These competitions include the Champions League (men's and women's) and the Europa League.

Shared objectives?

As a consequence, Uefa earns far more money than Fifa. Over the previous four years, UEFA’s income, at US$12.5 billion (£9.4 billion), were nearly twice those of Fifa, which took in US$6.4 billion (£4.6 billion).

It also has a more consistent cash stream year after year, while Fifa is more reliant on a major bump every four years. Clearly, Fifa needs the World Cup for men more than Uefa does the Euros.

In reality, club tournaments provide for the bulk of Uefa's yearly earnings, which they would not want to disturb. Uefa made €293 million (£249 million) more from club tournaments in 2016 than it did from the international tournament (Euro 2020 data are not yet available).

Maintaining such income is thus more crucial from a financial aspect for Uefa as well as the European clubs who compete in those club championships. Both Uefa and Fifa are, after all, governing organizations looking after their members’ requirements – and planning for development and expansion of the game at all levels requires money.

Clubs may incur significant expenditures as a result of having their players accessible for increased international service, such as player tiredness and injury. Large clubs are more likely to have a lot of national team players and hence more likely to face higher overall danger to their roster. Smaller clubs may have a star talent who is a national player.

Power to spend

Currently Fifa’s main spending – approximately US$500 million (£362 million) a year – is on what it deems “development and education”. It seems like a noble goal, and few would dispute with Wenger's desire to "incentivize investment in young programs."

However, it is worthwhile to consider where more monies may be obtained. Doubling the number of World Cups does not always imply doubling the amount of money.

Fifa's income comes from a variety of sources, with TV broadcast rights accounting for the majority (55 percent) of Fifa's earnings in the 2018 World Cup year (ticket sales made up only 15 percent ).

However, the price that broadcasters pay for rights is determined by the potential audience's desire. People are prepared to spend extra to outbid their competition when they want to view anything.

Making a big event less uncommon (and hence less significant) by having it occur twice as frequently and conflicting with other popular athletic events (such as the Olympics) may easily dilute value for broadcasters, causing them to be less inclined to pay.

This is the risk. Will the overall impact be favorable for Fifa's revenue, with more events but maybe less money per event? And is any additional money worth incurring the wrath of Uefa, some of the world’s top teams, and critically, the fans?